J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, one thing behind the growth of the American economy is our educational system. There is good news and bad news about our educational system today. In a climate that currently seems filled with more dissent than accord, I think we can at least agree that elected officials on both sides of the aisle are in lockstep with the American people on the importance of education: It is a priority so critical that it should be at the top of our national agenda. This is a view very similar to the opinion held by President Lincoln almost 150 years ago. ``Upon the subject of education,'' Lincoln said, ``not presuming to dictate any plan or system respecting it, I can only say that I view it as the most important subject which we, as a people, can be engaged in.'' Education's priority having been espoused by both sides during this Congress, it is profoundly disappointing that S. 2, the critically important legislation to reauthorize the landmark Elementary and Education Act, appears to be dead for this year. What a shame. It is apparent from the earlier floor debate on S. 2 that agreement breaks down on the condition of America's educational system today and on the course we should pursue to improve our schools. Seventeen years ago our country was rocked by the publication of ``A Nation at Risk.'' The findings were devastating: Our educational system was being ``eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our future as a nation and a people.'' That landmark report went on to say that if ``an unfriendly foreign power'' had tried to impose on America our ``mediocre educational performance,'' we might well have viewed it ``as an act of war.'' I have listened to some of my colleagues maintain that nothing has changed in the last 17 years--that American education continues on a downward spiral. They claim that the federal government's role in education is a source of national shame. Barring a radical change in course, they say, America's report card will continue to be a document of failure. Mr. President, I agree that there is compelling need for improvement. In fact, if you ask the companies in the high-tech world in my State and around America, they know that some 300,000 to 400,000 high-tech jobs out there in this economy today are going begging for want of educated and talented people. Every day in America almost 2,800 high school students drop out. This is not acceptable. Each school year, more than 45,000 under-prepared teachers, teachers who have not even been trained in the subjects they are teaching, enter the classroom. Who here among us believes this to be acceptable? Here in America fourteen million children attend schools in need of extensive repair or replacement. Who in this body would argue that we have to do better? As a nation we have witnessed school shootings--classroom tragedies which were unheard of 20 years ago. Who here would not do everything in their power to restore safety and sanity to America's schools? But, Mr. President, I would argue that this is only part of the picture. ``A Nation at Risk'' was a wake-up call. Educators, parents, businesses, community leaders, and officials at all levels of government responded. Yes, serious problems still exist, but so do success stories. America's dropout rate is down--from 14 percent in 1982 to single digits today, including in many of our toughest neighborhoods. In my own State of Georgia, over 70 percent of high school students now graduate, a marked improvement over the 52 percent graduation rate in 1980. In 1950, only 5 percent of Georgians held college degrees. Now over one in five--22 percent--do. And there's more good news. Nationally SAT and Advanced Placement test scores are up. Performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, has increased, particularly in the key subjects of reading, mathematics, and science--with African American and Hispanic students making significant gains in both math and science. Just consider: From 1994 to 1998, average reading scores increased at all three grades tested (4, 8, and 12). The average math score is at its highest level in 26 years. And let us not forget that this progress is happening during a time when many states and school districts are raising standards and putting in place tough graduation requirements. This progress is happening during a time when U.S. students are taking more rigorous courses than ever. By 1994, 52 percent of high school graduates had taken the core subjects recommended by ``A Nation at Risk,'' almost quadruple the 1982 number. To those who over the last 20 years have uttered doomsday predictions about our failing schools, let me say that parents in this country, in overwhelming numbers, continue to send their children to public schools. In fact, ninety percent of children in the K-12 age group attend public schools. That's nine out of every ten children in this country. When America's school bell rang this September, over 53 million students returned to class, a record school enrollment. What's more, surveys show that most parents think their own child's public school is doing a pretty good job. It's other people's schools they fear are failing. Mark Twain once said, ``Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.'' The facts, I believe, bear out that we have made progress since the publication of ``A Nation at Risk.'' The facts also bear out that many of our education challenges continue to go unmet. In a survey on education issues conducted this past March, Americans were asked to list the major problems facing our public schools today. ``Lack of parental involvement'' topped the list, followed closely by ``undisciplined students.'' The majority of respondents also cited ``lack of retention of good teachers,'' ``overcrowded classrooms,'' ``lack of academic standards for promotion/ graduation,'' ``lack of teachers qualified to teach in their subject area,'' and ``outdated schools'' as issues meriting our nation's attention. It all boils down to this central issue: Do we stay the course or do we reshape, dramatically, the federal government's role in education? I believe strongly that we should increase our federal investment in public schools, for surely the education of America's children is a vital national interest. I also believe that we should continue to work with the states and local school districts--who are now and who should and will remain the major education decision-makers in this country--to ensure that those federal dollars are spent on initiatives that aim to fix the specific problems in our schools which are causing the American people so much concern. We need to be willing to invest the nation's dollars into improving the recruitment, retention, and professional development of our nation's teachers. What teachers know and can do is the single most important influence on what students learn, according to the National Commission for Teaching and America's Future Teachers. In the American educational system, it falls to our States and local communities to set high educational standards and provide quality education so that all children can achieve to standards of excellence. While the federal government's precise role in education is open to debate, I believe it is unquestionably in our national interest for federal officials to work in cooperation with States and localities to promote educational excellence and to encourage standards-based reform. We should work to ensure that parents have information on teacher qualifications and achievement levels at their child's school. One important way to improve our schools is to enable parents to hold schools accountable for progress and to give them choices they can exercise if progress does not occur. Research has shown that class size directly relates to the quality of education. Students in smaller classes consistently outperform students in larger classes on tests, are more likely to graduate on time, stay in school, enroll in honors classes, and graduate in the top ten percent of their class. We need to help local school districts recruit, hire and train 100,000 qualified teachers to reduce class sizes in the early grades. It is an investment in reducing teacher turnover and in improving student performance. Research also links student achievement and conduct to the condition of their schools. Yet fourteen million children in the U.S. attend schools in need of extensive repair or replacement. In my own State of Georgia, nearly two-thirds of our schools--62 percent--report a need to upgrade or repair their buildings. We need to help local communities from Savannah to San Antonio to Seattle rebuild, modernize and reduce overcrowding in more than 6,000 of America's public schools. There is consensus in every borough, town and city throughout this country that bloodshed in our schools cannot and will not be tolerated. Yet every day five million children are left to care for themselves in the hours before and after school. We know that these are the very hours that children are most likely to participate in risky behavior. In fact, almost half of all violent juvenile crime takes place between the hours of 3 and 8 p.m. We need to help our communities reduce juvenile crime by investing more dollars in after-school care. We need to expand the popular 21st Century Learning Centers Program to ensure that 1 million children each year--up from the current 190,000--will have access to safe and constructive after-school tutoring, recreation, and academic enrichment. Mr. President, I maintain that there is no more powerful--and empowering--force in the universe than education. ``On education all our lives depend,'' said Benjamin Franklin. And Christa McAuliffe, selected to be the first schoolteacher to travel in space, described simply but poetically the awesome potential of her vocation: ``I touch the future,'' she said. ``I teach.'' While we may bring to the debate on education differing views, it is my hope that we ultimately remember this is a profoundly important issue which should be above politics and ideology. It is all about the future of this country--and the future, after all, is in very small hands.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I applaud the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for her gargantuan effort to tackle the Byzantine aspects of the U.S. Tax Code to see if there is some way we can assist our venture capitalists to help our small businesses, particularly our high-tech small business more. It is a pleasure to work with Senator Collins, not only in this endeavor but in other endeavors. We serve together on the Government Affairs Committee. One of our responsibilities is oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission which looks at the world of investments in businesses in this country. I applaud her for her insight, for her innovation in this area, she is right on target. I am pleased to associate myself with her remarks today and pleased to cosponsor the legislation of which she speaks. On that point, in terms of being relevant to what is driving the American economy, not only in my home State of Georgia, particularly in Atlanta, where more and more high-tech businesses are located, but in Silicon Valley, where I just got back from a tour in early August, it is obvious that we are generating a lot of talented young minds in America with great ideas and that those young minds can form together, and with the right capital at the right time can generate businesses that literally were unknown or unheard of just months ago. We see those kind of successes now driving the American economy. Information technology economies now provide the leading edge for American economic growth and our prosperity. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from Maine. We will do everything in our power to assist this legislation and move it forward.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I applaud the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for her gargantuan effort to tackle the Byzantine aspects of the U.S. Tax Code to see if there is some way we can assist our venture capitalists to help our small businesses, particularly our high-tech small business more. It is a pleasure to work with Senator Collins, not only in this endeavor but in other endeavors. We serve together on the Government Affairs Committee. One of our responsibilities is oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission which looks at the world of investments in businesses in this country. I applaud her for her insight, for her innovation in this area, she is right on target. I am pleased to associate myself with her remarks today and pleased to cosponsor the legislation of which she speaks. On that point, in terms of being relevant to what is driving the American economy, not only in my home State of Georgia, particularly in Atlanta, where more and more high-tech businesses are located, but in Silicon Valley, where I just got back from a tour in early August, it is obvious that we are generating a lot of talented young minds in America with great ideas and that those young minds can form together, and with the right capital at the right time can generate businesses that literally were unknown or unheard of just months ago. We see those kind of successes now driving the American economy. Information technology economies now provide the leading edge for American economic growth and our prosperity. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from Maine. We will do everything in our power to assist this legislation and move it forward.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. On behalf of Senator Feinstein, I ask unanimous consent Howard Krawitz, a legislative fellow in her office, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 4444 and any votes thereon.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, on April 11, 2000 the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing regarding the impact of China's accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO, on the American economy. This was a fascinating meeting that covered a wide range of topics from trade deficits and tariff barriers to national security and human rights. After participating in this hearing, and after months of meetings and speaking with Georgia farmers, small business owners, and workers, as well as conferring with national security experts, I have concluded that, on balance, establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China--which is necessary for the U.S. to obtain the trade concessions made by China in order to gain entry into the WTO--is in the best interest of both our national security and our economic security. Therefore, I plan to support the PNTR legislation that passed the House in May. In the April hearing, General Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security Advisor to President Bush, stated that granting PNTR to China would be, ``very much in the interest of the United States. This, in my judgement goes far beyond American business and economic interests, important as these are, to key political and security issues.'' Mr. President, I have just returned from a trip to Japan and Korea where the issue of China PNTR as it pertains to our national security, while not the purpose of my trip, was an important topic of discussion with some of our key allies in the region as well as some of the U.S. military's finest leaders including Admiral Dennis Blair and General Thomas Schwartz--the Commander in Chief of U.S. Pacific Command and the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Forces in Korea respectively. After these discussions, I am even more convinced that the Senate should approve PNTR as an important national security measure. Admiral Fargo, the Commanding Officer of the CINCPAC Fleet echoed these sentiments when he mentioned that the ``right answer'' to many of the difficult questions facing us with regard to our strategic interest in the region, including PNTR, ``is to engage China.'' While in Japan, I met with Japanese Foreign Minister, Yohei Kono. When asked, Minister Kono stated that he believes PNTR for China and its upcoming membership in the WTO, will help China become a member of the international community and, in so doing, will help stabilize not only the Sino-Japanese relationship--which is a part of our national security since we are treaty-bound to defend Japan and because we have 46,000 troops stationed on Japanese soil--but will further stabilize the entire Asia-Pacific region. I find Foreign Minister Kono's sentiments especially significant given the historically difficult relations between these two nations and given the fact that Japan would be a primary beneficiary of trade with China should the U.S. Congress not approve PNTR. Regarding the economic security of the U.S., granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations will open up China's market to countless Georgia goods and services, especially for Georgia's emerging high-tech and communications sector as well as for our largest industry--agriculture. Earlier this year, Tommy Irvin, Georgia's Commissioner for Agriculture, wrote to me that, ``Normalizing trade relations with China will surely aid our farmers and agribusinesses' lagging export economy, which . . . has slowed over the past two years due to the economic crisis in Southeast Asia.'' Similarly, Governor Roy Barnes has signaled his support for PNTR and its benefits for Georgia. Let me be clear that I do believe that U.S. trade with China, which under our current trade rules accounts for our single largest bilateral trade deficit, has had--and will continue to have, whether or not we approve PNTR--a negative effect on some American industries and workers, including some in my state in such areas as textiles and manufacturing. And I would certainly concur that China's labor, environmental and political rights standards fall far short of those we enjoy in the United States. However, it is my belief that the annual vote currently required regarding China's Most Favored Nation status has not been an effective tool in forcing China to expand political rights or to observe international rules of free and fair trade. It seems obvious to me that both the Chinese and American leaderships have viewed the threat of not passing MFN as just that, a threat, which has never been carried out-- not even after the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is important to note that while some Chinese dissidents in the United States have indicated their strong opposition to PNTR, most human rights advocates who have remained in China, the Hong Kong democratic opposition lead by Martin Lee and the government of democratic Taiwan all support PNTR for China. They believe that China's acceptance of the multilateral WTO as the arbiter of its international trade polices will, in time, produce a significant opening up of the Chinese economic, legal and, ultimately, even political systems. Again, let's be clear on one point. China's membership in the WTO will happen with or without the support of the U.S. Congress. Should Congress not pass PNTR, then businesses in the European Union, Japan and other nations will gain the benefits of Chinese trade concessions plus fair trade enforcement by the WTO, while U.S. exporters will be left behind. Each trade agreement is different and I am not one who believes that so-called free trade is always and necessarily a good thing for America. Several months ago, I voted against the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Sub-Saharan African Trade bill because I thought the net effect on the U.S. economy was not going to be positive. In contrast, the trade agreement signed with China in November of 1999-- which is contingent on our approval of PNTR for China--would slash Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods and services with no concessions by the United States. While increased trade with China will likely result in a net benefit for the American economy, we must not ignore the possible impact upon industries, such as textiles and auto manufacturing, that have been adversely impacted under previous trade agreements such as NAFTA or indeed under our current trade policies--including annual MFN review-- toward China. Nor should we ignore China's performance on the whole range of issues important to our bilateral relationship, including its labor and environmental standards, its respect for the human rights of its own citizens, its involvement in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, its relationship with Taiwan, and its efforts to promote stability in such key regions as the Korean Peninsula and the Indian Subcontinent. We can, and should, vigorously defend our national interests in these matters through diplomacy, targeted sanctions, and other appropriate means. However, in my opinion, none of our legitimate concerns about China will be effectively pursued via a continuation of our current annual review of trade relations with that country. There is little evidence to suggest that this current policy has produced any appreciable modification of Chinese behavior on trade, human rights or the other issues. On the other hand, a vote for permanent normal trade relations for China will, while relinquishing what I regard as an ineffective policy tool, secure greater access to the Chinese market for American companies, and will make the U.S. a full party to international efforts to enforce China's compliance with the terms of the WTO accession agreement. And approval of PNTR will in no way prevent the United States from considering other, more effective responses to the actions of the Chinese government. Therefore, I intend to vote for PNTR for China.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to discuss the current situation of Brunswick Harbor, an issue which is very important to me. I hope that I can engage the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee in a floor discussion of this key matter. The Brunswick Harbor deepening project, which was authorized in the 1999 Water Resources Develop Act, has received a favorable report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and has met all required cost-benefit and environmental reviews. Preconstruction engineering and design are in the final stages. In order to keep this project on schedule, it is necessary to complete several administrative requirements before the deepening project begins. Namely, the Corps of Engineers and the Non- Federal sponsor must initiate Project Cooperation Agreement discussions, complete the final project design, and develop contract award documents. I have requested a modest funding level of $255,000 to carry out these tasks. Unfortunately, no funds were provided in the House or Senate bills. I believe it is important to take action on this issue immediately. Navigation channel restrictions in Brunswick have cost shippers and consumers a significant amount in lost revenue. The current controlled depth of 30 feet subjects 57 percent of the vessels to tidal delays, sub-optimal loading and inefficient port rotations. In fact, it is estimated that these delays result in an annual loss of $6.65 million in revenue. We can avoid incurring these losses another year by providing nominal funding to complete the required administrative processes. I would echo the remarks of the Committee's report language which notes the importance of our waterways and harbors to our national transportation system. The Port of Brunswick plays an integral role in supporting the maritime transportation arm of our national infrastructure. Additionally, I would say that the Port of Brunswick is very much an intermodal facility. Brunswick is well-connected to our nation's system of highways and railroads, providing increased opportunities for commercial transportation. I will go one step further in stating that the Port of Brunswick is not only important to our national transportation system, but it is important to our national defense. Located between Savannah and Jacksonville, Brunswick is readily accessible to the numerous military installations in the region. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and as a former Army Officer, I know very well the need to move troops, tanks, and supplies as rapidly as possible. During a war, more than 95 percent of all the equipment and supplies needed to sustain the U.S. military are carried by sea. The potential for the Port of Brunswick to play a major role in the movement of military cargo must not be overlooked, nor must it be hindered by administrative delays. I understand the tight budget restraints the Subcommittee faces this year, and I respect the fact that there will be no ``new start'' projects appropriated. However, we are not attempting to start dredging in Brunswick. We are simply trying to complete the administrative requirements which are necessary prior to such action. I appeal to my colleagues to help me keep the Brunswick Harbor deepening project on schedule through the inclusion of funds in Conference with the House. In fact, I believe we can proceed with the Project Cooperation Agreement, the final project design, and the development of contract awards if the Conference Committee were to simply include favorable report language to this effect. I thank my distinguished colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

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

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it has been my honor, and a privilege, to know our distinguished friend and colleague, Paul Coverdell, for a long time. I have had, overnight, the opportunity to think about his life and about his death. When a man dies, especially a friend, we are inevitably struck by the frailty of life, the speed of death, and the very painful void that is left behind. With the passing of our friend and colleague, Paul Coverdell, we are also struck by the promise of a truly brilliant future left unfulfilled. Alphonse de Lamartine once said: Sometimes, when one person is absent, the whole world seems less. Today, that is exactly how I feel. The world seems less today. Paul and I worked together for many years. We were sworn into the Georgia State Senate on the same day, in January of 1971. In Georgia, we sit not as partisans, across the aisle, but we sit by numbers of our State senate districts. Fate had it that Senator Paul Coverdell sat right in front of me. So even though he was of one party and I another, we shared space on the floor of the State senate. We worked together in harmony for 4 years. It was a joyous time. It was a marvelous time to get to know this young talent. When I came to the U.S. Senate, Paul had preceded me. Paul stood on the floor of the Senate here with my parents watching from the balcony as I was sworn in. After that day, he helped me, he guided me, tutored me in the same way we had worked together so beautifully in the early 1970s in the Georgia senate. From time to time in this body, on different sides of the aisle, we were on different sides of the issues. But he helped me learn. He helped me because he was a good man and a great friend, because he knew it was good for Georgia and for the country. I watched him work, incredulous--putting in 12- and 14- and 16-hour days. In Georgia, we have a saying: You are either a workhorse or a show horse. He was certainly a work horse. He fought hard for our State, for our farmers and businesses and the average taxpaying citizen. He used his deep breadth of knowledge in international affairs, which he had gained as Director of the Peace Corps, to fight what he called the most serious threat to America's freedom today--the war on drugs. Our colleague, Senator Moynihan, yesterday called Paul Coverdell a man of peace. I will reiterate that observation. From his time in the Georgia senate to his post as head of the Peace Corps under President Bush, to his quiet and wonderful leadership in the Senate, Paul had a peaceful and resolute efficiency about his work that I think we could all try to emulate. He worked hard. He achieved results. And he didn't care who got the credit. To lose a leader of this quality in this body in this day of ``gotcha'' politics, and one-upmanship, is a loss for this body and for our country and for Georgia. Paul was a leader. He led in his own quiet, positive way. I never heard him speak an ill thought or an ill phrase or a mean-tempered comment about anyone. He was a great legislator and a dear personal friend. I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife Nancy, whom I have known for almost 30 years. I knew them when they first got married. Proverbs tell us: Good men must die, but death cannot kill their names. I think we can all take great comfort in that. Nothing will lessen the impact that Paul Coverdell and his legacy have had on the State of Georgia and on this country. It is not the time for political thoughts or words but only words to remember one of the best U.S. Senators this body has ever known. Paul Coverdell, United States Senator from Georgia, a peach of a guy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, The Cleland Savings Bond Tax-Exclusion for Long-Term Care Services Amendment would exclude United States savings bond income from being taxed if used to pay for long-term health care expenses. Current law provides an income exclusion for savings bond income used to pay for qualified higher education expenses. This amendment expands the tax code section 135 to allow the savings bond income exclusion for eligible long-term care expenses as well. This measure will assist individuals struggling to accommodate costs associated with many chronic medical conditions and the aging process. A staggering 5.8 million Americans are afflicted with the financial burdens of long-term care. This legislation will assist families by: Providing a tax exclusion for savings bonds used to pay for long-term care; Allowing families to use their savings bond assets to face the dual challenge of paying for long-term care services and higher education expenses. Thank you and I urge you to support this proposal to provide tax relief to Americans burdened by the financial constraints of providing long-term care and higher education expenses. I yield the floor. amendment no. 3860

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, we have on the books today a special enhanced tax deduction for individuals and corporations which donate computers to our nation's elementary and secondary schools. This deduction--which helps to keep America on the cutting-edge in technology--is scheduled to expire at the end of the year. The amendment I am offering is twofold: it would extend this tax deduction for five years and it would expand it to include computer donations to public libraries and non-profit and governmental community centers as well. My amendment will help to close the ``digital divide'' which exists in this country by providing a viable alternative for Americans who are being left behind because they do not have access in their homes to computer and Internet use. We know, for example, that Americans earning less than $20,000 who use the Internet outside the home are twice as likely to get their access through a public library or community center. And Americans who are not in the labor force, such as retirees or homemakers, are twice as likely to use public libraries for on-line access. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It would extend a tax deduction which has proved invaluable in boosting efforts by individuals and companies to donate computer equipment and web access to our Nation's schools. And it will help to keep this Nation a leader in the global economy by helping to close the gap between the technological haves and the have nots. Amendments Nos. 3856, 3857, 3861, 3862, 3866, 3867, 3876, 3879, 3880, and 3882 Withdrawn

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the Cleland Savings Bond Tax-Exemption for Long-Term Care Services Amendment would exclude United States savings bond income from being taxed if used to pay for long-term health care expenses. This bill will assist individuals struggling to accommodate costs associated with many chronic medical conditions and the aging process. A staggering 5.8 million Americans are afflicted with the financial burdens of long-term care. My bill proposes a tax credit for individuals who are limited in daily activities or have a comparable cognitive impairment. Providing a tax credit for families paying for long-term health care will help alleviate the financial burdens for one of the fastest growing health care expenses. Federal and state spending for nursing home care and home care continues to skyrocket. Current estimates forecast that in the next 30 years, half of all women and a third of all men in the United States will spend a portion of their life in a nursing home at cost of $40,000 to $90,000 per year per person. My legislation will assist families by: providing a tax credit for savings bonds used to pay for long-term care, and allowing families to use their savings bond assets to face the dual challenge of paying for long-term care services and higher education expenses. I urge you to support proposal to provide tax relief to Americans burdened by the financial constraints on providing long-term care and higher education expenses.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my colleague, Senator Snowe, a bill to designate 2-1-1 as the nationwide, toll-free number to access health and human services. Such designation is needed to simplify access to the maze of numbers and service organizations that currently exist. These organizations, which exist to help people, are useless if those in need do not know how to access the services provided. Imagine a single mother who needs shelter and dinner one night for herself and her children. Although she may know of a shelter providing these services, there may be one closer that better fits her needs by catering to children and women in need. 2-1-1 could provide her with a targeted referral to a shelter specializing in child care and empowering mothers to get back on their feet. Or, visualize an older American on a fixed income, who may need assistance paying her electricity bill during a particularly cold month, can call 2-1-1 for a referral to an agency to assist her with her need. Also, if someone has goods or services she would like to donate to her community, she can call 2-1-1 for a referral to an agency with a specific need for her items or time. All 2-1-1 calls are confidential and unaffiliated with government agencies. The United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta has implemented 2-1-1 service with much success. Not only has this consolidation of human services referrals provided direction and aid to those in need, it also has helped pool the resources of area charitable organizations. This pooling of resources has eliminated duplication and highlighted gaps in current service, which in turn has improved the delivery of services to the citizens of Metro Atlanta. Because of the great success in Atlanta, the United Way and other non-profit groups are attempting to replicate this service in almost every state in the nation. Petitions to designate 2-1-1 as a referral to health and human services have been approved or are pending in several other states. However, 2-1-1 offers such an important service to communities, that I believe it is time to reserve this number nationwide. Several states have indicated reservations about pending petitions without direction from the appropriate federal agencies that 2-1-1 will not be used for another purpose. Senator Snowe and I believe it is time to indicate to state and federal regulators Congress's clear support for 2-1-1. One of the unique aspects of 2-1-1 in Metropolitan Atlanta, which I believe can be replicated in the other states, is the generous support it has received from the community through private donations. This funding model is one of the unique aspects of this legislation. Specifically, the bill stipulates that none of the costs of 2-1-1 service shall be passed on to telephone customers but will be supported by the organizations operating the 2-1-1 service. Mr. President, I would like to submit a letter endorsing this legislation signed by the United Way of America, the American Red Cross, the Alliance for Children and Families, Girls Scouts of the United States of America, United Jewish Communities, Lutheran Services of America, and Volunteers of America to name only a few. I realize that N-1-1 numbers are finite in availability, but 2-1-1 is a service in the public interest that needs a national designation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will enable Americans, no matter where they are, to obtain the assistance they need through the use of a three digit number. I ask consent that a copy of the United Way letter and a copy the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2775. From the beginning of the debate on the Internet Tax Moratorium Act, I have fought for the sovereignty of state and local elected officials and a level playing field for on-line and off-line retailers. This bipartisan bill accomplishes both of these goals by allowing the states to work together in an Interstate Sales and Use Tax Compact to simplify and streamline the existing sales tax system in to a blended rate that will enable remote on-line and off-line sellers to collect and remit sales taxes without an undue burden. While states work toward this objective, the current tax moratorium will be extended four more years. In addition to providing greater equity in the tax treatment of both Internet-based and Main Street businesses, this legislation also provides means for on-line retailers to pay their fair share in supporting the communities in which their employees and customers live. Local sales tax revenue contributes to the infrastructure and emergency services of these communities. Also of importance is the aid these funds provide to local education. If the high-tech community is truly looking to expand the domestic pool of eligible employees, they should be lauding this legislative approach because of the support it will provide the local, public school systems. Sales tax revenue will help educate the future programmer, software developer, or information architect for the virtual world of tomorrow. As a former state official, I understand the important role state and local officials play in establishing public policy. Although Internet sales represent a small portion of overall consumer sales today, Net sales are increasing every day. Without a level playing field between on-line and off-line retailers, the forty-five states and the District of Columbia that collect sales tax could be crippled by the budgetary impact. The Internet offers a more convenient means of purchasing goods. No longer do consumers need to fight traffic, search for a parking space, and deal with sometimes unhelpful sales people in order to purchase an item. This legislation would further ease on-line purchases by removing the confusing and often misunderstood use tax remission policies of states. The consumer would be able to take care of any tax questions in one transaction. Some of my colleagues claim that applying existing sales taxes to the Internet will destroy this powerful news, information and commerce medium. I, on the other hand, do not see any signs of a slowing of the Net. It is growing so quickly that we are running out of Internet addresses. If anything, enacting this legislation now will enable new ``e-tailers'' to adjust their business design to adapt to this policy. In addition, this fear completely ignores the fact that these taxes are already due. They are not collected because it is too difficult. The National Governors Association, the National Retail Federation, and the e-Fairness Coalition are among the groups that believe this legislation is a proper approach to level the e-commerce playing field. I urge my colleagues to join with this bi-partisan group in supporting the balanced approach of S. 2775 that accomplishes one of the main goals of the Internet Tax Freedom Act: to find a way to simplify the existing sales and use tax structure for remote sellers while the moratorium remains in place.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr President, today I am introducing legislation which will provide for the Federal recognition of the Lower Muskogee- Creek Indian Tribe of Georgia. I realize that Congress has traditionally deferred to the Secretary of the Interior on matters relating to tribal recognition. Further, while it is within our jurisdiction, I understand that there is a reluctance in Congress to federally recognize Indian tribes through legislation. I would certainly prefer to settle this particular recognition issue in accordance with the practices and procedures established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, I am compelled to introduce this legislation because I believe there has been a fundamental flaw which, in this case, has prevented the Lower Muskogee tribe from obtaining a fair and equitable review of its recognition request. Mr. President, please allow me to elaborate on this statement. It is my understanding that once a petition has been denied, the rules prohibit a tribe from petitioning the Secretary of the Interior a second time. While the intent of the rule may be to eliminate redundant and frivolous petitions, I believe there are times when we must make an exception. Further, Mr. President, I would contend that this rule is especially unfair to those tribes who petitioned the Agency prior to the finalization of the rules in 1978. This is the case with respect to the Lower Muskogee tribe in my home State of Georgia. The Lower Muskogee tribe has tried for over two decades to obtain a favorable review of their status as a tribe. In 1977, members of the tribe petitioned the Secretary of the Interior for recognition. Without the assistance of legal counsel or technical support, the tribe submitted their petition. While the petition was pending, the Department of Interior (DOI) proposed and finalized rules relating to the procedures by which tribes may petition for federal recognition. In December 1981, the tribe's petition was denied due to technical omissions. I understand that there are serious concerns associated with the federal recognition of tribes by an Act of Congress--the most obvious being the perception that establishment of a gaming facility may soon follow. However, members of the Lower Muskogee tribe are not seeking to open casinos in Georgia. In fact, at the request of the tribe's Principal Chief, I have included language in the bill to prohibit such action. Under my bill, federal recognition of the Lower Muskogee tribe will not permit casinos or any other games of chance. It will simply recognize these well-deserving people as an Indian tribe, and allow their participation in programs which should be available to them as legitimate Native Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record, and urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr President, today I am introducing legislation which will provide for the Federal recognition of the Lower Muskogee- Creek Indian Tribe of Georgia. I realize that Congress has traditionally deferred to the Secretary of the Interior on matters relating to tribal recognition. Further, while it is within our jurisdiction, I understand that there is a reluctance in Congress to federally recognize Indian tribes through legislation. I would certainly prefer to settle this particular recognition issue in accordance with the practices and procedures established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, I am compelled to introduce this legislation because I believe there has been a fundamental flaw which, in this case, has prevented the Lower Muskogee tribe from obtaining a fair and equitable review of its recognition request. Mr. President, please allow me to elaborate on this statement. It is my understanding that once a petition has been denied, the rules prohibit a tribe from petitioning the Secretary of the Interior a second time. While the intent of the rule may be to eliminate redundant and frivolous petitions, I believe there are times when we must make an exception. Further, Mr. President, I would contend that this rule is especially unfair to those tribes who petitioned the Agency prior to the finalization of the rules in 1978. This is the case with respect to the Lower Muskogee tribe in my home State of Georgia. The Lower Muskogee tribe has tried for over two decades to obtain a favorable review of their status as a tribe. In 1977, members of the tribe petitioned the Secretary of the Interior for recognition. Without the assistance of legal counsel or technical support, the tribe submitted their petition. While the petition was pending, the Department of Interior (DOI) proposed and finalized rules relating to the procedures by which tribes may petition for federal recognition. In December 1981, the tribe's petition was denied due to technical omissions. I understand that there are serious concerns associated with the federal recognition of tribes by an Act of Congress--the most obvious being the perception that establishment of a gaming facility may soon follow. However, members of the Lower Muskogee tribe are not seeking to open casinos in Georgia. In fact, at the request of the tribe's Principal Chief, I have included language in the bill to prohibit such action. Under my bill, federal recognition of the Lower Muskogee tribe will not permit casinos or any other games of chance. It will simply recognize these well-deserving people as an Indian tribe, and allow their participation in programs which should be available to them as legitimate Native Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record, and urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I would like to join my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, in highlighting the critical needs of Fort Stewart in Georgia. I would also like to note my appreciation for the remarks of Chairman Warner and his recognition of Fort Stewart. I too would like to highlight the importance of Fort Stewart. Since its birth in 1940, Fort Stewart has seen a flurry of activity. Its original mission began as an anti-aircraft artillery training center and later evolved into a helicopter training facility, and is now home to 3rd Infantry Division. Fort Stewart has shown its importance during the Korean war, Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, and even during the Cuban missile crisis. Through the years, Fort Stewart has adapted to the changing landscape of our military missions. Despite this glorious history, Fort Stewart needs our attention. Fort Stewart has important military construction needs to provide the critical infrastructure to fulfill its mission. It is my hope that through increased attention from the Department of the Army, the Pentagon, and the Congress, Fort Stewart's needs can be addressed. I thank my colleagues for engaging in this colloquy regarding such a vital facility. Amendment No. 3473 (Purpose: To enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes and for other purposes)

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Hours of Service provision in H.R. 4475, the Department of Transportation appropriations bill. As directed by Congress, the Department of Transportation, and most recently the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), set out to examine the hours of service standard for motor carrier drivers that had been in effect since the 1930s. As I stated in the Surface Transportation Subcommittee's hearing in September 1999, I am concerned about fatigued drivers on the road. The fatigue related accident I profiled at this hearing occurred August 31, 1999 in Atlanta, and resulted in deadly consequences for the drivers of the truck. The accident occurred in the early morning hours and thankfully, no other automobiles were directly involved. However, daily commuters felt the effects during morning and afternoon rush hours, and the tragedy and frustration from incidents such as this accident resulted in Congress directing DOT to examine hours of service regulations. Admittedly, I have concerns about the effects of the proposed rule, but I do not believe that the appropriations bill is the proper vehicle through which to express concerns. I would like to remind my colleagues that the DOT has only issued a proposed rule. DOT is still accepting comments on this rule through October 31, 2000--an extension of the original date--and continues to hold hearings on the issue throughout the country. I believe these hearings have brought, and will continue to bring, potential problems to the attention of DOT officials. For example, during emergencies, utility drivers must restore service to customers. How do these rules apply to such drivers in these special situations? Congress directed DOT to evaluate the hours of service rules. Is this the best proposal? I am not convinced so, but I do believe DOT should be able to move forward with the prescribed process. The American driving public deserves the continuation of the hours of service reform process. The truck drivers want this collaborative process to continue. As this point, why should the Senate attempt to short-circuit the efforts of the FMCSA to reform the hours of service rule as directed by Congress? I do not support the prohibition on moving forward with the hours of service process, and I urge the conferees on H.R. 4475 to remove the hours of service provision from the final bill. Let's work together in thoroughly considering the best way to ensure the safety of automobile and truck drivers traveling America's roads.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the most successful college baseball regular season in history. This year, the Savannah State University, SSU, Tigers set a new National Collegiate Athletic Association record for the most consecutive wins-- an incredible 46. Led by their coach, Jamie Rigdon, a former Savannah State graduate, the Tigers played with all their heart despite the knowledge that they would not be able to participate in NCAA Regional Playoffs because they are in the process of moving from NCAA Division II to Division I. The historic season began with twelve straight victories over their fellow Division II rivals. In February, the Tigers defeated Florida A&M in what would become the first of many Division I opponents to meet their match in Savannah State. As the season wore on, the Tigers kept playing hard each and every day and, on March 19 they were rewarded for their efforts with an amazing 34th consecutive victory, thereby breaking the NCAA record. However, Savannah State's celebration was cut short when it learned that a Division III school in Ohio reported that it won 40 consecutive games the season before but had failed to notify the NCAA's official record keepers. While the media and officials debated which team held the record, the Tigers kept winning. In the end, the Savannah State University baseball team had won an astonishing 46 consecutive game, shattering every record in the books and laying indisputable claim to the most successful regular season in college baseball history. In addition to their consecutive win streak, the Tigers compiled many impressive statistics this year. For example, each SSU starter batted over .330 for the season, the starters fielding average was .947, and the team's earned run average was an incredible 2.30 for the entire season. I recognize each Tiger player from the record setting team: Brett Higgins, captain; Torrie Pinkins; Derron Street; Jarvis Johnson; Robert Settle; Roderick Ricks; Marcus Griffin; Mike Eusebio; Lamar Leverett; Marcus Johnson; Richard Castillo; Guy Thigpen; Chris Cesario; Charles Brown; Isaiah Brown; James Runkle; Jeremy Batayias; J.J. Stevens; James Greig; and Shantwone Dent. Savannah State University President, Carlton E. Brown, spoke highly of the student athletes saying that, ``the members of the Savannah State University baseball team are not just extraordinary athletes, they are exceptional students and model citizens. Even without the prospect of post-season play, the team put its heart and soul into each game. The team exemplifies the Savannah State University motto, which is `You can get anywhere from here.' '' I agree with President Brown that these young men can get anywhere with their education from Savannah State just as they went from the baseball diamond and into the record books. While I do not doubt that the Tigers could have been very successful in the playoffs, I hope their tremendous season is simply one remarkable achievement in a life where they make history, on and off the field.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment to be offered by my distinguished colleague from Ohio. People in my region of the country in the South are usually known for their position in favor of States rights. This is not just a transportation issue; this is a States rights issue. This amendment is not a mandate. It is not a threat to highways or the Highway Trust Fund. It would not change any Federal transportation formulas. It requires not a penny in new spending. What it does do is to give States the option to spend Federal transportation funds on intercity passenger rail. What this amendment does do is give States the opportunity to make transportation spending decisions based on their own local needs. Mr. President, part of my State is in a transportation crisis. Metro Atlanta has the worst traffic congestion of any southern city, and our drivers have the longest commute in the Nation. Due in large part to the exhaust from nearly three million vehicles, Atlanta's skies are in violation of national clean air standards. For two years now, Federal funds have been frozen for new transportation projects. The bottom line? Metro Atlanta's congestion and pollution problems are now threatening our most valuable selling point: our quality of life. The good news is that the best transportation minds in the State have rallied around Metro Atlanta's transportation crisis. These movers and shakers are not afraid to redraw the maps. The result is a new transportation plan that is going to meet our air quality goals, and that plan devotes 60 percent of Georgia's transportation dollars to rail. Georgia has dramatically reformed its transportation focus: from moving cars to moving people, from promoting sprawl to promoting smart growth. As the folk song says, ``the times they are a-changing.'' We're about to witness a rebirth of rail in Georgia, rivaled only by the days before General Sherman when Atlanta was the undisputed railroad hub of the Southeast. And key to this vision is intercity rail. The amendment before us, if adopted, will be a Godsend to my state. Let me state loud and clear, this amendment will be a Godsend not just to Georgia, for Atlanta's commuter congestion is mirrored in countless highways across America. One viable solution to two of the 21st century's most challenging and frustrating problems, smog and gridlock, may very well be found in a renaissance of rail, not just in my home State, but throughout this great Nation. For those States which see rail as key to their transportation future, we should at least give them another option for financing their intercity rail investments. Our amendment will do just that. It will give states whose highways and skyways are clogged with traffic not a mandate, but a chance to use their CMAQ, National Highway System, and Surface Transportation Program funds on passenger rail if they want to. I urge my colleagues to vote for the bipartisan measures before us. The National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities and the National Council of State Legislatures are all on record in support of providing flexible funding for passenger rail. This is States' rights legislation, and it's the right legislation for a balanced transportation system in the 21st century.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, as we vote today on the Transportation Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to a remarkable achievement in the Atlanta region of my home state of Georgia. But first let me thank Chairman Shelby and our Ranking Member, Senator Lautenberg, for their assistance on my state's transportation priorities in this bill. The bill provides assistance for a number of alternative transportation projects, from water taxies to eliminating high-hazard grade crossings on the proposed Atlanta to Macon commuter rail line. We have direction to the Federal Railway Administration and funding to extend the agency's high-speed rail transportation plan from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Macon, Georgia. We have important funding to make up for a shortfall in funding to complete a regional transit study for metropolitan Atlanta, so that this fast growing region--whose motorists drive the longest distance of any metro area--can plan for a region- wide system of seamless intermodal transportation. We have the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, GRTA, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, MARTA, the Georgia Department of Transportation, Chatham Area Transit, and the Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation on the eligibility list for bus funding. In addition, MARTA is eligible for New Starts mass transit rail funding. And, the maglev program to provide high-tech, high-speed fixed guideway service between Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Atlanta would receive $3 million to continue pre-construction planning in this Senate bill. These are important projects, especially in light of the unanimous decision yesterday by the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority to approve the Transportation Improvement Program, TIP, for the Atlanta region. This was a remarkable event given the intense process that has been underway the past 12 weeks in Atlanta, culminating a two-year effort to submit a fiscally constrained, air quality conforming plan to the U.S. Department of Transportation for approval. As many of my colleagues know, the Atlanta region has been called the ``poster-child of urban sprawl.'' The region is in a conformity lapse, and, as a result, new highway and transit construction dollars are frozen until the Federal Government approves a plan that conforms with the Clean Air Act and the requirements of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The Atlanta region has developed and submitted a plan that has been under the closest scrutiny of any metropolitan region of the country. No other region has had to fulfill the requirements set forth by the Federal transportation agencies for not only local financial commitments, but to adopt a land-use strategy that would support the major public transportation investments called for in the TIP. In regard to these requests, let me remind my colleagues that the counties in my state are very protective of their home rule powers and rightly so, and Federal directives on local control issues are difficult to swallow. Nevertheless, officials from the Atlanta Regional Commission, ARC, which is the metropolitan planning organization for the region, and from the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, GRTA, our new regional agency established to implement the ARC's plan, worked with the Federal agencies to craft a process to ensure that the transportation alternatives in the TIP are successful. This 3-year TIP makes a very strong investment in alternative transportation. Half of the $1.9 billion plan is devoted to mass transit, bicycle, pedestrian and air quality improvement projects and only 10 percent is devoted to new capacity for single-occupant vehicles. Even more important, the ARC and the GRTA are pledged to work together to implement a land use strategy that links the regional development plan with this transportation improvement program. This is an historic linkage of land-use guidelines with transportation improvements. The Atlanta Regional Development Plan calls for land use policies that strengthen town centers, foster transit-oriented development, encourage new development to be more clustered in portions of the region where new opportunities exist, protect environmentally sensitive areas, support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods and encourage best development practices. For the first time, these high-sounding goals are not just left to gather dust on a shelf. They are the guideposts for the region's transportation program. The GRTA resolution calls the regional development plan ``an integral part of fulfilling its responsibility to manage land transportation and air quality. . . .'' Mr. President, I would like to point out that these plans for mixed- use and transit-oriented development do not mean that the GRTA is going to mandate high-density housing throughout the region. That could not be farther from the truth. What this plan sets out is that where opportunities exist along certain transportation corridors the counties should allow the free market to step in and build higher-density housing and commercial development that would attract support for transportation alternatives, such as express buses or commuter rail lines. Let me state that many local governments have submitted written promises that they will do their part in implementing the TIP. Even more important, everybody is now fully aware of what will be expected of them. For that reason--and because the GRTA has pledged to use its influence to put the program into action--I believe moving forward is the right thing to do. I urge the Department of Transportation to move this plan forward. It is time to put solutions that improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion and provide transportation choices on the roads and railways in Atlanta. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the GRTA resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before you today to offer an amendment that addresses the educational needs of our men and our men and women in uniform and their families. I appreciate the support of my colleagues who have supported my provisions to enhance the GI bill, Senators Levin, Bingaman, Reed, and Robb. I also like to recognize the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, who himself went to school on the GI bill. I want to thank him for his support and encouragement in improving the GI bill for military personnel and their families. I call this measure the HOPE--Help Our Professionals Educationally-- Act of 2000. This measure is the same at my original legislation, S. 2402. Last year, Time magazine named the American GI as the Person of the Century. That alone is a statement about the value of our military personnel. They are recognized around the world for their dedication and commitment to fight for our country and for peace in the world. This past century has been the most violent century in the modern era. The American GI has fought in the trenches during the First World War, the beaches at Normandy, in the jungles of Vietnam, in the deserts of the Persian Gulf, and most recently in the Balkans and Kosovo. The face of our military and the people who fight our wars has changed. The traditional image of the single, mostly male, drafted, and disposable soldier is gone. Today we are fielding the force for the 21st century. This new force is a volunteer force, filled with men and women who are highly skilled, married, and definitely not disposable. Gone are the days when quality of life for a GI included a beer in the barracks and a three-day pass. Now, we know we have to recruit a soldier and retain a family. We have won the cold war. This victory has changed the world and our military. The new world order has given us a new world disorder. The United States is responding to crises around the globe--whether it be strategic bombing or humanitarian assistance--and our military is the most effective response. In order to meet these challenges, we are retooling our forces to be lighter, leaner and meaner. This is a positive move. Along with this lighter force, our military professionals must be highly educated and highly trained. Our nation is currently experiencing the longest running peacetime economic growth in history. This economic expansion has been a boom for our nation. However, there is a negative impact of this growing economy. With the enticement of quick prosperity in the civilian sector it is more difficult than ever to recruit and retain our highly skilled force. In fiscal year 99, the Army missed its recruiting goals by 6,291 recruits, while the Air Force missed its recruiting goal by 1,732 recruits. Pilot retention problems persist for all services; the Air Force ended FY99 1,200 pilots short and the Navy ended FY99 500 pilots short. The Army is having problems retaining captains, while the Navy faces manning challenges for Surface Warfare Officers and Special Warfare Officers. It is estimated than $6 million is spent to train a pilot. We as a nation cannot afford to train our people, only to lose them to the private sector. It is better to retain than retrain. There is hope that we are addressing these challenges. Last year was a momentous year for our military personnel. The Senate passed legislation that significantly enhances the quality of life for our military personnel. From retirement reform to pay raises, this Congress is on record supporting our men and women in uniform. However, more must be done. In talking with our military personnel, we know that money alone is not enough. Education is the number one reason service members come into the military and the number one reason its members are leaving. Last year the Senate began to address this issue by supporting improved education benefits for military members and their families. Since last year, we have gone back and studied this issue further. In reviewing the current Montgomery GI bill, we found several disincentives and conflicts among the education benefits offered by the services. These conflicts make the GI bill, an earned benefit, less attractive than it could be. My amendment will improve and enhance the current educational benefits and create the GI bill for the 21st century. One of the most important provisions of my amendment would give the Service Secretaries the authority to authorize a service member to transfer his or her basic MGIB benefits to family members. Many service members tell us that they really want to stay in the service, but do not feel that they can stay and provide an education for their families. This will give them an Educational Savings Account, so that they can stay in the service and still provide an education for their spouses and children. This will give the Secretaries a very powerful retention tool. The measure would allow the Services to authorize transfer of basic GI bill benefits anytime after 6 years of service. To encourage members to stay longer, the transferred benefits could not be used until completion of at least 10 years of service. I believe that the Services can use this much like a reenlistment bonus to keep valuable service members in the service. It can be creatively combined with reenlistment bonuses to create a very powerful and cost effective incentive for highly skilled military personnel to stay in the Service. In talking with service members upon their departure from the military, we have found that the family plays a crucial role in the decision of a member to continue their military career. Reality dictates that we must address the needs of the family in order to retain our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. My amendment would also give the Secretaries the authority to authorize the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) participants and those active duty personnel who did not enroll in MGIB to participate in the current GI bill program. The VEAP participants would contribute $1200, and those who did not enroll in MGIB would contribute $1500. The services would pay any additional costs of the benefits of this measure. Another enhancement to the current MGIB would extend the period in which the members of Reserve components can use this benefit. Currently they lose this benefit when they leave the service or after 10 years of service. They have no benefit when they leave service. My amendment will permit them to use the benefit up to 5 years after their separation. This will encourage them to stay in the Reserves for a full career. Other provisions of this amendment would allow the Service Secretaries to pay 100 percent tuition assistance or enable service members to use the MGIB to cover any unpaid tuition and expenses when the services don't pay 100 percent. Mr. President, I believe that this is a necessary next step for improving our education benefits for our military members and their families. We must offer them credible choices. If we offer them choices, and treat the members and their families properly, we will show them our respect for their service and dedication. Maybe then we can turn around our current retention statistics. This GI bill is an important retention tool for the services. I believe that education begets education. We must continue to focus our resources in retaining our personnel based on their needs.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Warner and ranking member Levin for their hard work during the Department of Defense authorization process this year. They have done a tremendous job in enhancing the quality of life for our military personnel and their families. I appreciate the support of Senators Levin, Bingaman, Reed, and Robb, who have cosponsored my GI bill enhancements which we are about to adopt. Specifically, I recognize the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, who himself went to school on the GI bill after World War II. I thank him for his support and his encouragement in improving the GI bill for military personnel and their families. My amendment will improve and enhance the current educational benefits and create the GI bill for the 21st century. One of the most important provisions of my amendment would give the service Secretaries the authority to authorize a service member to transfer his or her basic Montgomery GI bill benefits to family members. It will make the GI bill for the first time family friendly. This will give the Secretaries of the services a very powerful retention tool. My amendment will also give the Secretaries the authority to authorize the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program, VEAP, participants and those active duty personnel who did not enroll in the Montgomery GI bill to participate in the current GI bill program. Another enhancement to the current Montgomery GI bill extends the period in which the members of Reserve components can use this benefit. Other provisions of this amendment will allow the Service Secretaries to pay 100 percent of tuition assistance or enable service members to use the Montgomery GI bill to cover any unpaid tuition and expenses when the services do not pay 100 percent. This GI bill amendment is an important retention tool for the services, as well as a wonderful benefit for the men and women who bravely serve our country. I believe that education begets education. We must continue to focus our resources in retaining our personnel and meeting their personal needs. It is cheaper and better all around to retain than retrain. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I wish every American could have heard that distinguished lecture, dialog, and discussion of what I think is the most important action this Government can ever take, and that is the question of committing young Americans in harm's way. It is the most serious decision that I as a Member of the Senate can take. It is one of the reasons that brings me here to share the podium and the floor in the Senate with the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Pat Roberts, my colleague, my friend. We work together so well on the Armed Services Committee on behalf of young Americans in the military and retired military and Guard and Reservists, we thought we would bring our thoughts, our concerns, to the floor of this body and stand shoulder to shoulder as we are today discussing at the question of American intervention abroad. I will recap a couple of items that Senator Roberts, in his eloquence and in his great research, has pulled together for Members to consider as we look at the question of America's intervention abroad today. He mentioned that we were involved militarily in 141 places around the globe. I deal with these issues most every day. That is even a shocking statistic to me. Additionally, we were involved militarily in more than 55 percent of all the nations on the globe. One wonders if we are not becoming the new Rome. My greatest fear is we will become part of a Pax Americana, or as 2,000 years ago, Pax Romana, where Rome kept the peace in the known world. Is that our role today? Is that our mission? Are we called upon to be the new Rome or is that part of our intervention strategy? I thought it was fascinating that Senator Roberts pointed out since Eisenhower we have intervened in the world some 51 times; just since 1992 we have had 51 interventions. We have had an increase in American military commitments in the last 10 to 15 years of some 400 percent, but we have downsized the American military's ability to meet those commitments by some 40 percent. A classic case is the Balkans. I just got back from Macedonia, Kosovo, and visited the airbase where we launched the attacks into Kosovo and Serbia at Aviano, Italy. We have three U.S. Army divisions, as the distinguished Senator from Kansas has pointed out, in effect, bogged down in the Balkans. That is almost a third of our entire U.S. Army. They are bogged down in the Balkans with no end in sight. As the distinguished Senator has pointed out, it is hard to keep the peace when there is no peace to keep. I think also fascinating is his point that some 75 percent of our young Americans in active duty military service joined the service since 1989. All they have known is turmoil, deployments, commitments, time away from their family. I think that is a powerful point and one of the things that stresses and strains our American military today. That brings us to the floor today on this key question of trust, trust in the leadership, especially the civilian leadership of this Government, and trying to increase that trust among our young men and women deployed all over the world. His point is certainly well taken today, that if we don't judiciously use the American military, then we will see it attrited over time to where we cannot use it. So that element of trust is a key element that I keep close to my heart. I appreciate the Senator mentioning it. The distinguished Senator mentioned that next Monday is Memorial Day, May 29. Pursuant to a joint resolution approved by the Congress in 1950, the President of the United States will issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a day of prayer for permanent peace in remembrance of all those brave Americans who have died in our Nation's service. That is what Memorial Day is supposed to be all about--a day of remembrance. As someone who almost wound up on the Vietnam veteran wall, I can say that Memorial Day honoring those who never made it back from our wars is something special to me. With this, our fourth discussion on the role of the United States in today's world, Senator Roberts and I come to what is probably the core issue motivating us to take on this entire project. The key question is, Under what circumstances should the Government of the United States employ military force as an instrument of national policy? I can think of no more fitting subject for the Congress to contemplate as we prepare for the Memorial Day recess. We have quoted Clausewitz, the great German theoretician on war, numerous times, but this is a quote that I think is appropriate as we approach Memorial Day. Clausewitz said of war, Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst . . . It would be futile--even wrong--to try to shut one's eyes to what war really is from sheer distress of its brutality. General Sherman said it best: War is hell. For those who participate they understand it must only be undertaken under the most serious circumstances. My partner in these dialogues, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Senator Roberts, has often cited the following quotation from one of my personal heroes, Senator Richard B. Russell, from thirty years ago, during the war in Vietnam. At that time I was serving in that war. Senator Russell said: While it is a sound policy to have limited objectives, we should not expose our men to unnecessary hazards to life and limb in pursuing them. As for me, my fellow Americans, I shall never knowingly support a policy of sending even a single American boy overseas to risk his life in combat unless the entire civilian population and wealth of our country--all that we have and all that we are--is to bear a commensurate responsibility in giving him the fullest support and protection of which we are capable. That was Senator Russell 30 years ago. As Senator Roberts has observed, ``That is a most powerful statement of truth that has direct applications to the challenges we face today . . . The only thing that has changed is that today we refer to American men and women.'' I share Senator Roberts' sentiment completely. Richard Haass, a former official in the Bush administration and now director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, and also someone whom both Senator Roberts and I have frequently cited during these discussions, has written a wonderful primer called ``Intervention, The Use of American Military Force in the Post-Cold War World.'' In it Mr. Haass provides an overview of the evolution of American thinking about intervention, followed by an analysis of current policies on the subject and a set of pragmatic guidelines which Mr. Haass proposes to improve the conduct of future American interventions. It is well worth the attention of every Member of this distinguished body. Mr. Haass writes: The changes intrinsic to the post-Cold War world have created new, intense conflicts that complicate any prospective use of force by the United States. On the other hand, a number of political and technological developments enhance opportunities for the United States to use its military might effectively. . . . But if there are new reasons as well as new opportunities for the United States to use force, there are no longer any clear guidelines for when and how to do it. . . . Intervening too often poses an obvious danger. Any government indulging in what might be described as wanton uses of force would be guilty of acting irresponsibly, particularly toward those in uniform. . . . At the same time, setting too high a bar against intervention has costs as well. Defining interests too narrowly or prerequisites for employing force too broadly would be tantamount to adopting a policy of isolationism. In my view, this is a very lucid discussion of where we are and of the difficult choices we face when--and unfortunately I must add if-- the Congress of the United States is included in these deliberations on intervention. We saw these issues largely recapitulated here on the Senate floor as recently as last week with our belated but still illuminating debate on the ongoing Kosovo intervention. I wish my distinguished friend from Kansas and I could have had that kind of debate before we engaged in the first military strike in Kosovo. I still remember well, as the Senator from Kansas has indicated, virtually by the time we got the ball here in the Senate, the prestige of the United States and NATO was already at stake. The horse was already out of the barn. We debated military intervention into Kosovo, an offensive strike by NATO, which is a basically defensive military organization--we debated it here only a couple of days. We had a very fine debate, pro and con, about the future of that military engagement in Kosovo in the last few days. Those debates will continue as long as that force is there, and properly so. But our point here is let's make those debates on the floor of the Senate before we commit military force, and not after. As I mentioned before, the Haass book also offers a useful presentation on the evolution of American thinking on intervention, starting with our heritage under what he calls Christian ``just wars,'' or the ``just war'' theory as enunciated by such luminaries as St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and others. As defined by Haass, under this approach, ``wars are considered to be just if they are fought for a worthy cause, likely to achieve it, sponsored by legitimate authority, undertaken as a last resort, and conducted in a way that uses no more force than necessary or proportionate and that respects the welfare of noncombatants.'' While the ``just war'' theory has never been the sole criterion by which America or other western nations have waged war, it is nonetheless still a standard moral benchmark, if you will, which we can and should apply to individual proposed interventions. It is something we ought to keep in mind. As we have discussed before in this series, the end of World War II and the onset of the cold war produced great tension, the threat of a global nuclear Armageddon, and a vast expenditure of resources. But it also created a very clear standard of military interventionism for the United States; namely, the containment of the Soviet Union and its allies. It was under this overall framework that the two largest post- World War II American interventions took place, in Korea and Vietnam. The eminent military historian of the war in Vietnam, Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr., discussed the failure--on many different levels--of that American intervention in his book ``On Strategy: The Vietnam War in Context.'' I have read this book thoroughly. I just wish I had read it before I went to Vietnam and not after. It is not my purpose today to revisit that conflict in detail, but for purposes of today's discussion on the general subject of American intervention abroad, let me quote briefly from Summers' work. He says: By our own definition, we failed to properly employ our Armed Forces so as to secure U.S. national objectives in Vietnam. Our strategy failed the ultimate test, for, as Clausewitz said, the ends of strategy, in the final analysis ``are those objectives that will finally lead to peace.'' Given the magnitude of our defeat in Vietnam, and attendant human, financial, and political costs, there was a very understandable recoiling from military interventionism in the public and Congress, among various Presidential administrations and among the American military itself. Nearly a decade passed from the end of U.S. combat participation in Vietnam in 1973 until the deployment of the U.S. Marines as part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon in August of 1982. However, this was also a period when many of the post-cold-war conditions described by Haass as facilitating U.S. interventions were first taking hold, including the diminution of the Soviet/Warsaw Pact threat, the development of greater U.S. capacity to sustain long- distance military operations, and the resurgence of national and ethnic tensions around the globe. A little less than a decade after the Lebanon debacle, in the aftermath of other interventions in Grenada in 1983, Libya in 1986, Panama in 1989-1990, and in the 1990-1991 timeframe in the gulf war, and after the final end of the cold war, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, who had lived through this entire era, propounded a list of six questions which must be addressed before we commit to a military intervention. I submit General Powell's summation here is a summation based on his own experience and his own history in looking at this turbulent time. No. 1, is the political objective important, clearly defined, and well understood? No. 2, have all nonviolent means been tried and failed? No. 3, will military force achieve the objective? No. 4, what will be the cost? Next, Have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? Next, After the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve and what will the consequences be? That is, I guess, my biggest problem with some of our interventions. We have not thought through the end game, sometimes called the exit strategy. But what would be the result of failure? What will be the result of success? I am not sure we are thinking through our interventions. In a similar vein, falling on the side of what I would call restraint with respect to U.S. military interventions, in 1993, then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher outlined four prerequisites for the use of force by the United States: No. 1, the presence of clearly articulated objectives; No. 2, a high probability of success; No. 3, the likelihood of congressional and public support; and No. 4, the inclusion of a clear exit strategy. Not bad advice. However, even before the start of the Clinton administration, developments in Africa and in the Balkans were leading to a reassessment of the limits on U.S. military interventions. At the same time his administration was deciding in favor of intervention in Somalia but against military involvement in Bosnia, President Bush articulated a somewhat lower bar for U.S. military intervention. As described by Haass: Bush argued for a case-by-case approach in deciding when and where to use force. He argued against using interests as an absolute guide, noting that ``military force may not be the best way of safeguarding something vital, while using force might be the best way to protect an interest that qualifies as important but less than vital.'' That is Haass. Instead, Bush set out five requirements for military intervention to make sense: force should only be used, he said, where the stakes warrant it, where and when it can be effective, where the application can be limited in scope and time, and where the benefits justify the potential costs and sacrifice. Multilateral support is desirable but not essential. What is essential in every case is a clear and achievable mission, a realistic plan for accomplishing the mission, and realistic criteria for withdrawing U.S. forces once the mission is complete. That is a pretty thorough analysis of the thought process that must be undergone if we are to be successful in our interventions. During the Clinton administration, there have been military interventions in Iraq on several occasions, and continuing to this day: In Somalia from 1992 to 1995, in Bosnia and Macedonia since 1993, in Haiti from 1993 to 1996, in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, and of course in Kosovo beginning last year. There has been an accompanying evolution away from the more restrictive view of interventions expressed by Secretary Christopher and toward the less restrictive stance perhaps expressed most clearly recently by British Prime Minister Blair in an April speech last year in Chicago. Prime Minister Blair said: The principle of non-interference must be qualified in important respects. Acts of genocide can never be a purely internal matter. When oppression produces massive flows of refugees which unsettle neighboring countries then they can probably be described as ``threats to international peace and security. . . .'' So how do we decide when and whether to intervene. I think we need to bear in mind five major considerations. First, are we sure of our case? War is an imperfect instrument for righting humanitarian distress, but armed force is sometimes the only means of dealing with dictators. Second, have we exhausted all diplomatic options? Third, on the basis of a practical assessment of the situation, are there military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake? Fourth, are we prepared for the long term? In the past, we talked too much about exit strategies. But having made a commitment we cannot simply walk away once the fight is over, better to stay with moderate numbers of troops-- Does that sound familiar? than return for repeat performances with large numbers. And finally, do we have national interests involved? The mass expulsion of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo demanded the notice of the rest of the world. But it does make a difference that this is taking place in such a combustible part of Europe. That is the end of Blair's statement. Interesting. Clearly, we have come a long way from Vietnam, and today's world is quite different than the world of the sixties and seventies. Questions about the use of force are, by their very nature, difficult ones. There are no easy answers and no easy choices for any President, and certainly not us in the Congress. Part of this is a product of the disorderly post-cold-war order, or a new world disorder. Every American and every inhabitant of this planet is certainly better off than we were in the cold war which threatened the very survival of global civilization. That ended, but the termination of that phase of international politics has made the world actually more complex for foreign policymakers. In the cold war, the superpower rivalry and its mutually assured destruction doctrine, in terms of nuclear war, imposed strong constraints on interventions by either superpower. Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan were notable exceptions. In the pre-cold-war history of the United States, the question of U.S. intervention outside of the Western Hemisphere rarely arose, short of a Pearl Harbor or a Lusitania incident that began the First World War. In the new post-cold-war disorder, we largely face only self- imposed constraints to our actions abroad. Thus, we now need answer only whether we should undertake such an action, not whether we can do so. That is a clear distinction. In the cold war, we had a line that we knew we could not cross or should not cross. Now there are no lines. If my colleagues read Tom Friedman in the book ``Lexus and the Olive Tree,'' barriers of all kinds, not only the Berlin Wall, are coming down all over the world. So the question more and more on American intervention is, Should we do it? What Senator Roberts and I are trying to say is that it is not only a Presidential decision, it is a decision in which all of us have to participate and, hopefully, one that we can arrive at a consensus on before we send young Americans into harm's way. That is why we are here. That is why we are taking the Senate's time today. The two administrations which have confronted the post-Soviet Union world have grappled mightily with the complexities in places such as Iraq, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia, Haiti, and now Kosovo. And almost every step in these areas have been subjected to questioning and controversy before, during, and after the operation in question. Opposition to the Presidential policies has not offered a clear-cut alternative, with some opponents calling for greater and some for lesser exertions of American power. As I have said before on several occasions, I approach the debate on intervention with the greatest respect for the difficulties which the current or, indeed, any other post-cold-war administration and Congress must face when deciding Americans should go to war. However, I must say that I believe any departure from the principle of using our military intervention solely in defense of vital national interests is a slippery slope. Let me say that again. I have to say that I personally believe that any departure from the principle of using American military intervention solely in defense of vital national interests is a slippery slope. Let's recall from our previous discussions the very small ``A'' list of truly vital interests. As articulated by the 1996 Commission on America's National Interests--and Senator Roberts and I are engaging ourselves with that commission that is cranking up again and we hope to have some input--the Commission on America's National Interests articulated that those interests are ``strictly necessary to safeguard and enhance the well-being of Americans in a free and secure Nation,'' and include only the following: Prevent, deter, and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons attacks on the United States. That is simple. That is clear. Two, prevent the emergence of a hostile hegemon in Europe or Asia. As Senator Roberts the other day said, hegemon means the big bully, the lead dog, the big dog. Three, prevent the emergence of a hostile major power on U.S. borders or in control of the seas. Four, prevent the catastrophic collapse of major global systems such as trade, financial markets, supplies of energy, and so forth. Five, ensure the survival of U.S. allies. In pursuit of these objectives, the ``United States should be prepared to commit itself to fight,'' the commission says, ``even if it has to do so unilaterally and without the assistance of allies.'' I understand my friend and colleague, Senator Roberts, says this list might be slightly modified and updated by a new commission, but the content will basically be similar. In short, I believe we can and must be prepared to commit all available American resources--including military forces--in the defense of truly vital national interests. In such cases, I believe Presidents should seek congressional approval, and I cannot imagine a Congress not granting such authority in these cases. But in all other cases, I believe we have to impose a much higher bar before we put American service men and women into harm's way--a much higher bar and a much higher standard than we have used in the last 10 or 15 years. General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it beautifully in an address to the Kennedy School at Harvard recently: In every case when we contemplate the use of force, we should consider a number of important questions. These are not new questions, as most are articulated formally in the National Security Strategy. They are: Is there a clearly defined mission? Is the mission achievable, and are we applying the necessary means to decisively achieve it? Do we have milestones against which we can measure or judge our effectiveness? Is there an exit strategy? Or, put another way, a strategy for success within a reasonable period? Do we have an alternate course of action should the military action fail or take too long? Are we willing to resource for the long haul? If our military efforts are successful, are the appropriate national and international agencies prepared to take advantage of the success of the intervention? We see that in the Balkans right now. Have we conducted the up-front coordination with our allies, friends, and international institutions to ensure our response elicits the necessary regional support to ensure long-term success? These are powerful questions, as articulated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He goes on to say: The military is the hammer in America's foreign policy toolbox . . . and it is a very powerful hammer. But not every problem we face is a nail. That is critical. We may find that sorting out the good guys from the bad is not as easy as it seems. We also may find that getting in is much easier than getting out. Boy, is that true. These are the issues we need to confront when we make the decision to commit our military forces. And that is as it should be because, when we use our military forces, we lay our prestige, our word, our leadership and--most importantly--the lives of our young Americans on the line. As we approach Memorial Day, where we pay tribute and honor to those young Americans who have given their lives in the past, we must think carefully and judiciously how we commit young Americans in the future in terms of American military intervention in the world. Americans who serve today on the front lines in the service of this great Nation in Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere around the globe, are very special Americans. They have volunteered to do this duty for the rest of us. When we return from the Memorial Day break, Senator Roberts and I will resume these dialogs with a discussion of Clausewitz's trinity of warmaking. He said, successfully war is prosecuted if you have three things together: the people, the government, and the military. Marching forward arm in arm is what we are all about. That will be the subject of our next discussion. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Kansas, my partner, my dear friend, Mr. Pat Roberts.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the United States Postal Service for receiving two distinguished awards for its Celebrate the Century Express Educational Train Tour. I would like to thank Mr. Gary A. Thuro, Jr., Manager, Promotions, and Mr. Ernest Cascino, Jr., Project Manager, for bringing the awards to my attention. The United States Postal Service deserves special recognition for receiving the Department of Transportation's Design for Transportation National Award of Merit and the Transportation Marketing & Communications Association's 2000 Award of Excellence. Both awards were presented in recognition of the United States Postal Service's Celebrate the Century Express Train which is a specially outfitted four-car Amtrak train and traveling postal history exhibition that serves as the ``iron ambassador'' of the Celebrate the Century commemorative stamp and education program. The train is a rolling history museum, presenting the story of how the mails and rails helped develop our country and, highlighting some of the most significant people, places and events of the 20th century. Over its 18-month tour from March 1999 to fall 2000, the Celebrate the Century Express will visit dozens of communities across the nation, from the biggest cities to the smallest towns. In 1999, the train traveled over nearly 13,000 miles of track, visiting 36 cities in 18 states and being viewed by more than 150,000 people, including thousands of schoolchildren. The train is expected to make at least 36 stops this year before concluding its two-year run in November 2000. The Design for Transportation National Awards 2000 honor those facilities and activities that exemplify the highest standards of design and have made an outstanding contribution to the nation's transportation systems and the people they serve. The United States Postal Service received a Merit Award (which is only given every 5 years) for achieving a high level of design quality for its Celebrate the Century Express. The Postal Service is among 30 winners out of more than 300 entries and is the only recipient to receive an award for any type of vehicle. The Transportation Marketing & Communications Association's Transportation Communicators Award program, also known as the ``Tranny'' Awards, recognizes excellence in communications programs in the transportation and logistics industries. The program recognizes individual practitioners who apply solid communications principles and creativity to effectively promote the goals of their organizations. The United States Postal Service received an Award of Excellence in the category of ``best practices in special events'' and was one of 18 winners out of more than 150 entries.

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 Senator Coverdell 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 Senator Coverdell in recognizing President and Mrs. Carter for their distinguished records of public service by awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal.