J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my legislative fellow, Chris Grant, be given access to the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the information highway began just a few years ago as a footpath and is now an unlimited lane expressway with no rush hour. People can now use the Internet to shop at virtual stores located thousands of miles away, find turn-by-turn directions to far away destinations and journey to hamlets, cities and states across the country--and indeed around the world--without ever leaving home. While the virtual world is available to us with a few key strokes and mouse clicks, there is one area of the Internet that many are finding troublesome. It is the collection and use of personnel data. All too often web surfers are providing personal information about themselves at the websites they visit, without their knowledge and consent. There is so much information being collected every day that it would take a building the size of the Library of Congress to store it all in. That is a lot of information, much of which is very personal and I believe it must be kept that way. Concern about one's privacy on the Internet is keeping people from fully enjoying this marvelous technology. According to a recent survey by the Center for Democracy & Technology, consumers' most pressing privacy issues are the sale of personal information and tracking people's use of the Web. In another recent survey, 66.7 percent of online ``window shoppers'' state that assurances of privacy will be the basis for their making online purchases. These surveys make the same point that was made when credit cards were first introduced to the American public. Back then, credit cards did not initially enjoy widespread usage because of a fear that others could misuse the card. From these studies' findings it can be reasoned that the Internet is experiencing the same effects because of privacy concerns. These concerns are translating into lost opportunity, for consumers as well as electronic businesses. Most of the Dot Com companies doing business over the Internet today are very cognizant of the fact that privacy is a major concern for their customers. Many of these firms allow visitors to their web site to ``opt out,'' or elect not to provide data they consider private and do not wish to give. A Federal Trade Commission May 2000 Report to Congress found that 92 percent of a random sampling of websites were collecting great amounts of personal information from consumers and only 14% disclosed anything about how the information would be used. More interesting in this report was the finding that a mere 41% of the randomly selected websites notified the visitor of their information practices and offered the visitor choices on how their personal identifying information would be used. These report findings seem to suggest that industry efforts by themselves are not sufficient to control the gathering and dissemination of personal data. There are some Dot Coms that are not concerned about the privacy of their customers. These firms are successfully collecting enormous amounts of data about a person and in turn sell it to others or use it to intensify the advertising aimed at that person. At one website visit, a company can collect some very interesting facts about the person who is on the other end. While surfing the web the other day, I hit on a website that was designed to provide me with information about my PC. The report the site provided opened my eyes about the types of information that could be obtained from a website visitor in less one minute. In this small amount of time it could tell what other sites I had visited, what sites I would likely visit in the future, what plug- ins are installed on my PC, how my domain is configured and a whole lot more information that I did not understand. Many consider this type of tracking capability akin to stalking. I believe that the information that can be collected by website administrators can create problems for people through a violation of trust and an invasion of privacy. Novice Internet users are generally unaware, as I was until visiting this site, of the extent of the information being collected on them. Even those who are aware of the capabilities of firms to collect private data are frightened by what can happen with the information once it is collected. I am proud to be cosponsoring the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2000 that was introduced today by Senator Hollings. This Act will legitimize the practices currently being used by many reputable firms who are collecting private data. Does it seem unreasonable that firms collecting private data should notify consumers of the firm's information practices, offer the consumer choices on how the personal information will be used, allow consumers to access the information that is collected on them and require the firms to take reasonable steps to protect the security of the information that is collected? I think not. Firms like Georgia-based VerticalOne are already performing under standards very similar to these. I believe that all firms should be held to the same standard and that a level playing field should be established for every firm that is collecting data. Taking these actions will translate into greater consumer confidence in the Internet. Increasing the level of protection for private information to a level that the people of our nation can live with should be a welcome relief to those firms already providing fair privacy treatment of their site visitors. This Act certainly will be a relief to the people who are visiting their sites. Passing this Consumer Privacy Protection Act will help prevent confusion by establishing a common set of standards for all firms to follow and all Americans to enjoy.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the information highway began just a few years ago as a footpath and is now an unlimited lane expressway with no rush hour. People can now use the Internet to shop at virtual stores located thousands of miles away, find turn-by-turn directions to far away destinations and journey to hamlets, cities and states across the country--and indeed around the world--without ever leaving home. While the virtual world is available to us with a few key strokes and mouse clicks, there is one area of the Internet that many are finding troublesome. It is the collection and use of personnel data. All too often web surfers are providing personal information about themselves at the websites they visit, without their knowledge and consent. There is so much information being collected every day that it would take a building the size of the Library of Congress to store it all in. That is a lot of information, much of which is very personal and I believe it must be kept that way. Concern about one's privacy on the Internet is keeping people from fully enjoying this marvelous technology. According to a recent survey by the Center for Democracy & Technology, consumers' most pressing privacy issues are the sale of personal information and tracking people's use of the Web. In another recent survey, 66.7 percent of online ``window shoppers'' state that assurances of privacy will be the basis for their making online purchases. These surveys make the same point that was made when credit cards were first introduced to the American public. Back then, credit cards did not initially enjoy widespread usage because of a fear that others could misuse the card. From these studies' findings it can be reasoned that the Internet is experiencing the same effects because of privacy concerns. These concerns are translating into lost opportunity, for consumers as well as electronic businesses. Most of the Dot Com companies doing business over the Internet today are very cognizant of the fact that privacy is a major concern for their customers. Many of these firms allow visitors to their web site to ``opt out,'' or elect not to provide data they consider private and do not wish to give. A Federal Trade Commission May 2000 Report to Congress found that 92 percent of a random sampling of websites were collecting great amounts of personal information from consumers and only 14% disclosed anything about how the information would be used. More interesting in this report was the finding that a mere 41% of the randomly selected websites notified the visitor of their information practices and offered the visitor choices on how their personal identifying information would be used. These report findings seem to suggest that industry efforts by themselves are not sufficient to control the gathering and dissemination of personal data. There are some Dot Coms that are not concerned about the privacy of their customers. These firms are successfully collecting enormous amounts of data about a person and in turn sell it to others or use it to intensify the advertising aimed at that person. At one website visit, a company can collect some very interesting facts about the person who is on the other end. While surfing the web the other day, I hit on a website that was designed to provide me with information about my PC. The report the site provided opened my eyes about the types of information that could be obtained from a website visitor in less one minute. In this small amount of time it could tell what other sites I had visited, what sites I would likely visit in the future, what plug- ins are installed on my PC, how my domain is configured and a whole lot more information that I did not understand. Many consider this type of tracking capability akin to stalking. I believe that the information that can be collected by website administrators can create problems for people through a violation of trust and an invasion of privacy. Novice Internet users are generally unaware, as I was until visiting this site, of the extent of the information being collected on them. Even those who are aware of the capabilities of firms to collect private data are frightened by what can happen with the information once it is collected. I am proud to be cosponsoring the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2000 that was introduced today by Senator Hollings. This Act will legitimize the practices currently being used by many reputable firms who are collecting private data. Does it seem unreasonable that firms collecting private data should notify consumers of the firm's information practices, offer the consumer choices on how the personal information will be used, allow consumers to access the information that is collected on them and require the firms to take reasonable steps to protect the security of the information that is collected? I think not. Firms like Georgia-based VerticalOne are already performing under standards very similar to these. I believe that all firms should be held to the same standard and that a level playing field should be established for every firm that is collecting data. Taking these actions will translate into greater consumer confidence in the Internet. Increasing the level of protection for private information to a level that the people of our nation can live with should be a welcome relief to those firms already providing fair privacy treatment of their site visitors. This Act certainly will be a relief to the people who are visiting their sites. Passing this Consumer Privacy Protection Act will help prevent confusion by establishing a common set of standards for all firms to follow and all Americans to enjoy.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I echo the marvelous remarks of the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, and my seatmate, the great distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, and others who support the Byrd- Warner amendment. The question is, simply put: Will the Congress of the United States step forward and help this Government articulate an exit strategy of our military might out of Kosovo and out of the Balkans ultimately or will we not? I just got back from a trip to Western Europe, particularly to Kosovo. I visited Brussels. I talked to NATO leaders. I visited the Aviano Air Base in Italy where I met with some who flew the incredible air missions in the war. I went to Macedonia and saw the areas where more than 100,000 refugees were, and into Kosovo itself and up on the Serbian border. We then exited through London. I came back with a definite impression that unless this country articulates its own exit strategy, particularly for our military forces, there will be no exit strategy. Our allies are quite willing for us to stay there forever and ever and ever. I met with the distinguished Deputy Secretary General of NATO in Brussels. He looked at me and said: I can't count on one hand the number of years NATO will have to be in Kosovo. People in the United States have to accept that you are a European power whether you like it or not, both in Europe and the Balkans. I believe very strongly that we have borne the brunt of war. Seventy percent of the air missions in that war in Kosovo were ours. It was American airpower and American mobility and technology that actually won that war. I supported that. I voted on the floor of this great body for air and missile strikes against Milosevic. I have also voted for the accession of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary to come into NATO. I, by no means, want to abdicate the role of the United States in filling the power vacuum in Eastern Europe left by the fall of the Soviet Union. By the same token, I came back with a couple of clear senses that I carry in my mind of what our American role should be. First, before we went in a helicopter into Kosovo, an Army colonel said: Look out the windows. There is a Roman aqueduct. I thought: I'm flying over terrain where Alexander the Great and his father, Philip II, made wars in Macedonia and that part of the world in 300 B.C. Then the Romans were there. Later the Turks were there. And now we are there. I respectfully submit, what thousands of years of foreign occupation have failed to do to that area, we will fail to do. So I specifically support the Byrd-Warner language which allows 75 percent of the more than $2 billion contained in the supplemental appropriations title for Kosovo operations to be released immediately and unconditionally for such operations. I do support these operations now. But the remaining 25 percent would be withheld pending a certification by the President, due by July 15 of this year, that our European allies are making significant progress in meeting their overall commitments for economic reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, administrative expenses, and police forces for Kosovo. I understand our European allies did not have the capability, in terms of technology or maneuverability or mobility, to mass in an offensive attack against the forces of Milosevic. But I also understand they do have the ability to provide economic reconstruction aid. As a matter of fact, the European Union is stepping forward with $2.3 billion. I applaud that. They have the capability for humanitarian assistance, and that is forthcoming. They do have the ability to provide police forces for Kosovo. These are things our European allies can do and should do. Furthermore, the amendment requires the President to develop and report to the Congress a plan to turn over all peacekeeping operations in Kosovo to those allies by July 1, 2001. This is the plan that is due by July 1, 2001, not the withdrawal of American forces. But at least this is a plan; it is an exit strategy. How do we get to this point? The U.S. Constitution says the Congress declares war. The Congress raises money for our Army and our Navy. It is the Congress that is the ultimate, final authority on whether young men and women are committed in harm's way. Finally, by that day, July 1, 2001, the Byrd-Warner language requires the termination of funding for the continued deployment of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo unless the President seeks and obtains specific congressional authorization for a continuation of such deployment. I am open to reasoned argument by any President on our role there, but I think the Congress ought to make that decision. As Senator Warner said in explaining the authors' intent, the Byrd- Warner language reflects two concerns: the indefinite commitment of our troops into the Kosovo situation and that indefinite commitment not being backed up by the affirmative action of the Congress of the United States which has a clear responsibility to act when we send young men and women in harm's way. I have just returned from a trip to Brussels and Kosovo where I met with key military leaders from the U.S., European nations and NATO. On that trip, I was discussing the role of the United States in Europe with the Deputy Secretary of NATO, Sergio Balanzio, when he told me that the United States is, ``a European power whether you like it or not--not only in Europe but in the Balkans too.'' I responded that it is one thing to be on the point of the spear and to bear the heavy load in certain cases, as the U.S. did in Bosnia and Kosovo, but quite another to always be called upon to ride to the rescue, even in Europe itself. A large portion of the military operation in Kosovo was supplied by the United States, and I believe it is now time to ``Europeanize'' the peace in Bosnia and Kosovo. While the soldiers I spoke with at Camp Bondsteel certainly displayed high morale, reflected in the excellent job they have done, if we stay in the Balkans indefinitely, with no clear way out, I believe we run an increasing risk of further overextending our military thus exacerbating our recruitment and retention problems and lessening our capability to respond to more serious challenges to our vital national interests. The Byrd-Warner amendment will help Europeanize the peace, unless and until a compelling and vital American interest can be identified which would justify our continued deployment of ground forces, and I will be pleased to support it. However, I must add that, while this amendment does indeed address our military problem in Kosovo and does indeed reassert the constitutional responsibilities of Congress with respect to that problem, it does not address the underlying situation in Kosovo and is silent on the similar problem right across the border in Bosnia. From my perspective, the basic problem in the Balkans today is political, not military, and requires a political rather than military solution. And, in the same way as the United States took the lead in military operations, it is now time for the U.S. to lead in finding a political solution. Essentially, at this point in time, the various communities wish to live apart and exercise self-determination along ethnic lines. I would agree that such a development is unfortunate and not in keeping with our American view of the way the world should be. However, for any solution to the current situation to be acceptable to the parties directly involved--and thus durable--this inescapable fact must be taken into account. On June 30 of last year, the Senate accepted by voice vote my amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill which expressed ``the sense of the Senate that the United States should call immediately for the convening of an international conference on the Balkans'' to develop a final political settlement of both the Kosovo and Bosnia conflicts. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my amendment be printed in the Record. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I truly believe that such an approach is best, if not the only, way to resolve the difficulties in Bosnia and Kosovo--allowing our troops eventually to come home but avoiding an unacceptable security vacuum in southeast Europe--and is definitely in the best interest of the United States and Europe.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, forty-six years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court in its Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka decision overturned an 1896 ruling that education should be ``separate but equal'' thus outlawing racial segregation in the state school system. It is important to note that when the ``separate but equal'' ruling first went into effect in 1896, there were very few colleges and universities that women could attend. This means that ``separate but equal'' meant for men only. Some forty-one years before colleges like the Georgia College and State University was founded in 1889, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an eminent women's rights leader, drafted a Declaration of Sentiments that pointed to other areas of life where American women were not treated equally. Some of the facts at that time were: Women were not allowed to vote; Women had to submit to laws they had no voice in formulating; Married women had no property rights; Divorce and child custody laws favored men, giving no rights to women; Most occupations were closed to women, including medicine and law; and Women had no means to gain an education since no college or university would accept women students. Through the efforts of Ms. Stanton and others, colleges and universities began to be established with the mission of preparing the women of our nation to become self-sufficient by affording them an opportunity for an education. Today, many of these colleges and universities are continuing to provide educational opportunities to women to enable them to continue making significant contributions to our country by becoming writers, educators, scientists, heads of state, politicians, civil rights crusaders, artists, entertainers, and business leaders. However, some of the historic buildings that were built between 1884 and 1908 as institutions of higher learning for women are beginning to crumble and decay. I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation introduced today by Senator Sessions which was crafted to allow the preservation and restoration of treasured historic school buildings. The legislation will provide seven colleges and universities with $10 million each for five years to help ensure that some historically significant buildings that were built between 1884 and 1908 at women's public colleges and universities continue to serve as national symbols of women's early civil rights and as important monuments to the power that knowledge has brought to America's women. I'd like to note that the amounts needed to fully rejuvenate the buildings to their former glory is far greater than those provided by this legislation. The list of institutions that need this assistance is quite impressive. One of the seven universities included in this bill is the Georgia College and State University which is located in Georgia's antebellum capital, Milledgeville. The University was chartered in 1889 as the Georgia Normal and Industrial College and its early emphasis was on preparing young women for teaching or industrial careers. From the beginning of this prestigious school, the jewels of the university campus have been the former State Governor's mansion and the old Baldwin County Court House. General Sherman, while occupying the city of Milledgeville, slept in the mansion and refused to allow it to be burned because he was so impressed with its stateliness. The stately court house and former Governor's mansion, while continuing to be used by the university, are in dire need of repair. The $10 million included in the bill for the Georgia College and State University will go a long way toward helping to pay the estimated $27 million repair cost for these, and other treasured campus buildings. Today the Georgia College and State University's enrollment has grown to an impressive 5,200 students. The institution is now offering more than 65 baccalaureate and 35 graduate degree programs and awards more than 1,100 degrees annually, of which 300 are graduate degrees. It seems that we are living in a disposable world. We have disposable towels, disposable cameras, and disposable contact lenses. Let us not dispose of these buildings or the history they represent. I believe that the college and university campus buildings that are to be preserved and restored by this legislation will continue to serve our nation well by continuing to provide quality education for the leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, forty-six years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court in its Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka decision overturned an 1896 ruling that education should be ``separate but equal'' thus outlawing racial segregation in the state school system. It is important to note that when the ``separate but equal'' ruling first went into effect in 1896, there were very few colleges and universities that women could attend. This means that ``separate but equal'' meant for men only. Some forty-one years before colleges like the Georgia College and State University was founded in 1889, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an eminent women's rights leader, drafted a Declaration of Sentiments that pointed to other areas of life where American women were not treated equally. Some of the facts at that time were: Women were not allowed to vote; Women had to submit to laws they had no voice in formulating; Married women had no property rights; Divorce and child custody laws favored men, giving no rights to women; Most occupations were closed to women, including medicine and law; and Women had no means to gain an education since no college or university would accept women students. Through the efforts of Ms. Stanton and others, colleges and universities began to be established with the mission of preparing the women of our nation to become self-sufficient by affording them an opportunity for an education. Today, many of these colleges and universities are continuing to provide educational opportunities to women to enable them to continue making significant contributions to our country by becoming writers, educators, scientists, heads of state, politicians, civil rights crusaders, artists, entertainers, and business leaders. However, some of the historic buildings that were built between 1884 and 1908 as institutions of higher learning for women are beginning to crumble and decay. I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation introduced today by Senator Sessions which was crafted to allow the preservation and restoration of treasured historic school buildings. The legislation will provide seven colleges and universities with $10 million each for five years to help ensure that some historically significant buildings that were built between 1884 and 1908 at women's public colleges and universities continue to serve as national symbols of women's early civil rights and as important monuments to the power that knowledge has brought to America's women. I'd like to note that the amounts needed to fully rejuvenate the buildings to their former glory is far greater than those provided by this legislation. The list of institutions that need this assistance is quite impressive. One of the seven universities included in this bill is the Georgia College and State University which is located in Georgia's antebellum capital, Milledgeville. The University was chartered in 1889 as the Georgia Normal and Industrial College and its early emphasis was on preparing young women for teaching or industrial careers. From the beginning of this prestigious school, the jewels of the university campus have been the former State Governor's mansion and the old Baldwin County Court House. General Sherman, while occupying the city of Milledgeville, slept in the mansion and refused to allow it to be burned because he was so impressed with its stateliness. The stately court house and former Governor's mansion, while continuing to be used by the university, are in dire need of repair. The $10 million included in the bill for the Georgia College and State University will go a long way toward helping to pay the estimated $27 million repair cost for these, and other treasured campus buildings. Today the Georgia College and State University's enrollment has grown to an impressive 5,200 students. The institution is now offering more than 65 baccalaureate and 35 graduate degree programs and awards more than 1,100 degrees annually, of which 300 are graduate degrees. It seems that we are living in a disposable world. We have disposable towels, disposable cameras, and disposable contact lenses. Let us not dispose of these buildings or the history they represent. I believe that the college and university campus buildings that are to be preserved and restored by this legislation will continue to serve our nation well by continuing to provide quality education for the leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my distinguished colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, to continue our dialog on the global role of the United States. This is the third such dialog in what we have intended to be a year-long series. In February, we began by taking a broad look at the priorities and approaches of U.S. foreign policy in the post-cold-war period. A few weeks ago we narrowed the focus somewhat by trying to define and defend our national interest, which must be the first step in arriving at a coherent national security strategy. Today, as we start to go from general principles to concrete applications, Senator Roberts and I, along with several of our colleagues, will attempt to zero in on the U.S. role in multilateral organizations which strongly impact our national security, especially NATO and the U.N. I have just returned from a trip to Brussels and Italy where we were briefed on the air campaign from Aviano Air Base. In Brussels, I met with the Deputy Secretary General of NATO. As I said, Italy and then on to Macedonia, where we saw the regions where the refugees were kept during the war in Kosovo. Then, into Kosovo itself. I met with key military leaders and key political leaders from the United States, European nations, and NATO. These meetings only served to reinforce my strong belief that there is a pressing need to address the global role of the United States, both in our own national strategic planning and in NATO's planning. This conclusion is not a result of the recent actions taken in Serbia and Kosovo. Rather, these actions were merely symptomatic of, I think, the problem. A large portion of the military operation in Kosovo was supplied by the United States. I believe it is now time for the United States to lead in finding a political solution. Similarly, I believe the time has come to ``Europeanize'' the peace in Bosnia and Kosovo. While the soldiers I spoke with at Camp Bond steel certainly displayed high morale, reflected in the excellent job they actually have done, if we stay in the Balkans indefinitely with no clear way out, I believe we run an increasing risk of further overextending our military, thus exacerbating our recruitment and retention problems and lessening our capability to respond to more serious challenges to our vital national interests. From my perspective, the basic problem in the Balkans today is political, not military, and requires a political rather than military solution. Essentially, at this point in time, the various communities wish to live apart and exercise self-determination along ethnic lines. I would agree that such a development is unfortunate and not in keeping with our American view of the way the world should be. However, for any solution to the current situation to be acceptable to the parties directly involved--and, thus, durable--this inescapable fact must be taken into account. On June 30 of last year, the Senate accepted by voice vote my amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill which expressed ``the sense of the Senate that the United States should call immediately for the convening of an international conference on the Balkans'' to develop a final political settlement of both the Kosovo and Bosnia conflicts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND. I truly believe that such an approach is the best, if not the only, way to resolve the difficulties in Bosnia and Kosovo-- allowing our troops eventually to come home but avoiding an unacceptable security vacuum in southeast Europe--and is definitely in the best interest of the United States and Europe. Two years ago this week, the Senate was debating the expansion of NATO, and I should add that I found that discussion to be perhaps the finest deliberation on national security issues that I have witnessed in the time I have served in the U.S. Senate. The debate raised serious questions regarding both the makeup and purpose of NATO, but, in the end, I, and a large majority of the Senate, concluded that extension of NATO membership to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary was in our, and NATO's, best interest because NATO was the only entity ready and able to fill the security void in northeastern Europe. Much has changed in the time since that vote, including the launching of the first offensive military operations in the history of the alliance last year in Kosovo and Serbia, an action which also represented the first time NATO asserted the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Both of these were significant departures from the Senate's understanding of NATO as expressed during that debate as well as the representations we made to other nations, most notably Russia, about the goals and the intentions of NATO in the aftermath its eastward expansion. Specifically, section 3 of the Senate Resolution of Ratification affirmed that the ``core mission'' of NATO remains ``collective self-defense,'' and we sought to calm Russian anxieties by pointing to the 50-year record of NATO in never launching offensive operations, and never violating the sovereignty of states except in pursuit of collective self-defense. Since we voted for NATO expansion we have also witnessed the issuance of a new Strategic Concept for NATO, in April of 1999, and here again, the results were not exactly as anticipated at the time of the Senate's ratification vote on NATO expansion 2 years ago. For a particularly insightful and detailed treatment of this subject, I would commend to all Senators a May 24, 1999 floor statement by my distinguished colleague from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, which dissected in some detail the numerous departures from the Senate's 1998 Resolution of Ratification in the April 1999 NATO Strategic Concept. For purposes of today's discussion on how multilateral organizations impact on the U.S. global role, I would like to highlight just two of the issues identified by Senator Roberts: the central issue of NATO's purpose, or ``core mission,'' and the matter of how European nations should provide for their own defense, the so-called European Security and Defense Identity. For its first 50 years, which culminated in its victory in the Cold War without ever having to fight a battle, the core purpose of NATO, recognized by friend and foe alike, was set forth in article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty of April 4, 1949: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. In contrast, the new NATO Strategic Concept goes well beyond the traditional collective security role in its aspirations for NATO. Item 24 in the April 24, 1999 text states that: Any armed attack on the territory of the Allies, from whatever direction, would be covered by Article 5 and 6 of the Washington Treaty. However, Alliance security must also take account of the global context. Alliance security interests can be affected by other risks of a wider nature, including acts of terrorism, sabotage, and organized crime, and by the disruption of the flow of vital resources. I wonder if NATO is designed to track terrorism around the world, sabotage around the world, and organized crime around the world. I continue to quote: The uncontrolled movement of large numbers of people, particularly as a consequence of armed conflicts, can also pose problems for security and stability affecting the Alliance. Item 10 in that document includes as ``fundamental security tasks'' for NATO the traditional objectives of security, consultation, and deterrence and defense, as well as ``crisis management,'' within which allies are ``to stand ready, case-by-case and by consensus, in conformity of Article 7 of the Washington Treaty, to contribute to effective conflict prevention and to engage actively in crisis management, including crisis response operations.'' I wonder if NATO has become not a self-defense organization but a crisis management and crisis intervention organization. I wonder. I point out that Article 7 of the NATO Treaty says that: This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. While some Western observers, especially in the United States, maintain that the 1999 Strategic Concept does not represent a significant change in NATO's policy, I believe that the Norwegian newspaper, Oslo Aftenposten, was much closer to the mark when it wrote last April that: In its new ``strategic concept'' NATO has approved a radical expansion of the alliance's tasks, both geographically and with regard to content. From now on it will be the alliance's task to promote ``security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area'' by ``becoming actively involved in dealing with crises, including operations in response to crises.'' We see the first example in Kosovo. It is my view that the members of the NATO alliance, and especially the United States, need to think much more carefully about the expanded aspirations of their new strategic concept, and the costs--economic, political, and human resource--they are willing and able to pay in pursuit of these aspirations. Specifically, at the very least I believe both Houses of Congress, especially this House, the Senate, need to undertake a thorough series of hearings on the strategic concept and the future of NATO. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I could not urge this set of hearings more strongly. The Norwegian paper goes on to say that: It is also new and important that the alliance said ``yes'' at the summit meeting to the desire of the EU countries to play a more independent role and thus acquire greater political weight in the NATO cooperation. Behind this also lies a desire for a cautious counterweight to a United States that is perhaps more strongly dominant now, militarily and politically, than ever before in NATO's history. Distinguished colleagues, this leads to my other major concern about the United States and NATO: the question of a ``more independent role'' for the European Union countries. John Keegan, one of the world's leading military historians, summed up the current debate in an article last December. He said: Though it has long been American policy to encourage European political and economic integration on the model of its own federal structure, the United States is far less ready to welcome moves by the Europeans to go their own strategic way. There are two reasons for that. The first is that the United States sees its own security as inextricably bound up within the alliance system in which it is a partner. The second is that it doubts the ability of the Europeans to construct parallel systems which will deliver military value. . . . The Americans are right to regard all current European attempts, either through the European Union, or the belatedly revived Western European Union or through ad hoc arrangements such as the newly announced Anglo-French force, to bypass NATO as damaging to the security structure that already exists. Despite its advances in economic integration, the European community still lags far behind in developing a common national security structure. As we witnessed in Bosnia, and most recently Kosovo, Europe lacks either the will or the means, or both, to conduct independent military operations even in its own backyard. And whatever the end result of the recent European Security and Defense Initiative, or Identity it will be many years before the Europeans can develop a military capable of significant action independent of the United States. When one adds the additional questions of national sovereignty, domestic pressures to cut defense spending, and, of course, the need for consensus on how and when to take military action, the challenges facing the Europeans are daunting indeed. Until Europe can surmount these challenges, which, most likely, will be many years from now, American involvement and leadership via NATO will still be seen, by Europeans at least, as essential. On my recent trip, I was discussing the role of the United States in Europe with the Deputy Secretary of NATO, Sergio Balanzio, when he told me that the United States is, ``a European power whether you like it or not -- obviously, indicating we are a European power, whether we like it or not, in Europe and in the Balkans. I responded that it is one thing to be on the point of the spear and to bear the heavy load in certain cases, as the U.S. did in Bosnia and Kosovo, but quite another to always be called upon to ride to the rescue, even in Europe itself. Going back to 1949, when NATO was formed, one of the quotes that rings in my ears is a quote from Lord Ismay, the first Secretary General of NATO. When he was asked the purpose of NATO, Lord Ismay said: The purpose of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. I have serious reservations about that particular mission statement now. There is no need to keep the Russians out. As a matter of fact, we are wrapping our arms around the big bear in every way in every trade agreement, every cooperative agreement we can possibly put together. Secondly, there is no need to keep the Germans down. They are an emerging strong force on the European continent. I wonder, though, having just come back from dealing with my NATO friends and our NATO allies, and having gone to Kosovo, whether the real ultimate purpose of NATO for the Europeans now is to keep the Americans in. Personally, I do not mind sharing power. I do mind always being the lead dog that is called upon to bear the burden. I think more and more Americans are feeling that way themselves. For me, however, the bottom line is that, despite all of the difficulties, despite the possibility that there may well be some short-term disadvantages for the United States, I believe the United States must, I repeat must, be unequivocally supportive of the development of a strong, independent European military capability to accompany Europe's growing economic and political integration. There is at present, and for the foreseeable future, no overwhelming threat to European security such as that posed by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Europe should be able to attend to its own defenses in the post- Cold War world. The fact that it has not done so is certainly attributable to many factors, especially its divided and conflict- ridden history, but if it does not act now--when the threat is so low-- then when will it? Developing the necessary support structures, both political and military, to produce an effective European security identity will be neither quick, nor easy, nor cheap. But they have to start sometime, and while the United States must avoid precipitous actions--such as threatening a unilateral troop pull-out--I believe we must clearly signal that we fully understand and support moves toward greater European self-defense capabilities. Such moves may well produce some short-term redundancies and inefficiencies in NATO, but I believe that unless we encourage the Europeans to develop their own capabilities for their own defense, we will not see the kind of increased defense efforts that Europe ought to undertake. Certainly American taxpayers have done their share, throughout most of the 20th Century, to contribute to European security. I think British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it best in a November 22, 1999 speech in London. He said: We must shape European Defence policy in a way designed to strengthen (the) transatlantic bond by making NATO a more balanced partnership, and by giving Europeans the capacity to act whenever the United States, for its own reasons, decides not to be involved. Only then will Europe pull its weight in world security and share more of the burden with the United States. I could not have said it better. Mr. President, I now yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Kansas, my friend and colleague in these dialogs on the U.S. global role in the world, Mr. Roberts.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. CLELAND. I yield the time necessary to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. CLELAND. How much time is left on our time?

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks with some additional thoughts and comments. I thank Senator Lugar, a distinguished student and practitioner of foreign policy in this body for many years, and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and thank him for his wonderful letter from General Clark, who is a man with whom I have shared a meal recently and discussed Kosovo and many other matters. He is a distinguished American. I respect him highly. I thank my distinguished colleague from Kansas. One of the things that impressed me was the point the Senator from Kansas mentioned, that this country is committed and obligated in some form or fashion to 90 different treaties or organizations, and that is indeed quite an astounding number. I have two basic fears about America's global role. One is that, like Gulliver, we will get wrapped up in many lilliputian events and treaties and entanglements and not be free to move to crises in the world where we need to have a maximum impact; secondly, that we get drawn into power vacuums around the world, particularly in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, and institute a pax Americana. I was recently in Macedonia. As the helicopter took off, headed toward Kosovo, an Army colonel pointed out that if you looked out of the helicopter to your left, you could see a Roman aqueduct. I had never really been in that part of the world. It was amazing to actually see a Roman aqueduct put together by the Roman armies there in Macedonia over 2,000 years ago and it still be intact. I began to think the very ground over which I was flying had been occupied by not only Alexander the Great but his father Philip, and that Greek and Roman armies had gone over this very terrain. Later, after the Dark Ages, for some 600 years the Turks and the Ottoman Empire occupied this particular land. Now we, the Americans, were there. It was a sobering moment for me. I wondered exactly how effective we could really be in that part of the world with those conflicts which seem to be eternal. I wondered exactly what we could do there, what we could contribute, especially with our military force. Those are some thoughts I have. I would like to address one other issue in terms of our multilateral and multinational relations, and that is our relationship with the United Nations. In large part because of American support, the UN was founded in 1945 with the purpose, according to its Charter: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace. Furthermore, under Article 34 of the U.N. Charter, U.N. ``members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.'' And Article 52 provides that: Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. In recent years, the United States has worked with, and sometimes without, the cooperation of the U.N. Security Council when seeking to accomplish its objectives. Despite all the difficulties associated with it, the Security Council remains the only widely accepted, multinational, legitimizing force for conducting military operations against a sovereign nation. In the 1995 book, ``Beyond Westphalia,'' editors Gene Lyons, Michael Mustanduno and their colleagues tackled the difficult question of ``state sovereignty and international intervention.'' The authors write that: A historical transition was marked by the settlement of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War and opened the quest-- which goes on to this day-- to find a way for independent states, each enjoying sovereignty over a given territory, to pursue their interests without destroying each other or the international system of which each is a part. One of the recurring themes which has been highlighted in these floor dialogues organized by Senator Roberts and myself about the global role of the United States in the post-Cold War world is on this very question of sovereignty. More specifically, under what conditions is it permissible and appropriate for a nation or coalition of nations to intervene in the internal affairs of another sovereign state? In an April 1999 speech in Chicago, British Prime Minister Blair posed the question in a way which is representative of the concerns of many of those--especially in the Western democracies--who believe that, under certain egregious circumstances, there must be limits on national sovereignty in today's world. Prime Minister Blair said: The most pressing foreign policy problem we face is to identify the circumstances in which we should get actively involved in other people's conflicts. Non-interference has long been considered an important principle of international order. And it is not one we would want to jettison too readily. One state should not feel it has the right to change the political system of another or foment subversion or seize pieces of territory to which it feels it should have some claim. But 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 properly be described as ``threats to international peace and security.'' It is interesting that on that same day in 1999, Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso offered some related observations, with his views on the Kosovo War, which he and his country supported. President Cardoso's views reflect the concerns of many of those in the developing world who worry about the consequences of a loss of sovereignty in reducing their ability to control their own destiny. We heard Senator Roberts talk about the fear of the United States and its growing hegemony or being a great hegemony in various portions of the world, or being the ``big dog.'' President Cardoso said this: Who has the authority and approval of the international community to drop bombs? Such attacks are not endorsed by an international organization that legalized such actions. The United Nations was left aside . . . The United States currently constitutes the only large center of political, economic, technologic, and even cultural power. This country has everything to exert its domain on the rest of the world, but it must share it. There must be rules, even for the stronger ones. When the strongest one makes decisions without listening, everything becomes a bit more difficult. In this European war, NATO made the decision, but who legalized it? That is the main problem. I am convinced more than ever that we need a new political order in the world. How do we reconcile these different and sometimes conflicting, yet both legitimate, concerns: the need on the one hand to protect powerless individuals from the depredations of their own governments, and on the other to protect less powerful nations from unilateral or even multilateral decisions by the stronger powers? Mr. President, in the last dialog, I tried to quote President Kennedy. I think I got the quote wrong. I think he said that ``we must dream of a world in which the strong are just, the weak secure, and the peace preserved.'' I think that is what President Cardoso was after. The editors of Beyond Westphalia draw four principal conclusions which bear on this matter. The first two offer encouragement to those who see a clear need for constraints on unfettered sovereignty, especially in cases of massive human rights violations: First, constraints on state sovereignty not only have a long history but have been increasing significantly in recent years as a consequence of both growing interdependence and the end of the cold war . . . (Second), while constraints on state sovereignty traditionally were largely constraints on states' behavior with regard to other states, in recent decades constraints on sovereignty have increasingly involved the internal affairs of states, or how governments relate to their own citizens, economies, and territories. However, the current limits on international interventions are captured in the final two observations: (Third), the international community has developed a formidable institutional presence, yet clearly lacks the resources and organizational capacity to serve as a viable alternative to the society of sovereign states . . . (Fourth), the legitimacy of the international community will continue to be questionable as long as there are fundamental differences between North and South with regard to whose values and interests the international community represents . . . If the major powers claim to be acting, through the exercise of their international decisionmaking authority, as the guardians of the common good, less powerful states seem to want to know, who is guarding the guardians? Lyons and Mastanduno conclude that we are likely to experience an ongoing ``chipping away'' at the sovereign autonomy of nations. However, they end with the following cautionary note: The idea of state sovereignty is alive and well among both the more powerful and less powerful members of contemporary international society. Even if states increasingly share authority with intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, the state system endures. So where does that leave us? For the isolationists and the unilateralists, the question of international intervention is, of course, not important for they believe that the United States should not, or need not, rely on other nations or the international community in advancing our security interests. However, as I have said in the first two of these dialogues, I do not believe the people of our country are prepared now, or in the foreseeable future, to pay the substantial--albeit quite different--costs arising out of either the isolationists' or the unilateralists' agendas. For everyone else, including balance of power realists, Wilsonian idealists and everyone in between, they have to face the dilemma of balancing the reality of the continuing dominance of the nation state as the key player in international security affairs with the increasing transnational communications, economic forces, and values which are circumscribing national sovereignty. In my opinion, we have no choice but to try to improve the international machinery for legitimating and, in some circumstances conducting, interventions in extreme cases where a nation's actions within its own borders necessitate such a response. To do otherwise would be to ignore the trends noted by Lyons and Mastanduno in 1995 and which have certainly considered apace since then. And whatever its shortcomings, and they are many, it is clear that the international machinery of choice, for the United States as well as for most of the world, and recognized in solemn commitments--for example including NATO's own charter--is the United Nations and more particularly its Security Council. But it is equally clear that the UN's machinery is not now capable of fulfilling this role assigned to it by the international community. The sad current events in Sierra Leone, and previously in Bosnia, in Rwanda, in Angola, and in Somalia demonstrate convincingly that the UN cannot enforce the will of the international community unless all local parties accept its intervention. In other words, it can enforce an existing peace but cannot make peace. And in the absence of an effective United Nations, I say to the advocates of humanitarian intervention, we have to proceed with great caution. Furthermore, while various Western leaders and theorists have proposed standards to determine when and how national sovereignty should be overridden, such standards are neither comprehensive, nor clear, nor widely accepted. Though I do not oppose the notion of international intervention in principle--because as I said before various global trends are moving us in that direction--in my opinion much will have to be done before we can or should stake important national interests on it. Among the steps which must be undertaken are: Reforming the peacekeeping operations and decision-making processes within the UN and the Security Council. Strengthening the capabilities of regional organizations, like the Organization for African Unity, the Organization of American States, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations--and as I suggested earlier the European Union-- to deal with regional threats to international order. Thoroughly debating--including in this body--the proposed frameworks for intervention put forward by the Clinton Administration, the British government, and others. None of these steps will be easy. For example, reforming the decision-making processes of the Security Council in a way that improves its ability to act would presumably involve curtailing the veto power of the permanent members. However, while such a change would eliminate or reduce the ability of China or Russia to block what we view as appropriate interventions, it would also similarly constrain our own capacity to prevent what we view as undesirable actions by the UN. Strengthening the capabilities of regional entities raises resource questions, and, as already discussed, developing a serious European defense capability raises a number of additional concerns. And developing any sort of meaningful consensus about the principles for international interventions even among NATO members--let alone among both developed and developing countries--will be an extremely long and difficult process. But for anyone who can conceive of circumstances where an international response will be in our national interest, it is the type of effort we will have to undertake. Mr. President, that concludes my remarks in this, our third session on the US Global Role. Our next discussion will hopefully take place during the week of May 22, and in many ways is at the heart of the concerns which motivated both me and Senator Roberts to initiate these dialogs: the central question of when and how to employ American military forces abroad. I look forward to that debate--which will appropriately occur just before the Memorial Day break-- and I hope other Senators will participate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, there are an estimated 2.3 million foreign-born school children living in the U.S. today and more are arriving daily. This is placing increasing demands on our nation's schools and community organizations to help these newly arrived children and their families with becoming successful in America's schools and communities. These children began arriving here in large numbers in the 1990s in a wave of immigration that is rivaling the first and second waves of German, Irish, Polish and Scandinavian immigrants who arrived here in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Like those who have preceded them, our nation's newest immigrants have a strong desire to succeed in their new found homeland. Our challenge is to provide them with the support and services they need to achieve to high standards in our schools--and beyond--and in so doing we will all be the beneficiaries. The wave of immigrants settling into communities all across America is resulting in a significant increase in children with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds enrolling in our schools. For example, the Waterloo, Iowa school system is being challenged to teach 400 Bosnian refugee children who came here without knowing our language, culture or customs. Schools in Wausau, Wisconsin are filled with Asian children wanting to achieve success in the United States. In Dalton, Georgia, 47% of the student population in the public schools are Mexican children eager to participate in their new schools and community. In Turner, Maine, the school-aged children of hundreds of recently arrived Mexican immigrant families are pouring into this rural town's schools. As these examples illustrate, the foreign-born, school-aged children living in our nation today constitute an increasingly significant portion of the population, not just in communities accustomed to large immigrant populations like New York, Los Angeles and Miami, but also non-traditional immigrant communities like Gainesville, Georgia and Fremont County, Idaho. According to recently released estimates, this trend will continue. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the recently arrived immigrant and refugee populations living here today will account for 75% of the total U.S. population growth over the next 50 years. U.S. schools from Florida to Washington State are being increasingly challenged by these changing demographics. As Secretary of Education Richard Riley recently said, ``dealing with this kind of change requires creative thinking and an eagerness to adopt and to incorporate cultural and linguistic differences into the learning process.'' We need to make sure that these children are served appropriately-- and that their families are as well. Studies have shown that where quality educational programs are joined with community-based services, immigrants have an increased opportunity to become an integral part of their community and their children are better prepared to achieve success in school. The recent influx of immigrants into U.S. communities calls for innovative and comprehensive solutions. Today, I am joined by my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Senator Paul Coverdell, in introducing the Immigrants to New Americans Act. This legislation would establish a competitive grant program within the Department of Education to assist these school systems and communities that are experiencing a high number of immigrant families. Specifically, this new grant program would provide funding to partnerships of local school districts and community-based organizations for the development of model programs that assist immigrant children to achieve in U.S. schools and that provide services like parenting skills to their families as well as access to comprehensive community services, including health care, child care, job training and transportation. Senator Coverdell and I have both seen first hand the benefits of one community's program that brings togther teachers, community leaders and businesses in an innovative partnership to aid their linguistically and culturally diverse population. It is the Georgia Project and its mission is to assist immigrant children from Mexico achieve to higher standards in Dalton, Georgia's public schools. In recent years, the carpet and poultry industries in Dalton and surrounding Whitfield County experienced the need for a larger workforce. The city's visionary leaders encouraged Mexican immigrants to settle into their community to fill that need. The challenge has been in Dalton's public school system where Hispanic enrollment went from being just 4 percent ten years ago to over 47 percent today. To deal with this sizable increase, Dalton and Whitfield County public school administrators and business leaders formed a public- private consortium. This consortium, known as The Georgia Project, initiated a teacher exchange program in 1996 with the University of Monterrey in Mexico. Today, seventeen Mexican teachers are helping to bridge the language and culture gap by serving as instructors, counselors and role models and providing Spanish language training to English-speaking students. In addition, Dalton Public School teachers spend a month in Monterrey, Mexico, each year learning first hand the culture, language and customs of the Mexican students they serve. There are other programs across the United States that address similar challenges experienced by the City of Dalton and Whitfield County. One such example is the Lao Family Project. This is a community-based refugee assistance organization that provides a wide range of parent-student services to Hmong and Vietnamese refugees in St. Paul, Minnesota in an effort to help parents become economically self-sufficient and their children succeed in school. The Lao Family Project's staff are bilingual/bicultural paraprofessionals who provide services that include adult English as a second language instruction and preschool literacy activities for children. In the rural communities of Healdsburg and Windsor, California, the Even Start program provides a variety of instructional and support services to low-income, recently arrived Mexican immigrant families and their preschool and elementary school children. The program focuses on increasing family involvement in their children's education, helping parents and children with their literacy skills, and offering English as a second language course. Many of the instructional activities for the parent's classes are coordinated with the classroom teachers to ensure consistency with what is being taught to both the parent and their children. One focus of these classes is to communicate what the children are learning in their regular classes so that parents can help their children at home. The Exemplary Multicultural Practices in Rural Education Program, or EMPIRE, operates in the Yakima region of rural Central Washington State, an area with a diverse mix of ethnic groups, including Caucasians, Hispanics, Native Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans. The program promotes positive race relations and an appreciation for ethnic and cultural differences. It encourages schools to develop learning environments where children of all backgrounds can be successful in school and the community. With support from EMPIRE's board of advisors, each school designs and carries out its own projects based on local resources and needs. Schools in which EMPIRE is active plan a wide variety of programs and activities with emphasis on staff development, student awareness, parent involvement and improvement of curriculum and instruction. The Immigrants to New Americans Act is endorsed by the National Association for Bilingual Education, The National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the India Abroad Center for Political Awareness, and the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium. I would like to close with the words of Education Secretary Richard Riley: ``Regardless of the cultural diversity of our nation's students, there is one unifying factor in their lives, education, the primary and shared source of hope, opportunity and success. It is our duty as a nation to ensure that every ethnically diverse community has the opportunity to achieve a quality education and the success that accompanies it--just as we have done for generations of Americans before them.'' Our nation's communities are being transformed by the diverse culture of their citizens. Successfully addressing this change will require leadership, creative thinking and an eagerness to encourage and promote the promise that these new challenges bring. By doing so, we as a nation will better serve all our children--the best guarantee we have of ensuring America's strength, well into the 21st century and beyond. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print their letters of support in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, there are an estimated 2.3 million foreign-born school children living in the U.S. today and more are arriving daily. This is placing increasing demands on our nation's schools and community organizations to help these newly arrived children and their families with becoming successful in America's schools and communities. These children began arriving here in large numbers in the 1990s in a wave of immigration that is rivaling the first and second waves of German, Irish, Polish and Scandinavian immigrants who arrived here in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Like those who have preceded them, our nation's newest immigrants have a strong desire to succeed in their new found homeland. Our challenge is to provide them with the support and services they need to achieve to high standards in our schools--and beyond--and in so doing we will all be the beneficiaries. The wave of immigrants settling into communities all across America is resulting in a significant increase in children with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds enrolling in our schools. For example, the Waterloo, Iowa school system is being challenged to teach 400 Bosnian refugee children who came here without knowing our language, culture or customs. Schools in Wausau, Wisconsin are filled with Asian children wanting to achieve success in the United States. In Dalton, Georgia, 47% of the student population in the public schools are Mexican children eager to participate in their new schools and community. In Turner, Maine, the school-aged children of hundreds of recently arrived Mexican immigrant families are pouring into this rural town's schools. As these examples illustrate, the foreign-born, school-aged children living in our nation today constitute an increasingly significant portion of the population, not just in communities accustomed to large immigrant populations like New York, Los Angeles and Miami, but also non-traditional immigrant communities like Gainesville, Georgia and Fremont County, Idaho. According to recently released estimates, this trend will continue. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the recently arrived immigrant and refugee populations living here today will account for 75% of the total U.S. population growth over the next 50 years. U.S. schools from Florida to Washington State are being increasingly challenged by these changing demographics. As Secretary of Education Richard Riley recently said, ``dealing with this kind of change requires creative thinking and an eagerness to adopt and to incorporate cultural and linguistic differences into the learning process.'' We need to make sure that these children are served appropriately-- and that their families are as well. Studies have shown that where quality educational programs are joined with community-based services, immigrants have an increased opportunity to become an integral part of their community and their children are better prepared to achieve success in school. The recent influx of immigrants into U.S. communities calls for innovative and comprehensive solutions. Today, I am joined by my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Senator Paul Coverdell, in introducing the Immigrants to New Americans Act. This legislation would establish a competitive grant program within the Department of Education to assist these school systems and communities that are experiencing a high number of immigrant families. Specifically, this new grant program would provide funding to partnerships of local school districts and community-based organizations for the development of model programs that assist immigrant children to achieve in U.S. schools and that provide services like parenting skills to their families as well as access to comprehensive community services, including health care, child care, job training and transportation. Senator Coverdell and I have both seen first hand the benefits of one community's program that brings togther teachers, community leaders and businesses in an innovative partnership to aid their linguistically and culturally diverse population. It is the Georgia Project and its mission is to assist immigrant children from Mexico achieve to higher standards in Dalton, Georgia's public schools. In recent years, the carpet and poultry industries in Dalton and surrounding Whitfield County experienced the need for a larger workforce. The city's visionary leaders encouraged Mexican immigrants to settle into their community to fill that need. The challenge has been in Dalton's public school system where Hispanic enrollment went from being just 4 percent ten years ago to over 47 percent today. To deal with this sizable increase, Dalton and Whitfield County public school administrators and business leaders formed a public- private consortium. This consortium, known as The Georgia Project, initiated a teacher exchange program in 1996 with the University of Monterrey in Mexico. Today, seventeen Mexican teachers are helping to bridge the language and culture gap by serving as instructors, counselors and role models and providing Spanish language training to English-speaking students. In addition, Dalton Public School teachers spend a month in Monterrey, Mexico, each year learning first hand the culture, language and customs of the Mexican students they serve. There are other programs across the United States that address similar challenges experienced by the City of Dalton and Whitfield County. One such example is the Lao Family Project. This is a community-based refugee assistance organization that provides a wide range of parent-student services to Hmong and Vietnamese refugees in St. Paul, Minnesota in an effort to help parents become economically self-sufficient and their children succeed in school. The Lao Family Project's staff are bilingual/bicultural paraprofessionals who provide services that include adult English as a second language instruction and preschool literacy activities for children. In the rural communities of Healdsburg and Windsor, California, the Even Start program provides a variety of instructional and support services to low-income, recently arrived Mexican immigrant families and their preschool and elementary school children. The program focuses on increasing family involvement in their children's education, helping parents and children with their literacy skills, and offering English as a second language course. Many of the instructional activities for the parent's classes are coordinated with the classroom teachers to ensure consistency with what is being taught to both the parent and their children. One focus of these classes is to communicate what the children are learning in their regular classes so that parents can help their children at home. The Exemplary Multicultural Practices in Rural Education Program, or EMPIRE, operates in the Yakima region of rural Central Washington State, an area with a diverse mix of ethnic groups, including Caucasians, Hispanics, Native Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans. The program promotes positive race relations and an appreciation for ethnic and cultural differences. It encourages schools to develop learning environments where children of all backgrounds can be successful in school and the community. With support from EMPIRE's board of advisors, each school designs and carries out its own projects based on local resources and needs. Schools in which EMPIRE is active plan a wide variety of programs and activities with emphasis on staff development, student awareness, parent involvement and improvement of curriculum and instruction. The Immigrants to New Americans Act is endorsed by the National Association for Bilingual Education, The National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the India Abroad Center for Political Awareness, and the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium. I would like to close with the words of Education Secretary Richard Riley: ``Regardless of the cultural diversity of our nation's students, there is one unifying factor in their lives, education, the primary and shared source of hope, opportunity and success. It is our duty as a nation to ensure that every ethnically diverse community has the opportunity to achieve a quality education and the success that accompanies it--just as we have done for generations of Americans before them.'' Our nation's communities are being transformed by the diverse culture of their citizens. Successfully addressing this change will require leadership, creative thinking and an eagerness to encourage and promote the promise that these new challenges bring. By doing so, we as a nation will better serve all our children--the best guarantee we have of ensuring America's strength, well into the 21st century and beyond. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print their letters of support in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am very honored to host Reverend Don Harp of Atlanta as the guest Chaplain in the Senate today. Reverend Harp was born in Fayette County, GA, and graduated from Fayette County High School. He attended Young Harris Junior College before receiving his BA degree from Huntingdon College in Montgomery, AL. Reverend Harp then went on to earn his masters degree in divinity from Emory University in Atlanta, and his doctorate from McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago. He has served on the Carrollton, Georgia City Council, Mayor Bill Campbell's Atlanta Advisory Committee, and the President's Advisory Council of Oglethorpe University. He has received the Mary Mildred Sullivan Award from Brenau College in Gainesville, GA, and was a delegate to both the General and Southeastern Conferences of the United Methodist Church. Reverend Harp has been a good friend and pillar of support for me over the years. As Tagore once said, ``Faith is the bird that feels the light and sings when the dawn is still dark.'' Reverend Harp taught me that faith in God sometimes requires strength, but God gives back that strength many times over. I am proud to welcome my distinguished friend to the United States Senate today.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution recognizing the 20th century as the ``Century of Women in the United States.'' I would like to thank Georgia State Representative Hinson Mosley for introducing a similar resolution in the Georgia General Assembly recognizing the tremendous accomplishments of women in Georgia and in the United States during the 20th century and for sharing his resolution with me. Representative Mosley's exceptional resolution passed the Georgia House of Representatives by a vote of 120-0 and the Georgia Senate on a vote of 51 to 0. Like Representative Mosley's resolution, my proposal recognizes that as we enter the 21st century, it is essential that we note the vast opportunities available to today's women that were not available to women entering the 20th century. Women made unprecedented strides in civil rights, careers, religion, education and military service. Although we must keep in mind the challenges that women in our society continue to face and the work that women and men must yet accomplish, let us celebrate the victories won by women in the past 100 years. I, along with Senators Boxer, Bond, Baucus, Bryan, Durbin, Landrieu, Mikulski, Murray, Lincoln, Kerry, Jeffords, Feinstein, Robb and Cochran urge my colleagues to support this resolution and recognize the 20th century as the ``Century of Women in the United States.''

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I cannot express strongly enough what an honor it is to be on the floor of the Senate and listen to my distinguished colleague talk about the need for a meaningful dialog on a subject that often gets put down at the bottom of the list when it comes to public issues. I am reminded of a line from one of Wellington's troops after the battle at Waterloo, after the battle was won, that in time of war, and not before, God of the soldier, men adore; but in time of peace, with all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted. Unfortunately, I think my dear colleague, Senator Pat Roberts, and I have sensed that the vital interests of the United States, the interests that cause us to go to war, the interests that compel us to fight for our vital national interests, these basic fundamental principles have been lost in the shuffle. Somehow they have been slighted and somehow the issue of foreign policy and defense has been shoved to the background. We have lost sight of the basis of who we are and what we are about as we go into the 21st century, which is why we have tried through this dialog to call attention to this issue. We have some wonderful colleagues joining in our dialog, including my fellow Vietnam veteran, Senator Kerrey, and Senator Hagel, as well as Senator Hutchinson and Senator Kyl. For a few weeks, I wondered whether I was a little bit out of touch and wondered whether or not this dialog on American foreign policy and global reach was something that was out of touch with what was going on in the world. I went back home the last few days and in my own hometown paper in Atlanta I came across an article, a New York Times piece, Anti-Americanism Growing Across Europe. Hello. Good morning. I realized that what I was seeing in a daily newspaper was what I was attempting to engage here in terms of a perspective on our global reach, a sense that we were overcommitted in the world and yet underfunded, a sense of mismatch between our ends and our means to achieve those ends. I realized we really were on target. In my State, we say that even a blind hog can root up an acorn every now and then. I think my distinguished colleague and I from Kansas have rooted up an acorn. We are on to something. That is a reason why I am strengthened in pursuing this dialog, and I am delighted we will have additional Senators entering into this dialog because unless we ourselves begin to define who we are as a nation, what we want out of our role as a nation, and where we want to go and how we exercise our power, unless we decide it, it will occur by happenstance. We will move from crisis to crisis. We will not have a plan and we will end up in places in the world where we know not of what we speak. One of the quotes I have come across, one of the lines that continues to reinforce my view of my own concern and caution about America's expanded role in the world, is from our first dialog back in February when Owen Harries, editor of the National Interests, summed up his views on the appropriate approach for the United States in today's world with the following comments: I advocate restraint because every dominant power in the last four centuries that has not practiced it, that has been excessively intrusive and demanding, has ultimately been confronted by a hostile coalition of other powers. Americans may believe that their country, being exceptional, need have no worries in this respect. I do not agree. It is not what Americans think of the United States but what others think of it that will decide the matter. Anti-Americanism is growing across Europe. The distinguished Senator from Kansas has accumulated, in a shocking way, some headlines from 40 or 50 newspapers among our allies and our friends, questioning our role, particularly in the Balkans, but questioning our exercise of power, as it were. The foreign perspective is not one to which we generally devote much attention in the Congress, certainly after the cold war is over, but our attention to foreign affairs has been slight. We do not really devote much attention to foreign affairs and consideration of our foreign policy options unless we are threatened. I am delighted Senator Roberts is sitting as the chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee in the Armed Services Committee. He has his eye on the ball, certainly an emerging ball in terms of threats to our country. I think the overall threat is that we do not realize one could occur now that the cold war is over. I think, also, one of the emerging threats, from my point of view, is that we will overcommit and overexpand and overreact and, instead of being only a superpower working with others and sharing power, we will wind up imposing--by default, almost, in the power vacuums around the world--a pax Americana that cannot be sustained by the will of the people in this country--again, a mismatch between means and ends. But it is important, as Mr. Harries suggests, to focus on this issue. I have spent some time, over recent months, as has the distinguished Senator from Kansas, reviewing what foreign opinion makers and leaders are saying about the United States. While we may think, as I do, that our country has not made a clear choice about our global role, the view from abroad is very different. Many people think we have chosen the path we are now on. A Ukrainian commentator, in the Kiev newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli, wrote in April of last year: Currently, two opinions are possible in the world-- the U.S. opinion and the wrong opinion. . . . He said the U.S. . . . has announced its readiness to act as it thinks best, should U.S. interests require this, despite the United Nations. And let those whose interests are violated think about it and draw conclusions. This is the current world order or world disorder. That, from Kiev. The influential Times of India editorialized in July of last year: New Delhi should not lose sight of the kind of global order the U.S. is fashioning. NATO's policies towards Yugoslavia and the U.S.-led military alliance's new Strategic Concept are based on the degradation of international law and a more muscular approach to intervention. Such a trend is certainly not in India's interest. So India has concluded: Why don't we go it alone? Why don't we develop ourselves as a nuclear power? The President of Brazil was quoted on April 22 of last year in an interview with a Sao Paulo newspaper as to his views about the United States: While President Cardoso was generally sympathetic to the United States and supportive of good bilateral relations between our two countries, the President of Brazil nonetheless expressed certain misgivings about our approach to international relations. He said: The United States currently constitutes the only large center of political, economic, technologic, and even cultural power. This country has everything to exert its domain on the rest of the world, but it must share it. There must be rules, even for the stronger ones. When the strongest one makes decisions without listening, everything becomes a bit more difficult. In this European war, NATO made the decision, but who legalized it? That's the main problem. I am convinced more than ever that we need a new political order in the world. I think I am correct that Jack Kennedy once indicated we would seek a world where the strong are just and the weak preserved. Because we are strong now, I think we have to have an inordinate sense of being just. But these are all voices from countries that have not traditionally been close to the United States. Let's look, then, at some of our NATO allies, nations with whom we presumably share the closest relationships and common interests. In a commentary from February of last year in Berlin's Die Tageszeitung, a German writer observes: There is a growing number of people with more and more prominent protagonists who are at odds with American supremacy and who are inclined to see the action of the State Department as a policy of interests. And Washington is offering no reason to deny the justification of these reservations. As unilateral as possible and as multilateral as necessary--that's the explicit maxim under which U.S. President Bill Clinton has pursued his foreign and defense policies in the last 2 years. From Italy, an Italian general expressed the following view in the December 1999 edition of the Italian geopolitical quarterly LiMes: The condition all the NATO countries as a whole find themselves in is closer to the condition of vassalage with respect to the United States than it is to the condition of alliance. NATO is not able to influence the policy of the United States because its existence in effect depends on it. No member countries are able to resist the American pressures because their own resources are officially at the disposal of everybody and not just the United States. What evidence do our foreign friends cite for such concerns? The influential left-of-center Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad wrote last October: The U.S. Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty does not just represent a heavy defeat for President Clinton. Far more important are the consequences for world order of treaties designed to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and hence boost world security. . . . According to this newspaper in the Netherlands: Unfortunately, the decision fits in with a growing tendency on the part of U.S. foreign policy to place greater emphasis on the United States' own room for maneuver and less on international cooperation and traditional idealism. In a similar vein, the Times of London carried a commentary last November. It said: The real fear is of an American retreat, not to isolationism, but to unilateralism, exacerbated at present by the post-impeachment weakness of President Clinton and his standoff with the Republican Congress. That's shown by the Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the stalling of free trade initiatives, and the refusal to pay arrears to the United Nations. The U.S. is seen as wayward and inward-looking. While there are some exceptions, the majority of statements I looked at expressed the view the United States has indeed made the conscious decision to use our current position of predominance to pursue unilateralist foreign and national security policy. When I first came to Washington 30-some-odd years ago as a young intern, I found out there could not be a conspiracy here. We are not that well organized. There cannot be a unilateralist conspiracy in the world by the United States--we are not that well organized. What has evolved is a sense in which we have moved from crisis to crisis and looked at power vacuums and said, ``We need to be there.'' I like the notion that General Shelton has about the use of American military power. He says: We've got a great hammer, but not every problem in the world is a nail. I do like President Kennedy's insight, too, that there is not necessarily an American solution for every problem in the world. Yet we act as if there is. If one looks at the outcomes of recent American foreign policy debates, it is easy to see how those viewing us from a distance might come to such a conclusion. Since I have come to the Senate, the U.S. Government through the combined efforts of the executive and the legislative branches--what are, relatively speaking, nondiscussions, I might add--has made the following decisions: Withheld support from the international landmines treaty; rejected jurisdiction by the new international criminal court; been slow to pay off long overdue arrears to the United Nations; rejected the current applicability of international emissions standards set at Kyoto; rejected fast-track international trade negotiating authority for the President; rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, apparently committed to a national missile defense system which will violate the ABM Treaty; and established a principle of ``humanitarian intervention'' where national sovereignty can be violated without United Nations sanction under certain circumstances. My purpose here is not to argue for or against any of these individual positions; for, indeed, I have supported some of them as, indeed, have virtually every Member of the Congress and the administration. But, as far as I know, not one of us has supported them all. If the Republican congressional majority has been largely responsible for the actions rejecting multilateral commitments and entanglements in the national security sphere, it is my party, the Democrats, who has taken the lead in opposing international trade obligations, and the Democratic administration which has espoused the cause of humanitarian interventions in violation of national sovereignty. In short, the sum total of our actions has been far more unilateral than any of us would have intended or carved out for ourselves. This is relatively incoherent, and I can see why other nations might view us as more organized than we are. It is also very damaging to our national interest and is one of the major motives for our efforts to promote this development of a bipartisan consensus through these floor debates. We have to get back to some basic understanding of who we are and what we are doing in the world. As was discussed in our first dialog, there are certainly some leading voices among America's foreign policy thinkers who do, indeed, advocate a unilateralist course for America in the post-cold-war era, but not even that group actually believes we have actually embarked upon that course. Very few believe we are willing to invest sufficient resources today to even pursue the somewhat less demanding multilateralist approach which seems to have more support among our foreign policy establishment. The direct danger to America from this mismatch between means and ends, between our commitments and our forces, between our aspirations and our willingness to pay to achieve them is one of the central concerns for our discussion today and one I will turn to later. However, I want to conclude these opening remarks with an observation about indirect consequences of this situation with respect to the credibility of American foreign policy abroad. The chief of the research department of the Japanese Defense Agency's National Institute for Defense Studies wrote in March of last year: (O)pinion surveys in the United States show that people are inclined to think that the United States should bear as little burdens as possible even though the country should remain the leader in the world. This thinking that the United States should be the world's leader but should not bear too much financial burden may be contradictory in context, but is popular among Americans. This serves as a warning to the international community that the United States might get at first involved in some international operations but run away later in the middle of the operations, leaving things unfinished. Because we do not have a comprehensive strategy, because we do not talk to each other enough, because we do not have a proper dialog, particularly in this body, and because we move from crisis to crisis in our foreign policy and come up with different solutions for different situations without a clear understanding of who we are and where we are going, we are sending a mixed message to even our best friends. To me, the case is clear: If we are to avoid misunderstandings at home and abroad, if we are to prevent unwanted and unintended conclusions and consequences, as the distinguished Senator from Kansas mentioned, about our objectives, we have to pull together and forge a coherent, bipartisan consensus to guide our country in the uncertain waters of the 21st century. Those who came before us and built this country into the grand land it is today, and those who will inherit it from us in the years ahead deserve no less. I am honored to yield to the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I want to add some additional comments, if that is all right with my distinguished colleague. Earlier, I spoke about the mismatch between the goals of American foreign policy and the means we employ in achieving them. Whether one espouses a unilateralist or multilateralist approach, or something in between, most of those with a strong interest in American foreign policy have major goals for that policy, whether in preventing the emergence of global rivals or in promoting the spread of democracy, whether in halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction or in protecting human rights. Yet today we devote a little over 1 percent of the Federal budget for international affairs, compared to over 5 percent in 1962 in the middle of the cold war. Of particular concern to me as a member of the Armed Services Committee, since the 1980s we have gone from providing roughly 25 percent of the budget for national defense to 18 percent today. We have reduced the active-duty armed forces by over one-third but have increased overseas deployments by more than 300 percent. I have often said we have, as a country, both feet firmly planted on a banana peel. We are going in opposite directions. That cannot last. We have a mismatch between our commitments and our willingness to live up to those commitments. We are sending a mixed message abroad. What is the result of all of this? Newspapers reported that last November, for the first time in a number of years, the U.S. Army rated 2 of its 10 divisions as unprepared for war. Why were they unprepared for war? Because they were bogged down in the Balkans. That was never part of the deal going into the Balkans, that an entire U.S. Army division would be there for an indefinite period of time. No wonder these other two divisions were unprepared for war because they had elements in the Balkans doing something else--not fighting a war, but peacekeeping missions. The services continue to struggle in meeting both retention and recruiting goals, and the service members and their families with whom I meet and who are on the front lines in carrying out the policies decided in Washington are showing the visible strains of this mismatch between our commitments and our resources. They deserve better from us. I hope other Senators had an opportunity to watch Senator Roberts' discussion of our national interests during our February 24 dialog. If not, I commend my colleagues' attention to those remarks as printed in the Congressional Record of that date. In brief, he stated the opinion, which I share, that in the post- cold-war world, our country has had a hard time in prioritizing our national interests, leading to confusion and inconsistency. He went on to cite the July 1996 report by the Commission on America's National Interests, of which he was a member, along with our colleagues Senators John McCain and Bob Graham and my distinguished predecessor, Sam Nunn. Of particular relevance to our topic today of defining and defending our national interests, the Commission found: For the decades ahead, the only sound foundation for a coherent, sustainable American foreign policy is a clear public sense of American national interests. Only a national- interest-based foreign policy will provide priorities for American engagement in the world. Only a foreign policy grounded in American national interests will allow America's leaders to explain persuasively how and why specific expenditures of American treasure or blood deserve support from America's citizens. As my colleagues will note from the charts I have, the Commission went on to divide our national interests into four categories. They defined ``vital interests'' as those: Strictly necessary to safeguard and enhance the well-being of Americans in a free and secure nation. And as Senator Roberts has discussed, and you can see on the chart, they found only five items which reached that high standard. In addition to attempting to identify our national interests, the commission also addressed the key issue of what we should be prepared to do to defend those interests: For ``vital'' national interests, the United States should be prepared to commit itself to fight, even if it has to do so unilaterally and without the assistance of allies. But there is a lower priority than that. Next in priority come ``extremely important interests''--these are not vital; but they are extremely important--defined as those which: . . . would severely prejudice but not strictly imperil the ability of the U.S. Government to safeguard and enhance the well-being of Americans in a free and secure nation-- And for which: the United States should be prepared to commit forces to meet threats and to lead a coalition of forces, but only in conjunction with a coalition or allies whose vital interests are threatened. Next, third, we have another set of interests. These are called ``just important interests.'' They are not vital, not necessary. These are important, which would have major negative consequences: The United States should be prepared to participate militarily, on a case-by-case basis, but only if the costs are low or others carry the lion's share of the burden. Finally, last, comes the most numerous but lowest priority category of ``less important or secondary interests,'' which: Are intrinsically desirable but that have no major effect on the ability of the U.S. government to safeguard and enhance the well-being of Americans in a free and secure nation. My colleagues in the Senate, this is exactly the kind of exercise--of defining and differentiating our national interests, and of gauging the proper kind and level of response for protecting such interests--that we need to be engaging in if we are to bring coherence and effectiveness to our post-cold war foreign and national security policy. Everything is not the most important thing to do. Everything is not necessarily in America's vital interest to do. It is, in my judgment, what we must do in considering our policies, particularly toward the Balkans and now with a plan in Colombia to involve ourselves in a war against narcotraffickers in Colombia. We need to do several things. We need to ask ourselves: How vital are our interests in those areas? And what are we willing to pay to protect those interests? What about the role of other countries, who, for reasons of history and geography, may have even greater national interests at stake? Senator Roberts pointed out back in February the similarities between the Commission on America's National Interests list of ``vital'' interests and related compilations by other groups and individuals. I believe, for example, that the commission's definitions of ``vital'' and ``extremely important'' national interests are quite compatible with the relevant portions of the January 2000 White House ``National Security Strategy for a New Century.'' The conflicts will lie in applying these general principles to specific cases. That is what Senator Roberts and I intend to do with the remaining sessions of these global role dialogs, including such applications as the role of our alliances and the decision on when and how to intervene militarily. However, from my perspective, though we may have some implicit common ground as to our most important national interests and what we should be prepared to do in defending them, in the real world where actions must count for more than words and where capabilities will inevitably be given greater weight than intentions, the picture we too often give to the world--of unilateralist means and narrowly self-interested ends--and to our own citizens--of seemingly limitless aspirations but quite limited resources we are willing to expend in achieving them--is surely not what we should be doing. Samuel P. Huntington writes in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs: Neither the Clinton administration nor Congress nor the public is willing to pay the costs and accept the risks of unilateral global leadership. Some advocates of American global leadership argue for increasing defense expenditures by 50 percent, but that is a nonstarter. The American public clearly sees no need to expend effort and resources to achieve American hegemony. In one 1997 poll, only 13 percent said they preferred a preeminent role for the United States in world affairs, while 74 percent said they wanted the United States to share power with other countries. Other polls have produced similar results. Public disinterest in international affairs is pervasive, abetted by the drastically shrinking media coverage of foreign events. Majorities of 55 to 66 percent of the public say that what happens in western Europe, Asia, Mexico, and Canada has little or no impact on their lives. However much foreign policy elites may ignore or deplore it, the United States lacks the domestic political base to create a unipolar world. American leaders repeatedly make threats, promise action, and fail to deliver. The result is a foreign policy of ``rhetoric and retreat'' and a growing reputation as a ``hollow hegemon.'' One of my favorite authors on war and theorists on war, Clausewitz, put it this way: Since in war too small an effort can result not just in failure but in positive harm, each side is driven to outdo the other, which sets up an interaction. Such an interaction could lead to a maximum effort if a maximum effort could be defined. But in that case, all proportion between action and political demands would be lost: means would cease to be commensurate with ends, and in most cases a policy of maximum exertion would fail because of the domestic problems it would raise. I think we are maximally committed around the world. I think we have to review these commitments because I am not quite sure we have the domestic will to follow through on them or the budgets to take care of them. We do not want to risk failure. Once again, I thank all of the Senators who have joined in today's discussion. I have benefitted from their comments, and encourage all of our colleagues of whatever party and of whatever views on the proper U.S. global role to join in this effort to bring greater clarity and greater consensus to our national security policies through these dialogs. Our next session will be on the role of multilateral organizations, including NATO and the United Nations, and is scheduled to occur just after the Easter break. During the Easter break I intend to go visit our allies and friends in NATO, in Belgium, to go to Aviano to get a background briefing on how the air war in the Balkans was conducted, to go on to Macedonia and into Kosovo itself to see our forces there. That would be over the Easter break. I will go back through London to get a briefing from our closest ally, our British friends. I hope to come back to the Senate in a few weeks with a more insightful view of what we should do, particularly in that part of the world, regarding our responsibilities. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I understand Senate Resolution 286 expressing the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations should hold hearings and the Senate should act on the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), introduced earlier today by Senator Boxer and 32 cosponsors, is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my military fellow, Tricia Heller, be granted access to the floor at this time.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Cleland pertaining to the introduction of S. 2402 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before you today to introduce legislation that addresses the educational needs of our men and women in uniform and their families. I call this measure the HOPE Act of 2000: HOPE, Helping Our Professionals Educationally--that is, our military professionals. The great Stephen Ambrose, the marvelous historian of World War II, the author of ``D-Day'' and other books, has said the GI bill is the single best piece of legislation ever passed by the Federal Government. Last year, Time magazine named the American GI as the Person of the Century--how appropriate. That alone is a powerful statement about the high 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 one in modern memory. The American GI has fought in the trenches during the first World War, the beaches at Normandy, in the hills of Korea, in the jungles of Vietnam, in the deserts of the Persian Gulf, and most recently in the valleys of the Balkans. During that period, the face of our military and the people who fight our wars has changed dramatically. The traditional image of the single, mostly male, drafted, and ``disposable'' soldier is now 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 meant a beer in the barracks and a 3-day pass. Now, we know we have to recruit a soldier but retain a family. We have won the cold war. This victory has further changed the world and our military. The new world order has given way to a new world disorder. United States is responding to crises around the globe-- whether it be strategic bombing or humanitarian assistance--and our military is often seen as our most effective response and our best ambassadors. 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 continuous peacetime economic growth in our history. This economic expansion has been a boon for our country. However, there has been a downside to this growing economy insofar as our Armed Forces are concerned. With the enticement of quick prosperity in the civilian sector it is more difficult than ever to recruit and retain our highly skilled forces. In fiscal year 1999, the Army missed it recruiting goals by 6291 recruits, while the Air Force missed its goal by 1,732 recruits. Pilot retention problems persist for all services; for fiscal year 1999 the Air Force ended up 1,200 pilots short and the Navy ended 500 pilots short. We have other problems. The Army is having problems retaining captains, while the Navy faces manning challenges for surface warfare officers and special warfare officers. It is estimated that $6 million is spent to train a pilot. We as a nation cannot afford to continually train our people, only to lose them to the private sector. It is unarguably far better to retain than retrain. There is hope that we are now beginning to address these challenges. Last year was a momentous one for our military personnel. The Senate passed legislation that significantly enhances the quality of life for our military personnel. I am the Ranking Democrat on the Armed Service, Committee. The Senate, with my vote and support, 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 on my visits to the military bases in Georgia and around the world, we know that money alone is not enough. One of the things I would like to do is focus on education as a wonderful addition to the positive incentives we offer people to come into the military and stay in the military. Education, as a matter of fact, is the No. 1 reason service members come into the military. Unfortunately it is also the No. 1 reason why its members are leaving. We have to restructure our educational program in the military. We have to have a new GI bill. We have to provide hope to our military people, hope that the military can become the greatest university they will ever encounter. Last year the Senate began to address this issue by supporting improved education benefits for military members and their families but we encountered some concerns in the House. Since last year, we have gone back and studied this issue further. In reviewing the current Montgomery GI bill--named after the wonderful Representative from Mississippi, Congressman Sonny Montgomery--we found several disincentives and conflicts among the education benefits offered by the services. These conflicts make the GI bill, which is actually an earned benefit, less attractive than it could be. My legislation 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 legislation would give the Service Secretaries the ability to authorize a service member to transfer his or her basic MGIB benefits, educationally, 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 proposed change will give them an opportunity to stay in the service and still provide an education for their spouses and children. It will give the Service Secretaries a very powerful retention tool by allowing them to authorize transfer of basic GI bill benefits, that are earned through the service of the service man or woman, 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 retain valuable service members. 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 family considerations play a crucial role in the decision of a member to continue their military career. I found in discussions with military families and service members that at the 8- to 10- to 12-year mark when young service members are beginning to make a choice about whether to stay in the military, that choice is driven not so much by their own choice to serve the country-- obviously they want to serve the country and stay in the military--that choice is more and more driven by family needs, whether their spouse is employed or whether their spouse would like to gain an extra degree or whether they need to create a college fund for their kids. Reality dictates that we must address the needs of the family in order to retain our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. My legislation would also give the Secretaries the authority to authorize the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program, known as VEAP. Those VEAP participants and those active duty personnel who did not enroll in Montgomery GI bill to participate in the current GI bill program. The VEAP participants would contribute $1,200, and those who did not enroll in the Montgomery GI bill would contribute $1,500. The services would pay any additional costs of the benefits of this measure. Another enhancement made by my proposal to the current GI bill extends the period in which the members of Reserve Components can utilize the program. I was shocked to find out that currently, Reserve members lose their education benefits when they leave the service or after 10 years of service. Amazing, they have no benefits when they leave service. My legislation will permit them to use the benefits up to 5 years after their separation from the military. This will encourage them to stay in the Reserves for a full career. It is obvious we are calling upon our reservists and our guards men and women more and more to fulfill our commitments around the globe. This will, I think, fulfill this Nation's commitment, certainly to our reservists, for an improvement in their educational opportunities. Other provisions of this legislation would allow the Service Secretaries to pay 100 percent tuition assistance or enable service members to use the GI bill to cover any unpaid tuition and expenses when the services do not pay 100 percent of tuition. This will allow a service member an additional incentive to use the GI bill in service. Education begets education. I believe this is a necessary next step for improving education benefits for our military members and their families. We have to offer them credible choices. If we offer them such options and treat the members and their families properly, we will show them our respect for their service and dedication, which they expect. Maybe then we can turn around our current sad retention statistics. This GI bill is an important retention tool for the services. We must continue to focus our resources on retaining our personnel based on their actual life needs, particularly their need for an educational opportunity. This bill gives them hope.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before you today to introduce legislation that addresses the educational needs of our men and women in uniform and their families. I call this measure the HOPE Act of 2000: HOPE, Helping Our Professionals Educationally--that is, our military professionals. The great Stephen Ambrose, the marvelous historian of World War II, the author of ``D-Day'' and other books, has said the GI bill is the single best piece of legislation ever passed by the Federal Government. Last year, Time magazine named the American GI as the Person of the Century--how appropriate. That alone is a powerful statement about the high 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 one in modern memory. The American GI has fought in the trenches during the first World War, the beaches at Normandy, in the hills of Korea, in the jungles of Vietnam, in the deserts of the Persian Gulf, and most recently in the valleys of the Balkans. During that period, the face of our military and the people who fight our wars has changed dramatically. The traditional image of the single, mostly male, drafted, and ``disposable'' soldier is now 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 meant a beer in the barracks and a 3-day pass. Now, we know we have to recruit a soldier but retain a family. We have won the cold war. This victory has further changed the world and our military. The new world order has given way to a new world disorder. United States is responding to crises around the globe-- whether it be strategic bombing or humanitarian assistance--and our military is often seen as our most effective response and our best ambassadors. 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 continuous peacetime economic growth in our history. This economic expansion has been a boon for our country. However, there has been a downside to this growing economy insofar as our Armed Forces are concerned. With the enticement of quick prosperity in the civilian sector it is more difficult than ever to recruit and retain our highly skilled forces. In fiscal year 1999, the Army missed it recruiting goals by 6291 recruits, while the Air Force missed its goal by 1,732 recruits. Pilot retention problems persist for all services; for fiscal year 1999 the Air Force ended up 1,200 pilots short and the Navy ended 500 pilots short. We have other problems. The Army is having problems retaining captains, while the Navy faces manning challenges for surface warfare officers and special warfare officers. It is estimated that $6 million is spent to train a pilot. We as a nation cannot afford to continually train our people, only to lose them to the private sector. It is unarguably far better to retain than retrain. There is hope that we are now beginning to address these challenges. Last year was a momentous one for our military personnel. The Senate passed legislation that significantly enhances the quality of life for our military personnel. I am the Ranking Democrat on the Armed Service, Committee. The Senate, with my vote and support, 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 on my visits to the military bases in Georgia and around the world, we know that money alone is not enough. One of the things I would like to do is focus on education as a wonderful addition to the positive incentives we offer people to come into the military and stay in the military. Education, as a matter of fact, is the No. 1 reason service members come into the military. Unfortunately it is also the No. 1 reason why its members are leaving. We have to restructure our educational program in the military. We have to have a new GI bill. We have to provide hope to our military people, hope that the military can become the greatest university they will ever encounter. Last year the Senate began to address this issue by supporting improved education benefits for military members and their families but we encountered some concerns in the House. Since last year, we have gone back and studied this issue further. In reviewing the current Montgomery GI bill--named after the wonderful Representative from Mississippi, Congressman Sonny Montgomery--we found several disincentives and conflicts among the education benefits offered by the services. These conflicts make the GI bill, which is actually an earned benefit, less attractive than it could be. My legislation 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 legislation would give the Service Secretaries the ability to authorize a service member to transfer his or her basic MGIB benefits, educationally, 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 proposed change will give them an opportunity to stay in the service and still provide an education for their spouses and children. It will give the Service Secretaries a very powerful retention tool by allowing them to authorize transfer of basic GI bill benefits, that are earned through the service of the service man or woman, 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 retain valuable service members. 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 family considerations play a crucial role in the decision of a member to continue their military career. I found in discussions with military families and service members that at the 8- to 10- to 12-year mark when young service members are beginning to make a choice about whether to stay in the military, that choice is driven not so much by their own choice to serve the country-- obviously they want to serve the country and stay in the military--that choice is more and more driven by family needs, whether their spouse is employed or whether their spouse would like to gain an extra degree or whether they need to create a college fund for their kids. Reality dictates that we must address the needs of the family in order to retain our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. My legislation would also give the Secretaries the authority to authorize the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program, known as VEAP. Those VEAP participants and those active duty personnel who did not enroll in Montgomery GI bill to participate in the current GI bill program. The VEAP participants would contribute $1,200, and those who did not enroll in the Montgomery GI bill would contribute $1,500. The services would pay any additional costs of the benefits of this measure. Another enhancement made by my proposal to the current GI bill extends the period in which the members of Reserve Components can utilize the program. I was shocked to find out that currently, Reserve members lose their education benefits when they leave the service or after 10 years of service. Amazing, they have no benefits when they leave service. My legislation will permit them to use the benefits up to 5 years after their separation from the military. This will encourage them to stay in the Reserves for a full career. It is obvious we are calling upon our reservists and our guards men and women more and more to fulfill our commitments around the globe. This will, I think, fulfill this Nation's commitment, certainly to our reservists, for an improvement in their educational opportunities. Other provisions of this legislation would allow the Service Secretaries to pay 100 percent tuition assistance or enable service members to use the GI bill to cover any unpaid tuition and expenses when the services do not pay 100 percent of tuition. This will allow a service member an additional incentive to use the GI bill in service. Education begets education. I believe this is a necessary next step for improving education benefits for our military members and their families. We have to offer them credible choices. If we offer them such options and treat the members and their families properly, we will show them our respect for their service and dedication, which they expect. Maybe then we can turn around our current sad retention statistics. This GI bill is an important retention tool for the services. We must continue to focus our resources on retaining our personnel based on their actual life needs, particularly their need for an educational opportunity. This bill gives them hope.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk recently about the ``digital divide'' and the differences in the availability of information between the technological haves and have nots. With the emerging digital economy becoming a major driving force of our nation's economic well-being, we must ensure that all Americans have the information tools and skills that are critical to full participation in the new economy. Access to such tools is an essential step to ensure that our economy grows strongly and that in the future no one is left behind. While we know that Americans are more connected to digital tools than ever before, the ``digital divide'' between certain demographic groups and regions of our country continues to persist and in many cases is widening significantly. As a member of the Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Communications, I am alarmed by these developments. Just consider: A third of America's economic growth in recent years has come from information technologies, producing 19 million new jobs. Yet, while thirty percent of white Americans are connected to the Internet only 11 or 12 percent of African Americans or Hispanic Americans are on-line. Households with incomes of at least $75,000 are more than 20 times as likely to have access to the Internet as those at the lowest income levels, and more than 9 times as likely to have a computer at home. Additionally, citizens in rural areas, including large parts of my state of Georgia, are less likely to be connected to the Internet than urban users. Regardless of income level, those living in rural areas are lagging behind in computer ownership and Internet access. A viable alternative for many of these under served individuals is Internet access outside the home and statistics show that computer use at public libraries and community centers is on the rise. First of all, among all Americans, 17 percent use the Internet at some site outside the home. Secondly, minorities are even more likely to use the Internet and pursue online courses and school research at even higher rates. Third, those 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. Finally, Americans who are not in the labor force, such as retirees or homemakers, are twice as likely to use public libraries for access. Given the ``digital divide'' among these demographic groups, and the dependence of many Americans on the use of technology outside the home, especially at libraries and community centers, I am introducing today the Community Technology Assistance Act. Currently, the special enhanced tax deduction exists in the case of computer equipment donated to elementary and secondary schools. My bill would extend for five years the special enhanced tax deduction, currently scheduled to expire at the end of this year, and would expand it to include computer donations to libraries and community centers as well as to elementary and secondary schools. Consider the many high profile technology and Internet related companies, such as Microsoft, Intel and AmericaOnline, that have donated computer equipment and web access to schools and universities across America. My bill would make it easier for companies and individuals to invest in their community and jump start efforts to help bridge the ``digital divide'' in rural and low income areas everywhere. Ensuring access to the fundamental tools of the digital economy is one of the most significant investments our nation can make. Our country's most important resource is its people. Our companies are only as good as their workers. Highly-skilled, well educated workers make for stellar businesses and create superior products. In a society that increasingly relies on computers and the Internet to deliver information and enhance communication, we need to make sure that all Americans have access. Our domestic and global economies will demand it. Ready access to telecommunications tools will help produce the kind of technology-literate work force that will enable the United States to continue to be a leader in the global economy well into the 21st Century and beyond. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.