J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, over the past several years, our nation's military has become increasingly overcommitted and underfunded--facing problems from recruiting and retention, to cuts in active fleet numbers and a dwindling active duty force. Yet in spite of these problems, the United States' naval power, with it's fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines, life-saving Coast Guard and Merchant Marine forces, and highly skilled sailors and mariners, is the best in the world. These components are a part of one of the most technologically sophisticated defense systems in the world. In Kings Bay, Georgia, we are fortunate to be home to the greatest submarine base in the nation, Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base. During my visits there, however, I have heard time and again how detrimental the growing gap between commitments and funding has become. I believe that by appropriating additional funds to our nation's defense system and by supporting efforts to create a larger force structure, we will resolve or at least begin to remedy some of these problems that are facing today's military forces. Since I came to the Senate in 1997, I have supported funding for procurement, research and development, and readiness. In order for the United States to retain it's role as a military super power, we must pay attention to the gaps that exist today and prevent further deterioration in our armed forces. If we do not reverse this trend now, a very high price will be paid tomorrow for our collective lethargy on defense issues and for the massive under-funding of our armed forces. Mr. President, I now respectfully request that an article from the January, 2000 edition of Seapower magazine be inserted into the Record, as I believe it accurately and appropriately outlines the existing gap between our commitments and resources, and effectively argues the case for remedying this situation. Thank you. [From Almanac of Seapower, Jan. 2000] A Tale of Two Centuries (By John Fisher) The old century had come to an end and the United States, its armed services triumphant from victory in a splendid little war over a technologically inferior adversary, as ready to take its rightful place among the major military and economic powers of the world. A former assistant secretary of the Navy, who became a national hero in that war, was soon to become president and use his bully pulpit for, among other things, the building of a Great White Fleet that was the first step in making the United States a naval power ``second to none.'' That former assistant secretary, later president, Theodore Roosevelt, was a shrewd judge of human nature and a life-long student of American history. He knew that most of his fellow Americans had little if any interest in foreign affairs, or in national-security issues in general. Roosevelt himself was a staunch advocate of the seapower principles postulated by Alfred Thayer Mahan, whom he greatly admired. So to remedy the situation he helped found the Navy League of the United States in 1902, contributing significant financial as well as moral support. There were many, of course, in the Congress and in the media--indeed, in Roosevelt's own cabinet--who were not sure that the Great White Fleet was needed. It cost too much and, despite its fine appearance, would have little if any practical value for a nation unchallenged in its own hemisphere and unlikely ever to send its sons to fight in Europe's wars, much less Asia's. Besides, there might be an occasional colonial war here and there, but the possibility of a direct war between the major powers of Europe was becoming more and more remote with each passing year. Within less than five years the vision of a lasting peace throughout the world was demolished when the Japanese Navy shocked the world by defeating the Russian Navy in the Battle of Tsushima (27-28 May 1905), sinking eight Russian battleships and seven Russian cruisers. The Japanese fleet, which started the war a year earlier with a surprise attack on Russian ships anchored in Port Arthur, lost three torpedo boats at Tsushima. Less than a decade later The Great War--``the war to end all wars,'' it was called--started in Europe. The United States remained a nonparticipant until April 1917, but then entered the war in force. U.S. seapower contributed significantly to the eventual Allied success. The joyous Armistice of 11 November 1918, however, was followed by the debacle at Versailles that sowed the seeds of World War II. Again, America and its allies were not prepared. The United States once again stayed on the sidelines until jolted out of its lethargy by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: That put 15 million American men and women in uniform, led to total mobilization of the U.S. economy--and of the mighty U.S. industrial base--and resulted in millions of deaths later on the unconditional surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The century was less than half over, but it was already the most violent in all human history. This time around, some lessons were learned--but not very well, and they were not remembered very long. When North Korea invaded South Korea the United States again was unprepared--as it was a generation later in Vietnam. The Cold War cast a nuclear shadow over the entire world for more than four decades, though, and forced the much-needed rebuilding, modernization, and upgrading of America's armed forces. As the world enters a new century, and new millennium, those forces are the most powerful, most mobile, and most versatile in the world. Moreover, the young Americans in service today are the best-led, best-trained, and best- equipped in this nation's history. But that does not mean that they are capable of carrying out all of the numerous difficult and exceedingly complex missions they have been assigned. The victories of the past are no guarantee of success in future conflicts. And it is not foreordained that the so-called ``American century'' that has now ended will be extended by another uninterrupted period of U.S. economic and military dominance. Operation Allied Force, the U.S./NATO air war over Kosovo, is a helpful case in point. The precision strikes against Serbian forces, and against the civilian infrastructure of the former Yugoslavia, eventually led to the withdrawal of Serbian troops from Kosovo and the occupation of that battered province by U.S./NATO and Russian peacekeepers. The one-sided ``war'' lasted much longer than originally estimated, though. It did not ``stop the killings'' (of ethnic Albanians), the original purpose of the war. And it left Slobodan Milosevic still in power in Belgrade. It is perhaps inevitable that political leaders will focus almost exclusively on the ``victories''--however fleeting and however gossamer--that can be claimed. The prudent military commander, though, will focus on the problem areas, the near- defeats and potential disasters, the ``What-ifs'' and the close calls. There were an abundance of all of these in Kosovo last year--just as there were in the war with Iraq in 1990-91. Logistics is the first and perhaps most important of those problem areas--and the biggest ``What if'' as well. In both conflicts. In the war with Iraq the question was ``What if Saddam Hussein had not stopped with Kuwait but continued into Saudi Arabia and all the way to Riyadh?'' The answer--on this, virtually all military analysts agree--is that the war would have lasted much longer and would have cost much more in both lives and money. As it was, it took the greatest sealift in history before the vastly superior U.S./ coalition forces could defeat the previously overrated Iraqi army. That massive sealift--more than 10 million tons of supplies carried halfway around the world--would have been impossible, though, were it not for the fact that, on the receiving end, Saudi Arabia had built a large, modern, and well-protected port infrastructure. Logistics was not a problem in Kosovo, either--but only because the U.S./NATO air forces accomplished their mission (belatedly), and ground forces did not have to be brought in. It was a close call, though--more so than is generally realized--and the end result was due more to good fortune than to careful planning. The ports in the area that might have been available to U.S./ NATO shipping are few in number, inefficient, extremely limited in their throughput capacity, and vulnerable both to sabotage and to attack by ground forces. Which is exactly why U.S. sealift planners say that a ground war in Kosovo would have been ``a logistics nightmare.'' Nightmares aside, there are other problems, of much greater magnitude, affecting all of the nation's armed forces. All are underfunded. All are overcommitted--usually, in recent years, to humanitarian and peacekeeping missions that, however worthwhile in themselves, detract from operational readiness and from the training required for actual combat missions. There is more: The U.S. defense structure is the leanest it has been in the post-WWII era. Funding for the acquisition and procurement of ships, aircraft, weapons, and avionics/ electronics systems has been cut precipitously in recent years and the result has been a steady decline in the size-- and, therefore, responsiveness--of the vital U.S. defense industrial base. Except for the Marine Corps, all of the services also are suffering from prolonged recruiting and retention problems that, if not resolved, will lead to a ``hollow force'' of the early 21st century similar to that of the late 1970s. There is increasing evidence, anecdotal but mounting, that combat readiness has declined. Following are some particulars about how the various problem areas enumerated above have affected the nation's sea services--balanced by a report on the current strengths and capabilities, as well as needs, of each service. Since the end of the Cold War the Navy's active fleet has been cut almost in half, and is now just over 300 ships, the lowest level since the early 1930s. What makes the situation worse is that the administration's future-years defense plan (FYDP) calls for construction of only 6-7 ships per year for the foreseeable future, whereas a building rate of 9-10 ships is needed to meet the minimum requirement of 305 ships postulated by the Quadrennial Defense Review. Independent defense analysts say that a more realistic estimate of Navy fleet requirements would be anywhere from 350 to 400 ships, depending on the scenarios postulated. To maintain a fleet of that size would require a building rate of 10-12 ships per year. Exacerbating the ship-numbers problem is the fact that, because hundreds of Cold War U.S. air and ground bases overseas have now been closed, and hundreds of thousands of troops have returned to CONUS (the Continental United States), a much heavier share of the collective defense burden is now borne by the Navy's forward-deployed carrier battle groups (CVBGs) and Navy/Marine Corps amphibious ready groups (ARGs). In many areas of the world the CVBGs and ARGs are now the only combat-ready forces immediately available to the national command authorities. The difficulties imposed on Navy carriers are particularly heavy. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have told Congress that a minimum of 15 active-fleet carriers are needed to maintain a continuous presence in the most likely areas of international crisis--i.e., the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, and the Western Pacific (particularly the waters off the Korean Peninsula and, more recently, in the Taiwan Strait between the People's Republic of China on the mainland and the Republic of China on Taiwan). With only 12 carriers now available--11 in the active fleet and one reserve carrier used primarily for training purposes--the Navy has had to adopt a ``gapping'' strategy that leaves one or more of these ``hot spots'' without a carrier for several weeks, or sometimes months, at a time. In today's fast-paced era of naval warfare, the Navy League said last year, the gapping strategy is ``not a prudent risk, as it is sometimes described, but an invitation to conflict.'' The Navy's fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) is the best in the world, but also undersized to meet all current as well as projected commitments. According to force requirements provided to the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the regional commanders in chief, more than 70 SSNs are needed to meet all of the Navy's worldwide commitments--but there will be only 50 available unless the QDR levels are revised upward. This could pose major risks in areas where land-based enemy aircraft and missiles make it difficult for carriers and other surface ships to operate close to the littorals. The Navy's SSBN (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine) force continues to be the dominant and most survivable leg of the U.S. strategic-deterrent ``triad'' of SSBNs, manned bombers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. There are now 18 Trident SSBNs in the active fleet, but only 14 are likely to be needed in the future. The proposed conversion into an SSGN (nuclear-powered guided- missile submarine) configuration of the four SSBNs now slated for deactivation would add significantly to the Navy's overall power-projection capabilities and compensate to some extent for current deficiencies in surface combatants. Perhaps the brightest stars in the current fleet inventory are the Aegis guided-missile cruisers and destroyers that played such a key role in the Gulf War and in several lower- scale combat actions since then. The combat-proven effectiveness of the Aegis fleet has made it a strong candidate to serve as the principal building block for the national-missile-defense system favored by Congress and likely to be built in the first decade of the new century. Navy aircraft and weapon systems also are the best and most technologically sophisticated in the world. Because of the continued underfunding in procurement and acquisition, however, all of these fleet assets have been considerably overworked, a spare parts shortage has developed, and the maintenance workload has increased significantly. The U.S. Marine Corps has changed commandants, but continues the march--and its proud tradition of always being ``the most ready when the nation is least ready.'' That mandate from Congress is more daunting on the eve of the 21st century than it has been at any previous time since the dark days preceding World War II and the Korean War. In both of those conflicts the Marines suffered a disproportionate number of casualties, particularly in the early months of fighting--primarily because forward-deployed Marine units had to hold the line until the nation (and the other armed forces) could catch up to the Marines in readiness. Today, all of the nation's armed services are in a reasonable state of readiness. But the operating tempo is the highest it has ever been in peacetime, and most deployments in the past several years have been for humanitarian and peacekeeping assignments rather than for combat missions. Training has suffered, therefore, and there has been a slow but steady degradation of combat readiness--well-documented in hearings before the House Armed Services Committee. Under former commandant Gen. Charles C. Krulak the USMC's senior leaders developed a cogent and forward-looking plan to field a 21st-century Marine Corps that will be fully combat- ready to meet the assymetric challenges likely in the foreseeable future. It will be up to Gen. James L. Jones Jr., who succeeded Krulak on 1 July 1999, to implement that plan. But significant additional funding will be needed for, among other things: Maintaining the Corps at its current authorized strength of approximately 172,000 Marines on active duty and in the Reserves; Modernizing the Corps' Total Force with the aircraft, weapons, rolling stock, electronics and avionics systems, and other supplies and equipment needed to maintain combat superiority on the littoral and inland battlefields of the future; Building, upgrading, and maintaining a self-sustaining expeditionary tactical aviation force, including the revolutionary V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, which can operate from aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and/or expeditionary airfields ashore. Expediting the early development and procurement of: (a) the joint strike fighter, which USMC leaders have told Congress is urgently needed both to maintain a modern tactical aviation force and to replace the obsolescent aircraft now in the Corps' inventory; and (b) advanced amphibious assault vehicles capable of safely and swiftly carrying Marines and their equipment to and over the beaches to positions that in some combat scenarios will be far inland; and Implementing Corps-sponsored initiatives to develop and field the advanced-capability shallow-water mine countermeasures systems needed to allow future Marine assault forces to maneuver safely through the littorals. Alone of all the services, the Marine Corps has consistently met its recruiting and retention goals in recent years. Several studies suggest that this is because the Marine Corps keeps a clear focus on its highest priorities-- ``Making Marines and Winning Battles''--and that young men and women respond more readily to that inspiring challenge than they do to the less lofty appeal of material benefits. Today's Coast Guard remains Semper Paratus--but just barely, and at a very high price. The U.S. Coast Guard is perhaps the most overworked and underfunded agency in government today, but it carries out--efficiently and at minimum cost to the taxpayer--a multitude of missions that increase almost annually. Several studies suggest that the Coast Guard returns a minimum of four dollars in services for every tax dollar provided to the multimission service in appropriations. The Coast Guard is also the world's premier lifesaving organization, and in recent years has saved an annual average of more than 5,000 lives--and has assisted many more thousands of people in distress on the seas, on the Great Lakes, and in the nation's inland and coastal waterways. But lifesaving is only one of the many ``services to taxpayers'' in the USCG portfolio. In recent years the Coast Guard has also, on average: conducted 44,000 law-enforcement boardings, identifying 24,000 violations; seized 76,000 pounds of marijuana and 62,000 pounds of cocaine; investigated 6,200 marine accidents; inspected 23,000 commercial vessels; responded to 12,400 spills of oil or hazardous materials; serviced 55,000 aids to navigation; and interdicted 10,000 illegal migrants. To carry out all of those missions in the future, however-- and several others likely to be added--the Coast Guard needs a major recapitalization of virtually its entire physical plant: ships, aircraft, electronic and sensor systems, and shore facilities. To its credit, the Coast Guard itself has taken the initiative by developing a so-called IDS (Integrated Deepwater System) plan that, if fully funded, would permit an orderly and cost-effective replacement of cutters, aircraft, and other assets over a period of years. Failure of the executive and legislative branches of government to support and fully fund that plan would cripple the Coast Guard's continued effectiveness--and would cost the American people in numerous ways. Even today, very few Americans realize how dependent the United States is on the U.S.-flag Merchant Marine for national defense and its continued economic well-being. In times of war or international crises that might lead to war 95 percent or more of the weapons, supplies, and equipment needed by U.S. forces overseas must be carried by ship-- usually over thousands of miles of ocean. It would be military folly to rely on foreign-flag shipping to carry that cargo. Most innovations in the maritime industries in the post- WWII era--e.g., containerization, LASH (lighter aboard ship) vessels, and RO/ROs (roll-on/roll-off ships)--have been of American origin, and the United States is by far the greatest trading nation in the entire world. Literally millions of U.S. jobs, and billions of tax dollars, are generated by the import and export of raw materials and finished products into and out of U.S. ports. The port infrastructure itself is badly in need of renovation and remodernization, however. Because of short- sighted laissez-faire economic policies, U.S.-flag ships today carry only a minor fraction of America's two-way foreign trade. The result is the loss of thousands of seafaring jobs, significantly reduced U.S. sealift capacity, and a Merchant Marine that is now in extremis. The creation of the Maritime Security Program was a helpful first step toward recovery, but it will take many years, perhaps decades, before the U.S.-flag fleet can regain its traditional title as ``the vital Fourth Arm'' of national defense. Additional funding, and a larger force structure, will resolve or at least ameliorate some of the most difficult problems now facing the nation's armed services, not only in procurement and RDT&E (research, development, test, and evaluation) but also in readiness. More and better equipment, combined with a lower operating tempo and higher pay, would in turn have a salutary effect on both recruiting and retention. There are more intractable problems, though, that all the money in the world will not resolve--and that should be of major concern not only to the nation's armed services and defense decision makers, but to all Americans. The most difficult and most obvious of these problems is the proliferation in recent years of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and the means to deliver them. There already are a dozen or more nations--several of them extremely hostile to the United States--that already possess (or are close to acquiring) more destructive power than was unleashed by all the armies and navies in the world during World II. It can be taken for granted that WMDs soon will be available to terrorist groups as well. But what is even more alarming is the near certainty that neither the United States nor the so-called ``global community'' at large will take the probably draconian steps that would be needed to counter this unprecedented threat. Not, that is, until weapons of mass destruction are actually used by terrorists. The only real question here is not ``if,'' but ``when.'' There are other dangers, other problems, other defense issues of transcendent importance that must be attended to at the start of this new century and new millennium. The succession in Russia, for example. In China as well. The mentally unbalanced military adventurism of the leaders of North Korea. The list could go on and on. Quite possibly the greatest threats to world peace, though, are American complacency and American lethargy. The history of the 20th century shows that, once aroused to action, the American people can and will unite to defeat any enemy, no matter how long it takes or how much it costs. That history also shows, though, that it takes more than education and persuasion to unite the American people. It takes sudden and painful shock. The problem here is that, in the past, the nation always had time to recuperate from its initial losses, and even from a Pearl Harbor. That may no longer be the case. There is now a bipartisan consensus that the United States should build and deploy a national-mission-defense (NMD) system as soon as ``practicable.'' If that consensus had existed several years ago the need today might not be so urgent. As it is, relatively few Americans realize that the United States is still absolutely vulnerable to enemy missile attacks. Another way of saying it is that not one U.S. missile-defense system has yet been deployed that could shoot down even one incoming enemy missile. That is a sobering thought. The old axiom says that leadership ``begins at the top.'' But in a democracy that is not entirely true. If the American people demand a certain course of action loud enough and long enough,the elected ``leaders'' in the executive and legislative branches of government almost always will follow. In the field of national defense the American people have demanded very little in recent years, and, with a few notable exceptions, that is exactly what they have been provided. In his prescient ``Prize Essay'' (The Foundation of Naval Policy) in the April 1934 Naval Institute Proceedings Lt. Wilfred J. Holmes argued persuasively that the size of the fleet (and, by implication, the size and composition of all naval/military forces) should always be consistent with national policy. ``Failure to adjust the size of navies to the needs of external [i.e., national] policy--or, conversely, to adjust external national policy to the strength of the military fleet--has, in the past, frequently led to disaster,'' Holmes said. At the 1922 Limitation of Armaments conference, he noted, the United States ``relinquished naval primacy in the interests of worldwide limitations of armaments.'' Unfortunately, though, ``the retrenchment in [U.S.] naval strength was not followed by retrenchment in the field of national policy.'' The circumstances are not exactly the same today--but they are close enough. The current operating tempo, for all of the nation's armed services, is the highest it has ever been in peacetime. Commitments have been increasing annually, without commensurate increases in funding. Ships, aircraft, and weapon systems are wearing out--and so are our military people. The ``gapping'' of aircraft carriers in areas of potential crisis is an invitation to disaster--and, therefore, represents culpable negligence on the part of America's defense decision makers. Eventually, a very high price will have to be paid for these many long years of national lethargy, for the massive underfunding of the nation's armed forces, and for the continued mismatch between commitments and resources. When that time comes--sooner is much more likely than later--it may well be the darkest day in this nation's history. Is there still time to reverse course? Perhaps. But not much time. And the leadership may well have to come not from those who hold high office in Washington, but from the American people themselves. If they do provide that leadership, there will indeed be another American century. It will not be another century of violence, but of peace. Peace on earth, for all mankind.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to salute my dear friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, John McCain. Although he has suspended his campaign for President, he should nonetheless know that he has scored a great victory in American electoral politics. More so than any other candidate in recent memory, Senator McCain has beaten two of the greatest enemies facing our political system in the twenty-first century--apathy and cynicism. We should all be grateful to him for reminding Americans that ``politics'' is not a dirty word, that campaigns can be about more than 30 second sound bites, and that heroes still exist. We in the Senate should all feel proud to call him one of our own. I think I and the four other Vietnam veterans in the Senate feel a particular kinship with Senator McCain, for obvious reasons. You do not go through an experience like combat without being profoundly affected. You recognize a change in yourself when you come home, and you recognize it in others when you meet them for the first time. You are brothers. We are brothers. But why did the rest of America respond to Senator McCain so strongly? Why did the ``Straight Talk Express'' appear every night on the evening news? Why did so many people want to see Luke Skywalker emerge out of the Death Star? I believe it is because John McCain reacts to challenges the way we wish we would ourselves, but fear we might not. He remained in the Hanoi Hilton for seven years with his fellow P.O.W.'s even when he could have left. He fights for campaign finance reform, for strong action to reduce youth smoking, and for curbs in pork barrel spending even when he knows it will make him unpopular with his party. He shoots from the hip. He tells reporters how he really feels. He loves his family. He is not perfect, but none of us are. He and I disagree on many issues, but we agree on this: that the purpose of politics is to generate hope, that serving our country--as a soldier or a sailor or a Senator--is the greatest honor of a person's life, and that, in the words of Babe Ruth, ``It's hard to beat a person who won't give up.'' Speaking for myself, I am a loyal Democrat who strongly supports the candidacy of Al Gore. But as an American and as a fellow Vietnam veteran, I am proud of the work John has done, and will no doubt continue to do, in restoring the public's faith in their government and the political process. Mr. President, John McCain is an authentic American hero, and I am proud to serve along side him.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I come before my colleagues today to pay tribute to the many brave Georgians who pulled together to support one another in the aftermath of the devastating tornadoes that hit Southwest Georgia earlier this month. In the pre-dawn hours of Valentine's day, February 14th, the town of Camilla, Georgia was hit by a series of brutal tornadoes that took the lives of nearly twenty people. This storm caused not only terrible damage--destroying homes, farms and businesses--but it tested the limits of residents across the Southwest portion of the state. It has been said that ``Poor is the nation which has no heroes. Poorer still is the nation which has them, but forgets.'' When the storm calmed, true heroes emerged and they should be recognized. I ask that I may be able to insert into the Congressional Record a list of individuals, organizations, and area businesses that made all the difference in preparing the people of Mitchell, Grady, Colquitt, and Tift counties for recovery from this tragic event. This list reflects only a portion of the many groups and individuals who reached out to our communities in their time of need. There are others who are often lost in the shuffle, whose movements and actions did not attract the media's spotlight. From the children who donated their own toys, to the families who reached into their savings, to the people who opened their doors for relatives or strangers who needed a place to find refuge. The people and groups mentioned in this insert are not well known. These are everyday people--everyday Georgians. Individually, they each make a small contribution, collectively they make a tremendous difference. The list follows: Governor Roy Barnes and the Georgia Legislature; Law Enforcement officials from Mitchell, Colquitt, Tift, and Grady Counties; Chatam County Emergency Management; Mitchell County Community Response Team; Mitchell County Chamber of Commerce; Calhoun County Public Works; C-E Minerals Inc. in Andersonville; Mitchell County Ministerial Alliance of Camilla; Lions Club; Search and rescue teams from Albany/ Dougherty, Macon, Colquitt, and Worth Counties; United States Marine Corps; MCLB Fire and Rescue; Georgia K-9 Rescue Association; University of Georgia Department of Student Affairs; Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). Georgia Emergency Management Association (GEMA); U.S. Small Business Administration; Georgia State Highway Patrol; Georgia Legal Services; Georgia Department of Labor; Georgia Department of Family and Children's Services; American Red Cross; United Way; Salvation Army; Mitchell County Hospital; Phoebe-Putney Hospital; Homebuilders Association of Georgia; Lowes in Albany; Home Depot in Albany; Adventists Disaster Response; Fort Benning Air Force Command Center; Randolph Southern School; Dry Bank Elementary School; USS Maryland SSBN-738 Gold; Dothan Fire Department; Church of Gainesville; Camilla Lawn and Garden; The Mennonites. Georgia Baptist Convention Relief Organization; United Methodist Church of Centreville and Macon; Emmanuel Baptist Church of James County; Chestnut Grove Baptist Church; Pitts Chapel United Methodist Church of Macon; Plainfield Baptist Church; Turner County Special Services School; United Methodist Mission Volunteers from Tallahassee, Florida, Lee United Methodist Church, Ebenezer UNC, and Macon Methodist Church; Griffin Church; Chapel Wood United Church of Athens; Zion Hill Baptist Church of Atlanta; Antioch Baptist Church of North Atlanta; County Line Church of Macon. Waukeenah Methodist Church of Cairo; Calvary Baptist Church; First Baptist of Tifton; Beulah Baptist Church of Camilla; First United Methodist Church of Camilla; East Pelham Baptist Church; First Baptist Church of Camilla; First Baptist Church of Eufala, Alabama; Southern Baptist Group of Georgia; Union Baptist Church of Camilla; and First United Methodist Church of Thomasville.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, prescription drugs currently constitute the largest out-of-pocket health care cost for seniors. Over 85 percent of Medicare beneficiaries take at least one prescription medicine, and the average senior fills eighteen prescriptions per year. Because prescription drug coverage was not a standard part of health insurance when Medicare was enacted 35 years ago, many seniors must pay for the high cost of prescription drugs out of their own pockets. We are now facing a crisis of monumental proportion for many older Americans. The simple fact is, the high cost of today's modern medicines and the absence of Medicare coverage have placed needed medications out of reach for too many seniors. Most older Americans must juggle daily costs like groceries and utilities with paying for medicine. They are being forced to compromise by buying only a portion of the needed medications, too often making their treatment regimens incorrect and ineffective. Without the proper medication and dosage for conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart problems, seniors may find themselves faced with even more costly hospitalizations and compromised health. Recently, I received a letter from Reverend Lois Congdon of Decatur Georgia. Reverend Congdon wrote to me about her impending retirement. She told of her expensive drug treatment costs and the coverage she was currently receiving under her employer-based insurance plan. Without her current salary, and once she is placed on Medicare, Reverend Congdon will no longer be able to afford her expensive prescription drugs. Even supplemental prescription coverage such as medigap offers only limited benefits and is too expensive for most seniors. Currently only one-fourth of Medicare enrollees have supplemental drug insurance and the number of firms offering such coverage has declined by 25 percent in the last four years alone. Last month, I cosponsored legislation to provide similar prescription drug coverage for military retirees. The bill would enable military retirees over age 65 to use the National mail order pharmacy program for drug coverage. However, affordable prescription drug coverage is a benefit that all seniors should be able to obtain, not just armed service men and women. Seniors make up 12 percent of our nation's population and they purchase over one-third of all prescription drugs in America. Most older Americans live on fixed incomes of $15,000 a year which is adjusted slightly for inflation each year. However, for far too long, the rate of increase in prescription drug costs has exceeded the rate of inflation. This situation has created a need more urgent than ever to strengthen the Medicare Program with a prescription drug plan, and thereby protect millions of American seniors from more costly hospitalizations and treatments. Expanding Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit will bring the program in line with the realities of modern medicine. Prescription drug coverage is essential to the delivery of 21st century medicine. These medicines keep people healthy, independent, and out of the hospital. To not include prescription benefits in Medicare today is akin to not including a major form of treatment such as a surgical procedure when Medicare was established in 1965. It is absolutely unthinkable. Too many seniors lack dependable drug coverage and their health is being compromised. I am committed to providing Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, and promise to continue fighting for America's seniors. The Congress must move forward expeditiously to adopt legislation to accomplish this important objective. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

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

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, 20 years ago, my friends and colleagues Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah joined to create a National Women's History Week. Since that time, the commemoration has expanded into an entire month of celebration and recognition of the many contributions and accomplishments of American women. I am proud to use this occasion to highlight the many accomplishments of one of Georgia's own, author and teacher Alice Walker. Alice Walker has become one of the leading voices among African- American writers. She has published poetry, novels, short stories, essays, and criticism, the most famous probably being ``The Color Purple'', for which she was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1983. Her portrayal of the struggle of African-Americans throughout history, especially the experiences of black women in the American South, has earned her praise around the world. Ms. Walker's insightful and riveting portraits of poor, rural life display human resourcefulness, strength and endurance in confronting oppression. Alice Walker was born on February 9, 1944, in Eatonton, Georgia, the eighth and last child of Willie Lee and Minnie Lou Grant Walker, who were sharecroppers. When she was eight years old, she lost sight in one eye during an accident with one of her brothers' BB guns. This incident proved to be a turning point in Walker's life. Walker has said that it was from this point that she ``really began to see people and things, really to notice relationships and to learn to be patient enough to see how they turned out * * *'' In high school, Alice Walker was valedictorian of her class. That achievement, coupled with a ``rehabilitation scholarship,'' made it possible for her to go to Spelman College, a historically black women's college in Atlanta, Georgia. After spending two years at Spelman, she transferred to Sarah Lawrence College in New York, traveling to Africa as an exchange student during her junior year. She received her bachelor of arts degree from Sarah Lawrence College in 1965. After graduation, Alice Walker spent the summer in Liberty County, Georgia where she helped to draw attention to the plight of poor people in South Georgia. She went door to door registering voters in the African-American community. Her work with the neediest citizens in the state helped her to see the debilitating impact of poverty on the relationships between men and women in the community. She moved to New York City shortly thereafter where she worked for the city's welfare department. It was then that she was awarded her first writing grant in 1966. Ms. Walker had originally wanted to go to Africa to write, but decided against it and instead traveled to Tougaloo, Mississippi. It was there where she met her future husband, civil rights attorney Melvyn Leventhal. He was supportive of her writing and admired her love for nature. They married in 1967 and became the first legally married interracial couple in the state of Mississippi. While her husband fought school desegregation in the courts, Alice worked as a history consultant for the Friends of the Children, Mississippi's Head Start Program. Since there was still a great deal of racial tension in the state, and because her husband was working adamantly in the courts to dismantle the laws barring desegregation, animosity against the couple was strong. While the couple lived in Mississippi, Alice and her husband slept with a gun under their bed at night for protection. Their only daughter, Rebecca, was born in 1969. Alice Walker became active in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, and remains an involved and vocal activist for many causes today. She has spoken out in support for the women's equality movement, has been involved in South Africa's anti-apartheid campaign, and has worked toward global nuclear arms reduction. One of her most pronounced involvements has been her tireless work against female genital mutilation, the gruesome practice of female circumcision that remains prevalent in many African societies. Among her numerous awards and honors for her writing are the Lillian Smith Award from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Rosenthal Award from the National Institute of Arts & Letters, a nomination for the National Book Award, a Radcliffe Institute Fellowship, a Merrill Fellowship, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and the Front Page Award for Best Magazine Criticism from the Newswoman's Club of New York. She has also received the Townsend Prize and a Lyndhurst Prize. In 1984, Ms. Walker started her own publishing company, Wild Trees Press. She has authored more than 20 books over the years. Divorced from her husband, she currently resides in Northern California with her dog, Marley where she continues to write. Her most recent book, ``By the Light of My Father's Smile'', was released in 1998. I am honored to recognize this remarkable woman, a daughter of Georgia and mother of the fight for equality.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, I am very pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Charles Grassley, to introduce our proposal for the largest employer-based long-term care insurance program in American history. Today, we are introducing the Federal Employees and Uniformed Services Group Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 2000. At age 25, I returned from Vietnam facing the potential need for long-term care. I did not have the opportunity to plan for those needs and I was fortunate to avoid that outcome through the support of my family and the wonderful military health care system and VA system I encountered. Our legislation will provide federal employees, members of the Uniformed Services, including Reservists and the National Guard, retirees, spouses, parents and parents-in-law with the opportunity to plan for assistive care needs that become a necessity for all of us at some time in our lives. Currently there are several measures pending in the Senate which offer different approaches to providing long-term care insurance to federal and military employees and their families. Our bill represents a carefully considered compromise between these competing approaches. The Cleland-Mikulski-Grassley bill combines the features of our original proposals, S. 894, S. 57 and S. 36, as well as additional provisions to produce the most comprehensive proposal for an employer- based long-term care insurance program. Our legislation will: One, allow federal employees, members of the Uniformed Services and Foreign Service, Reservists and retirees, spouses, parents, and parent- in-laws to purchase long-term care insurance at group rates. Second, have premiums based on age (premiums are expected to be 10%- 20% less than on the open market). Third, provide individuals with options, including cash reimbursements for family caregivers, tax exemptions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and portability of benefits. The current forecast for the cost of meeting long-term care needs of our aging population is staggering in terms of personal and national resources. Average nursing home costs are projected to increase from $40,000 per person per year today to $97,000 by 2030. Medicare and regular health insurance programs do not cover most long-term care needs. Medicaid can offer some long-term care support, but generally requires ``spend-down'' of income and assets to qualify. Additionally, very few employers offer a long-term care insurance benefit to their employees. We hope that our legislation will be a model that other employers will use in providing long-term care insurance for their employees and will lessen the financial burden on the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Working families are too often being forced to choose between sending a child to college and paying for a nursing home for a parent. Families desperately need the tools to help themselves and to meet their family responsibilities. Consider these astounding statistics: Almost 6 million Americans aged 65 or older currently need long-term care. As many as six out of 10 Americans have experienced a long-term care need either for themselves or a family member. 41% of women in caregiver roles quit their jobs or take family medical leave to care for a frail older parent or parent-in-law. 80% of all long-term care services are provided by family and friends. The need for this legislation is clear. By working together in a bipartisan cooperative spirit my fellow sponsors and I have bridged some significant differences in approach to craft a proposal which should have widespread support in the Senate. I hope and expect that we will take up and pass this bill this year. Those who have served, and are now serving, our nation deserve nothing less. I ask unanimous consent that the Section-by-Section Analysis of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, I am very pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Charles Grassley, to introduce our proposal for the largest employer-based long-term care insurance program in American history. Today, we are introducing the Federal Employees and Uniformed Services Group Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 2000. At age 25, I returned from Vietnam facing the potential need for long-term care. I did not have the opportunity to plan for those needs and I was fortunate to avoid that outcome through the support of my family and the wonderful military health care system and VA system I encountered. Our legislation will provide federal employees, members of the Uniformed Services, including Reservists and the National Guard, retirees, spouses, parents and parents-in-law with the opportunity to plan for assistive care needs that become a necessity for all of us at some time in our lives. Currently there are several measures pending in the Senate which offer different approaches to providing long-term care insurance to federal and military employees and their families. Our bill represents a carefully considered compromise between these competing approaches. The Cleland-Mikulski-Grassley bill combines the features of our original proposals, S. 894, S. 57 and S. 36, as well as additional provisions to produce the most comprehensive proposal for an employer- based long-term care insurance program. Our legislation will: One, allow federal employees, members of the Uniformed Services and Foreign Service, Reservists and retirees, spouses, parents, and parent- in-laws to purchase long-term care insurance at group rates. Second, have premiums based on age (premiums are expected to be 10%- 20% less than on the open market). Third, provide individuals with options, including cash reimbursements for family caregivers, tax exemptions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and portability of benefits. The current forecast for the cost of meeting long-term care needs of our aging population is staggering in terms of personal and national resources. Average nursing home costs are projected to increase from $40,000 per person per year today to $97,000 by 2030. Medicare and regular health insurance programs do not cover most long-term care needs. Medicaid can offer some long-term care support, but generally requires ``spend-down'' of income and assets to qualify. Additionally, very few employers offer a long-term care insurance benefit to their employees. We hope that our legislation will be a model that other employers will use in providing long-term care insurance for their employees and will lessen the financial burden on the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Working families are too often being forced to choose between sending a child to college and paying for a nursing home for a parent. Families desperately need the tools to help themselves and to meet their family responsibilities. Consider these astounding statistics: Almost 6 million Americans aged 65 or older currently need long-term care. As many as six out of 10 Americans have experienced a long-term care need either for themselves or a family member. 41% of women in caregiver roles quit their jobs or take family medical leave to care for a frail older parent or parent-in-law. 80% of all long-term care services are provided by family and friends. The need for this legislation is clear. By working together in a bipartisan cooperative spirit my fellow sponsors and I have bridged some significant differences in approach to craft a proposal which should have widespread support in the Senate. I hope and expect that we will take up and pass this bill this year. Those who have served, and are now serving, our nation deserve nothing less. I ask unanimous consent that the Section-by-Section Analysis of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a research assistant on my staff, Miss Tamara Jones, be allowed floor privileges.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, one of the first issues to come before me as a new member of the Commerce Committee was INTELSAT privatization. Although this was a challenging issue that required balancing the international role of the U.S. in communications technology with the needs of the signatories to INTELSAT, I chose to become an original co- sponsor of the Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act ``ORBIT'' because I believed it was important to get behind a bill that can be enacted in to law this Congress to address these challenges. One provision that was of particular concern to me is that of ``fresh look.'' The conference agreement on S. 376 does eliminate the ``fresh look'' provision that continued to be debated this year. ``Fresh look'' is a policy that, if implemented, would allow the federal government to permit COMSAT's corporate customers to abrogate their current contracts with COMSAT. The conference agreement rejects ``fresh look'' and preserves the ability of the private parties involved to negotiate contracts so that one party cannot simply walk away from its business obligations without any attendant liability. This conference agreement does not allow the FCC to take any action that would impair lawful, private contracts or agreements. Both chambers in the 106th Congress emphatically rejected ``fresh look'' when they passed their own versions of international satellite privatization legislation, and the conference agreement reflects this consensus. I commend the conferees for including language in the conference agreement that protects private agreements, contracts, and the like. To read the relevant section otherwise would be to dismiss the clear intent of Congress to preserve existing and binding obligations of parties.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it is an honor to be here today with my distinguished colleague from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts. We want to institute a process by which this body can increasingly come to grips with some of the challenges that persist in our foreign policy and continue to be, in terms of our defense, a challenge to us and to the young men and women of America. It is an opportunity for us to continue our dialog which we started in the Armed Services Committee over the last 3 years as we have encountered difficulties in the Middle East, southwest Asia, and as we see problems around the world. He and I have more and more come to an understanding that we have more in common than we do in disagreement. One of the things we have in common is that we asked some very important pertinent questions about our foreign policy and our defense as we go into the 21st century. We are delighted today to kick off, not so much a debate on American foreign policy but a dialog which we hope will develop a consensus of some basic first principles by which we ought to engage the world. We have the post-cold-war world, as it is called. I was with Madeleine Albright today, our distinguished Secretary of State, and she said it is probably not the post anything; it is just a new era. We have gone through the cold war and the terrors of that period, but we are certainly in a new era, and it does not even really have a name. We hope to provide for our colleagues in the Senate--and we hope they will join us--over the course of this year, an understanding of key national security issues and begin building the building blocks of a bipartisan consensus on the most appropriate priorities and approaches for our country in today's international environment. In launching this endeavor, I am very mindful of both the enormity of the undertaking and of my own limitations in addressing such a subject. Having been only 3 years, beginning my fourth year in the Senate, I certainly do not claim to have a solution to these problems about which we are going to talk, but I hope to ask some pertinent questions. American foreign policy is challenged because of the end of the cold war, and Senator Roberts and I approach these questions on the road to the future with great humility and certainly with far more questions of our own than answers. Yet I believe this dialog is one the Senate must have. We owe it to the other nations of the world, including those that look to America for leadership, as well as those that make themselves our competitors, and certainly we owe it to those that make us their adversaries. Even more, we owe it to those who serve our country in the Armed Forces and in the Foreign Service, whose careers and sometimes very lives can be at stake. Perhaps most of all, we owe it to our children and our grandchildren. I was with Senator Nunn last night at the State Department. He was being honored by the State Department. I always learn something from him whenever I am with him. We were talking about a particular country, a particular challenge in American foreign policy. He said: Yes, what happens there will affect our children and our grandchildren. It is astounding that the consequences of the decisions we make today will, indeed, affect future generations, so we must make these decisions wisely. Uncertainty, disunity, partisanship, and overstatesmanship will not serve this country well. We need to seriously consider what our global role in the 21st century is and what it should be. That decision will affect future generations more than we can possibly understand. One more point: I do believe a meaningful, bipartisan dialog on the U.S. role, which many believe is vital to our national interest, is also imminently doable even in this election year. While the subject matter is very important to our country and our future, it is not an issue of great use on the campaign trail. This great body is the place to discuss these great and momentous issues where we can lay it all out and talk about it in a way that does not impinge on anybody's particular partisan views. Simply put, neither the Presidential race nor the elections for the Congress will be determined by who has the partisan upper hand on foreign policy. Over the course of the year, Senator Roberts and I--and we hope a number of other Senators--will be engaging in a series of floor dialogs relating to the general direction of U.S. foreign policy and national security policy in the 21st century. We have actually chosen to sit together. We are on different sides of the aisle, but we chose to come from our back-bench positions to show that we stand actually shoulder to shoulder in this regard. We are all Americans, and we hope we can do something good for our country. Our current game plan is to begin today by considering frameworks for the U.S. global role with respect to priorities and approaches. In the weeks to come, this will be followed by sessions on U.S. national interests. Of course, the first question about American engagement in the world should be: Is it in our vital strategic national interest? That is question No. 1. The next session will be on U.S. national interests, what are they. Another phase of our discussion will be the use of our military forces. Quite frankly, this should be question No. 2 because if we do not have a military objective following America's strategic vital interests, why commit the military? Next is we want to engage the question of our relationship with multilateral organizations. We realize the United States is the world's foremost military and economic power, but that does not necessarily mean we can go it on our own everywhere. The issue of multilateral organizations and our relationship to them is an important one. After multilateral organizations is the foreign policy roles of the executive and legislative branches. One of the first things that came to my attention when I came to the Senate 3 years ago was something called the U.S. Constitution. Senator Byrd was kind enough to give me an autographed copy of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, which I proudly carry with me. Quite frankly, if you read the Constitution carefully, it gives the Congress the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy. That is a responsibility we have, along with a unique role in the Senate of advising and consenting, particularly on treaties into which the executive branch may enter. The executive and legislative branches have to work together for foreign policy and defense policy in this country to actually work. Next is economics and trade. One can hardly separate economics from defense issues anymore. Economics and trade are absolutely mixed up with our foreign policy and defense issues. Arms control is certainly an issue we need to confront. Then there will be a final wrapup at the end of the year, probably in September. However, this is just a preliminary outline, and we want these discussions to be flexible enough to go wherever the dialog takes us-- that is the beauty of the Senate--and to include a wide array of viewpoints and illustrative subjects. We encourage all our colleagues, of whatever mind on the topics under consideration, to join in so we can have a real debate in this Chamber, one in which we, indeed, ask each other hard questions, not in order to score partisan points and not in a particularly prearranged set of choreographed responses between like-minded individuals but to seek a better understanding of each other's thoughts. That is exactly what we are after. We have determined that we will not tie this dialog, this debate, to any particular administration, any particular issue, any particular commitment, any particular budget item, any particular legislative proposal. We hope for a freewheeling dialog that we think can benefit the country. What we are hoping for is not to find final answers, for surely that would probably be too ambitious an objective, but, rather, to bring this body, which has a key constitutional role in the conduct of American foreign and national security policy, to the same kind of serious examination of our foreign policy goals and assumptions as is now underway among many of our leading foreign policy experts. I was thinking about this dialog today. I was thinking, how does this dialog differ from what might be termed, shall we say, an ``academic undertaking''? There are many seminars. There are thousands of courses on American foreign policy. There are numerous reviews of our defense strategy going on in this country and around the world. What makes this different? I think what makes this dialog different is that we are the ones who ultimately have to make the decision. This is not an academic exercise. I can remember voting for NATO expansion. It was an incredible experience for me to know that by the raising of my hand I could extend the security of NATO to three nations on the face of the globe that did not have that security before. That was an incredible experience for me. So we do not participate just in some academic exercise here. We are the leaders. We are the ones who have to ultimately bite the bullet and make the decisions. Therefore, we need to think these things through. That is the point. One of my favorite lines from Clausewitz, the great German theoretician on war, is: The leader must know the last step he is going to take before he takes the first step. That is the spirit of these discussions. At some point, and in some fashion, a bipartisan consensus on America's global role must emerge because our national interest demands it. It may not be as pure as in World War II when Senator Vandenberg said: Politics stops at the water's edge, but certainly at some point statecraft should overtake politics. If these dialogs can assist that effort, in even a small way, they will be time well spent. We hope our discussions will not be tinged with particularly partisan or highly personalized considerations because the subject matter clearly transcends the policies and views of any one individual or certainly any one administration. The challenges will be the same, no matter which party controls the White House next year or which party controls the Congress. With that, I yield to my good and distinguished friend and colleague, the Senator from Kansas. Let me say, in the time I have been in the Senate, I have found him to be a great source of reason and thoughtful pronouncements on national security matters. He has a marvelous sense of humor, which will come out whether we want it to or not in the dialogs. It is my pleasure to turn the discussion over to my distinguished friend and colleague, the great Senator from Kansas, Mr. Pat Roberts.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator. We appreciate working with him on this quite challenging and daunting task, but it is worth doing. It is an honor to be with him today and work with him. One of my key staff people, Mr. Bill Johnston, has done a momentous job of research for the speeches, the addresses, the facts, the figures, and the quotes I will be using in this dialog. I want to make sure he gets proper credit at this time. Mr. President, I will now set the stage for today's discussion by sketching a brief outline of the evolution of the main currents of U.S. foreign policy and, then, by providing a short look at what some leading voices are currently proposing for how America should make its way in the post-cold-war world. As in any transition period, we are feeling our way for the appropriate strategy and policies with which to maintain and enhance our national security interests in this period of a ``new world disorder.'' As the debates on NATO enlargement, Kosovo and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty revealed, those leading voices on American foreign policy currently offer divided counsel on this issue. It is obvious that no clear consensus has yet formed as to America's post-cold-war strategy, and that, or course, is what we are looking to address in these discussions. Until the 20th century, it would be fair to sum up our general philosophy on foreign policy as an attempt to continue to follow President Washington's recommended approach contained in his Farewell Address of September 17, 1796: Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. . . . The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. . . . Steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world. . . . There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real flavors from nation to nation. Then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams further elaborated on this approach when he proclaimed in 1821 that: Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. As Henry Kissinger, a modern day commentator, has put it, this policy, augmented by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 which sought to prevent European interference in the Western Hemisphere, made imminent good sense until early in the 1900s: In the early years of the Republic, American foreign policy was in fact a sophisticated reflection of the American national interest, which was, simply, to fortify the new nation's independence. . . . Until the turn of the twentieth century, American foreign policy was basically quite simple: to fulfill the country's manifest destiny, and to remain free of entanglements overseas. America favored democratic governments whenever possible, but abjured action to vindicate its preferences. . . . Until early this century, the isolationist tendency prevailed in American foreign policy. Then two factors projected America into world affairs: its rapidly expanding power and the gradual collapse of the international system centered on Europe. Woodrow Wilson took this increased American power and the shattered European order, added to it the traditional American view of our exceptional role in the world and developed what has become the dominant approach of modern American foreign policy-making. As he said in 1915: We insist upon security in prosecuting our self-chosen lines of national development. We do more than that. We demand it also for others. We do not confine our enthusiasm for individual liberty and free national development to the incidents and movements of affairs which affect only ourselves. We feel it wherever there is a people that tries to walk in these difficult paths of independence and right. Thus, for the first time in American history, the notion that it was our right and our duty to . . . wherever they might arise was established. While the details have changed from time to time, with some variation in the degree of enthusiasm for foreign interventions, this is still today the foundation in defining our role in the world. It was elaborated somewhat in the famous 1947 Foreign Affairs article penned by ``X''--later disclosed to be George Kennan--which guided our ultimately successful conduct of the cold war by urging, ``a policy of firm containment, designed to confront the Russians with unalterable counterforce at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon the interests of a peaceful and stable world.'' To be sure, there has rarely been a time in American history when all voices have been united behind the dominant approach to the U.S. global role. Many in this body, including myself, participated in one way or another in the national turmoil over the application of the containment policy in Southeast Asia, in a place called Vietnam. But, while there was vigorous debate on the advisability of specific implementations of Wilsonian ``idealism'' there has never been a serious challenge since the Second World War to what might be called an ``internationalist interventionist'' model for the United States in its national security policies. Yet, as we begin the year 2000, the world has changed in significant ways from the one we have known since World War II. The Soviet Union is no more. The Communists did not, in the end, bury us, but with a few notable exceptions who currently survive in China, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea, it is they who have been buried by historical inevitability. Again, to quote, Dr. Kissinger: The end of the Cold War produced an even greater temptation to recast the international environment in America's image. Wilson had been constrained by isolationism at home, and Truman had come up against Stalinist expansionism. In the post-Cold War world, the United States is the only remaining superpower with the capacity to intervene in every part of the globe. Yet power has become more diffuse and the issues to which military force is relevant have diminished. Victory in the Cold War has propelled America into a world which bears many similarities to the European state system of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and to practices which American statesmen and thinkers have consistently questioned. The absence of both an overriding ideological or strategic threat frees nations to pursue foreign policies based increasingly on their immediate national interest. Just as the very different international environment facing America at the start of the 20th century--with growing American strength accompanying a collapse of the European order--occasioned the need for a fundamental reassessment of the U.S. place in the world, so the end of the 20th century--with an end to the bipolar cold war and the emergence of multiple, if not yet super at least major, powers-- necessitates another thoroughgoing review and evaluation of where we are and where we should be headed. And if one has been reading the foreign policy journals and white papers during the last few years, one finds a vigorous and thoughtful debate underway on just such questions. I'd like to take just a few minutes to provide the Senate with a small bit of the flavor of this dialog among American foreign policy commentators. In a 1995 article in Foreign Affairs magazine, Richard Haass of the Brookings Institute provided I think a useful starting point for our consideration by separating the debate on America's global role into two parts: the priorities or ends of American policy, and the approaches or means currently available to achieve those ends. As possible priorities, he lists Wilsonian idealism with its emphasis on promotion of democratic values, economism which--as the name suggests-- gives primacy to economic considerations, realism which is often associated with the traditional diplomatic concepts of balance of power and international equilibrium, humanitarianism which focuses more on alleviating the plight of individuals, and minimalism which could be thought of as ``neo-isolationism'' but accepts the need for selected and limited U.S. engagement in global affairs. On the side of means, Haass lists unilateralism which provides the dominant country--the United States--with largely unfettered freedom of action in pursuit of its goals, neo-internationalism or ``assertive multilateralism'' which relies on multilateral organizations and approaches to international problem-solving, and regionalism which he defines as U.S. leadership within alliances and coalitions. Writing in the Spring 1996 issue of Strategic Review, Naval Postgraduate School Professor of National Security Affairs Edward A. Olsen presented a view which might be termed as minimalism when he advocated a return to our pre-World War II approach which he characterized as one of ``abstention, benign neglect, and non- interventionism within a policy of highly selective engagement.'' Professor Olsen distinguished his proposed policy of disengagement and non-intervention--which would be marked by less military intervention, less foreign aid, and fewer international entanglements--from isolationism because his approach would allow the U.S. ``strategic independence'' to determine for itself, independent of other countries or multilateral organizations, when and how to engage abroad. In almost direct opposition to the Olsen prescription, with goals akin to Wilsonian idealism and employing a largely unilateralist approach, William Kristol and Robert Kagan used a summer 1996 edition of Foreign Affairs to argue for a U.S. role of benevolent global hegemony in the belief that, ``American principles around the world can be sustained only by the continuing exertion of American influence,'' including foreign aid, diplomacy, and when necessary military intervention. In his 1994 book, entitled Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger, provides a contemporary, updated version of the realist balance of power view: America's dominant task is to strike a balance between the twin temptations inherent in its exceptionalism: the notion that America must remedy every wrong and stabilize every dislocation, and the latent instinct to withdraw into itself. . . . A country with America's idealistic tradition cannot base its policy on the balance of power as the sole criterion for a new world order. But is must learn that equilibrium is a fundamental precondition for the pursuit of its historic goals. A quote that comes to mind for me is when President Kennedy said, ``There is not necessarily an American solution for every problem in the world.'' I think that is the real issue. Former Congressman Stephen Solarz espoused the humaniarianism goal in the Winter 2000 edition of Blueprint Magazine: Some, of course, will object to humanitarian intervention as a violation of the principle of sovereignty, which precludes military interference in the internal affairs of other nations. . . . Yet it is clear today that the non- interference doctrine no longer trumps all other considerations. This was obvious when the United Nations sanctioned interventions during the 1990s in Northern Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti. Where crimes against humanity or genocide are involved, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention is increasingly accepted as a justification for violating the otherwise inviolable borders of sovereign states. A particular variant of the regionalism approach is contained within Samuel P. Huntington's 1996 work, The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order. I know that is a favorite of the good Senator from Kansas. In the aftermath of the cold war the United States became consumed with massive debates over the proper course of American foreign policy. In this era, however, the United States can neither dominate nor escape the world. Neither internationalism nor isolationism, neither multilateralism nor unilateralism, will best serve its interests. Those will best be advanced by eschewing these opposing extremes and instead adopting an Atlanticist policy of close cooperation with its European partners to protect and advance the interests and values of the unique civilization they share. These are just a very few of the many ``think pieces'' which have been coming out of the American foreign policy community since the end of the cold war. Even this brief glimpse reveals a wide divergence in expert opinions on the preferred priorities and approaches for post-cold-war U.S. global engagement. To further evaluate the current debate among individuals with strongly held views on where we should be headed I asked the outstanding Congressional Research Service to provide me with a ``review of the literature'' on U.S. global role options. I ask unanimous consent that this CRS document be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, James Lindsay of the Brookings Institution, I think, well summed up where we in Congress are today in this great debate on America's proper role in the world in the Winter 2000 Brookings Review, where he wrote: Much like friends who agree to dine but can't agree on a restaurant, foreign policy elites agree that the United States should do something, just not what. Congress naturally reflects this dissensus, which makes it difficult for the institution to function. Divided by chamber, party, ideology, region, committee, and generation, Congress lists toward paralysis whenever a modicum of agreement and a sense of proportion are absent. In a nutshell, attempting to overcome this ``dissensus'' and ``paralysis'' is what Senator Roberts and I are trying to do in these dialogs. I'd like at this point to yield to the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his comments.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, may I say my colleague from Kansas, as he so often does, put his finger right on it. The question is one of priorities. I appreciate him pointing out the CNN effect. The extent to which this country can respond to each and every problem in the world is limited. We have to recognize that; therefore, we must insist on dealing with our top priorities. I deeply appreciate the wonderful quote of General Shelton which I first heard at an Armed Services Committee hearing, that we have, in effect, a great hammer, but not every problem in the world is a nail. What a great way to phrase that particular point of view. I appreciate Senator Roberts' mentioning General Powell, one of my personal heroes. I once had the pleasure of visiting him in the Pentagon when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We spoke about the purpose of the American military. He said: My purpose is to give the President of the United States the best advice I can on how to use the American military to stay out of war; but if we get in war, win and win quickly. That is still probably the finest definition of the mission statement of our military forces I have ever heard. So I thank the Senator from Kansas for his insight and for his timely remarks. I will now conclude my prepared remarks today by offering some preliminary thoughts as we begin this dialogue on the U.S. global role. As I said at the outset, I certainly do not have any final judgments or answers to this critical question. In my view, no one has, or can have, all of the answers right now because so many of the elements of the post-cold-war world--including its geopolitical alignments, ``rules of the game'' in dispute resolution and trade, and the role of non-national actors, including non-governmental organizations, the news media and unfortunately transnational terrorists--are in flux. But we cannot let this lack of certainty and finality deter our efforts to find the best set of policies we can now develop, not when challenges or potential challenges to our national interests continue to arise, not when the people of America are asked to sustain whatever policy we here espouse. I might say, as a Vietnam veteran who almost came back in a body bag, the Dover test, the Dover, DE test, or the ability of this country to measure the rightness of our actions based on the price we are willing to pay, is a powerful one. When our sons and daughters in the military are asked to put their family life on hold and their lives on the line in support of whatever the civilian authorities determine, they have a right to ask us if those policies are worth it. I have been deeply disturbed by the tenor of our recent debates in the Congress and with the administration on a host of important national security issues. Most recently, the Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty after little meaningful debate and no Senate hearings. This was one of the most consequential treaties of the decade, and it was sadly reduced to sound-bite politics and partisan rancor. In addition to the CTBT, the Senate has made monumental decisions on our policies in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf, funding for the Wye River Accords and the future of NATO and the United Nations, all without a comprehensive set of American goals and policies. Simply put, I do not believe we can afford to continue on a path of partisanship and division of purpose without serious damage to our national interests. In addition, as the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, I have been heavily involved in trying to improve the quality of life for our servicemen and women through such steps as increasing pay and enhancing health and education benefits. It is my deeply held view that not only do we need to take such action to address some disturbing trends in armed forces recruitment and retention, but we owe these individuals nothing less in recognition of their service. However, as important as these other factors are, the ultimate quality of life issues center on decisions made by national security decisionmakers here in Washington relating to the deployment of our forces abroad. It is these deployments which separate families, disrupt lives, and in those cases which involve hostilities, endanger the service member's life itself. This is not to say that I believe our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are not fully prepared to do whatever we ask of them. But we on this end owe them nothing less than a full and thorough consideration each and every time we put them into harm's way. There are thirteen military installations in Georgia, and I visit the troops whenever I can. When I go to these bases, I see weary and beleaguered families who are doing their best to make it through the weeks and months without their husbands or wives. They are, indeed, on the point of the spear of this Nation's military force. They are paying a heavy toll for our military engagements around the world. It is a price they are ready to pay, but one I want the Senate to understand and appreciate as we continue in our commitment of troops aboard. For what it is worth, based on what I have seen and heard to date, I believe we in positions of foreign policy making responsibility in the United States need to be much more mindful of such traditional realist diplomatic precepts as ``balance of power'' and ``equilibrium.'' This is not to say that I believe our distinctly American approach to foreign policy, dominated throughout by idealist considerations and in most of the 20th century by what is often called Wilsonian internationalism has been wrong-headed or unfounded. Clearly, for the most part, it has served us well in advancing our vital national interests, whether those were securing our national independence, promoting the spread of self-determination and democracy, or defeating Soviet communism. But the post-cold-war period is a new day for America as well as the world. In my view, we need not, and certainly will not, renounce our ideals, but in this new era, those ideals must be grounded in a policy which realistically gauges what price Americans can or should pay in support of our global role. We have to ask the Dover, DE test: How many body bags do we want to see coming home? We have to ask what price we are going to pay for our military. We cannot continue to downsize our American military by a third and increase our commitments abroad by 300 percent, whether or not our commitments abroad are actually sustainable over a period of time. Last, I am struck by the words of the conservative editor of the National Interest, Owen Harries: I advocate restraint because every dominant power in the last four centuries that has not practiced it--that has been excessively intrusive and demanding--has ultimately been confronted by a hostile coalition of other powers. Americans may believe that their country, being exceptional, need have no worries in this respect. I do not agree. It is not what Americans think of the United States but what others think of it that will decide the matter. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of the Senate for our discussion here, and I thank my colleague for his tremendous insight and his marvelous research into the challenges we face in America's global role today. I look forward to continuing this discussion and this dialog in the coming weeks.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this military health care initiative--the Military Health Care Improvements Act of 2000. I am here today because the military health care system saved my life. Many distinguished members have preceded me in attempting to address this issue of ensuring that our military members and their families are properly cared for. As I have stated many times--and devoted untold hours of thought, meetings, and considerations to--military health care is the issue for those who have served and for those who are serving, and especially those who will serve in the military. From my first day in the Senate, I have considered no issue more important in the maintenance of our military forces than the military health care system. I have addressed this issue in prior legislation. As I arrived in Washington, the Tricare system of military health care was taking hold in my State with poor performance I might add. Of course, much has been improved because of this body and the Congress as a whole responding to our constituents, and ensuring we live up to our obligations to our military members. In any scholar's opinion, our Nation's rise as a national power has been dependent on our military power--military power is the enabler to economic power and well being of any country. The underpinning to our military power has always been and always will be our military service members. In fact, Time magazine recently voted the American GI as the Person of the 20th Century. We have obligations to these brave souls and their families who serve selflessly and proudly. I believe that among many other quality of issues, the most important of these obligations is quality military health care. Service members serve with distinction, in places unknown, without question to orders, and without expectations. It is up to this Congress to act on legislation, and to provide the most comprehensive health care for those members--past, present, and future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill with conviction. Why? Because it is more than the right thing to do--it must be done, if we are to fill the ranks of our services, and if we are to live up to the obligations of all those brave soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen that have given their lives for this country so that we could enjoy this country's bounty. Our legislation would cover several main health care issues for military personnel, their families, and military retirees, such as: expanding health care coverage for Medicare Eligible Retirees by extending the demonstration projects already underway to 2005, expanding the Tricare Senior Prime demonstration, and expanding the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits Program (FEHP), demonstration for Medicare eligibles, that is also currently underway; expanding the military pharmacy programs by expanding the national mail order pharmacy program to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, reducing enrollment fees for the pharmacy pilot program and implementing deductibles and quarterly/monthly payment schedules; eliminating copays for Tricare Prime and expanding the Tricare remote program and improve Tricare business practices; and grandfather those participating the Department of Defense home health care demonstration program; and additionally, encourage the Department of Defense and Veterans Administration Cooperative Programs already underway to address patient safety and pharmaceutical safety, two key issues in health care today. Several other legislative initiatives have been introduced this year to address health care for the military--active duty and retirees. In the coming weeks, the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which Senator Hutchinson heads and of which I am pleased to be the ranking Democrat, will address each bill that comes to us on the subject of military health care reform in the hopes of finding the right combination of each of these bills to formulate the best final product for the committee's markup. I look forward to receiving testimony on each measure, and I look forward to working with Senator Hutchinson on these important health care initiatives. Since his appointment to the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have truly enjoyed a wonderful working relationship with him, and I am sure that will continue. I appreciate his support and his interest in the issue of service men and women and their health care. I have also been encouraged by the bipartisan support our measure has received, and I am happy to be working with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Levin, Majority Leader Lott, and Minority Leader Daschle on addressing this critical issue. This legislation continues our work on addressing health care for retirees and the active components. I am excited at the possibility of passage of this comprehensive legislation.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Road Back to Clean Air Act''. Georgia has one of the fastest growth rates in the nation, specifically in the Metropolitan Atlanta area. Although this growth is welcomed and encouraged as an economic boom for the region, two of the results created by this growth have been traffic congestion and air pollution. Unfortunately, as we embark into a new millennium with all of its great possibilities, what is most noted about Metro Atlanta is the severe transportation problems of the region. A recent survey found that Atlanta had the very worst traffic congestion of any Southern city, and Metro Atlanta drivers have the longest average vehicle miles traveled in the nation--an average of 34 miles per day. All of this costs our economy $1.5 billion a year in wasted time and fuel. And, this congestion has been accompanied by significant environmental problems. To make matters even worse for the State and Metro Atlanta, the ability of the area to correct this problem is complicated and constrained for two reasons. First, Metro Atlanta is designated a ``serious'' non-attainment area under the Clean Air Act. Second, Metro Atlanta has been in a conformity lapse since January 17, 1998. Each of these designations restricts the ability of the Metro area to implement new transportation projects, thus hindering the economic growth and quality of life in the region. In addition, in March of last year, the D.C. District Court of Appeals effectively ruled that Metro Atlanta's 61 ``grand-fathered'' transportation projects were illegal because they were not in conformity with clean air requirements, thus calling into question some $1 billion worth of such construction projects. Fortunately, on June 21, 1999, an out-of-court settlement was reached in Atlanta relating to a similar lawsuit filed by The Georgia Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and Georgians for Transportation Choices. These groups indicated that they did not file the suit to kill road projects, but rather to bring attention to the need for regional planning, air quality improvement, and transportation alternatives. The settlement allowed 17 of the 61 road projects to move forward while declaring the remaining 44 ineligible. I must express my sincerest appreciation to Transportation Secretary Slater whose personal intervention and commitment made this settlement agreement possible. This was very positive news which has allowed Metro Atlanta to finally begin to move forward with its 17 approved projects and to re-direct its surplus funds toward transportation alternatives which will help reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. In fact, as a result of the settlement, Atlanta is soon expected to submit its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which not only embodies a new focus on more regional planning and transportation alternatives, but also includes most, if not all, of the grand-fathered projects which were halted. The difference here of course is that these grand-fathered projects are now incorporated into a more comprehensive long-range transportation plan which takes into account Atlanta's clean air problems. This is a win-win situation for Metro Atlanta. However, this is a serious, serious problem and is in large measure a product of the very economic success which has made, year after year, Metro Atlanta one of the fastest growing areas of the country. Because the problem has been building over many years, the planners in Metro Atlanta understand that a solution will not occur overnight. However, Atlanta's experience has highlighted the need for providing local planners with additional flexibility during a conformity lapse. It is this experience that has led me to introduce the Road Back to Clean Air Act. The purpose of the Road Back to Clean Air Act is to assist metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, which are facing severe transportation problems that are complicated by time-consuming, inflexible constraints. First, the Road Back to Clean Air Act codifies the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) guidance put forward as a result of the D.C. District Court decision. The Atlanta situation has demonstrated that these guidelines can allow transportation projects to move forward while ensuring that local residents are protected from the negative health effects of dirty air. Second, the bill provides local planners with additional flexibility to obtain federal funding for beneficial transportation projects during a conformity lapse. Among other projects which could move forward during such a lapse would be public transit and high occupancy vehicle lanes. The main benefit of this legislation is that it provides transportation planners in cities across the country with additional flexibility in meeting their transportation goals while preserving the health benefits of clean air. Additionally, it has the endorsement of numerous environmental groups, including the plaintiffs in the D.C. District Court case. Therefore, costly litigation that can only delay Atlanta's, and other areas, good faith efforts to alleviate traffic congestion and improve air quality will be avoided should this legislation be enacted into law. Beyond Atlanta, other metropolitan areas in the United States are currently or will in the future face the constraints of non-conformity and non-attainment as they attempt to develop and implement their transportation plans. I believe the Road Back to Clean Air Act will provide these cities with the flexibility to move forward with vital transportation projects while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the Clean Air Act. I thank my colleagues for their attention and I urge your co- sponsorship of this important legislation.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this military health care initiative--the Military Health Care Improvements Act of 2000. I am here today because the military health care system saved my life. Many distinguished members have preceded me in attempting to address this issue of ensuring that our military members and their families are properly cared for. As I have stated many times--and devoted untold hours of thought, meetings, and considerations to--military health care is the issue for those who have served and for those who are serving, and especially those who will serve in the military. From my first day in the Senate, I have considered no issue more important in the maintenance of our military forces than the military health care system. I have addressed this issue in prior legislation. As I arrived in Washington, the Tricare system of military health care was taking hold in my State with poor performance I might add. Of course, much has been improved because of this body and the Congress as a whole responding to our constituents, and ensuring we live up to our obligations to our military members. In any scholar's opinion, our Nation's rise as a national power has been dependent on our military power--military power is the enabler to economic power and well being of any country. The underpinning to our military power has always been and always will be our military service members. In fact, Time magazine recently voted the American GI as the Person of the 20th Century. We have obligations to these brave souls and their families who serve selflessly and proudly. I believe that among many other quality of issues, the most important of these obligations is quality military health care. Service members serve with distinction, in places unknown, without question to orders, and without expectations. It is up to this Congress to act on legislation, and to provide the most comprehensive health care for those members--past, present, and future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill with conviction. Why? Because it is more than the right thing to do--it must be done, if we are to fill the ranks of our services, and if we are to live up to the obligations of all those brave soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen that have given their lives for this country so that we could enjoy this country's bounty. Our legislation would cover several main health care issues for military personnel, their families, and military retirees, such as: expanding health care coverage for Medicare Eligible Retirees by extending the demonstration projects already underway to 2005, expanding the Tricare Senior Prime demonstration, and expanding the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits Program (FEHP), demonstration for Medicare eligibles, that is also currently underway; expanding the military pharmacy programs by expanding the national mail order pharmacy program to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, reducing enrollment fees for the pharmacy pilot program and implementing deductibles and quarterly/monthly payment schedules; eliminating copays for Tricare Prime and expanding the Tricare remote program and improve Tricare business practices; and grandfather those participating the Department of Defense home health care demonstration program; and additionally, encourage the Department of Defense and Veterans Administration Cooperative Programs already underway to address patient safety and pharmaceutical safety, two key issues in health care today. Several other legislative initiatives have been introduced this year to address health care for the military--active duty and retirees. In the coming weeks, the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which Senator Hutchinson heads and of which I am pleased to be the ranking Democrat, will address each bill that comes to us on the subject of military health care reform in the hopes of finding the right combination of each of these bills to formulate the best final product for the committee's markup. I look forward to receiving testimony on each measure, and I look forward to working with Senator Hutchinson on these important health care initiatives. Since his appointment to the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have truly enjoyed a wonderful working relationship with him, and I am sure that will continue. I appreciate his support and his interest in the issue of service men and women and their health care. I have also been encouraged by the bipartisan support our measure has received, and I am happy to be working with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Levin, Majority Leader Lott, and Minority Leader Daschle on addressing this critical issue. This legislation continues our work on addressing health care for retirees and the active components. I am excited at the possibility of passage of this comprehensive legislation.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Road Back to Clean Air Act''. Georgia has one of the fastest growth rates in the nation, specifically in the Metropolitan Atlanta area. Although this growth is welcomed and encouraged as an economic boom for the region, two of the results created by this growth have been traffic congestion and air pollution. Unfortunately, as we embark into a new millennium with all of its great possibilities, what is most noted about Metro Atlanta is the severe transportation problems of the region. A recent survey found that Atlanta had the very worst traffic congestion of any Southern city, and Metro Atlanta drivers have the longest average vehicle miles traveled in the nation--an average of 34 miles per day. All of this costs our economy $1.5 billion a year in wasted time and fuel. And, this congestion has been accompanied by significant environmental problems. To make matters even worse for the State and Metro Atlanta, the ability of the area to correct this problem is complicated and constrained for two reasons. First, Metro Atlanta is designated a ``serious'' non-attainment area under the Clean Air Act. Second, Metro Atlanta has been in a conformity lapse since January 17, 1998. Each of these designations restricts the ability of the Metro area to implement new transportation projects, thus hindering the economic growth and quality of life in the region. In addition, in March of last year, the D.C. District Court of Appeals effectively ruled that Metro Atlanta's 61 ``grand-fathered'' transportation projects were illegal because they were not in conformity with clean air requirements, thus calling into question some $1 billion worth of such construction projects. Fortunately, on June 21, 1999, an out-of-court settlement was reached in Atlanta relating to a similar lawsuit filed by The Georgia Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and Georgians for Transportation Choices. These groups indicated that they did not file the suit to kill road projects, but rather to bring attention to the need for regional planning, air quality improvement, and transportation alternatives. The settlement allowed 17 of the 61 road projects to move forward while declaring the remaining 44 ineligible. I must express my sincerest appreciation to Transportation Secretary Slater whose personal intervention and commitment made this settlement agreement possible. This was very positive news which has allowed Metro Atlanta to finally begin to move forward with its 17 approved projects and to re-direct its surplus funds toward transportation alternatives which will help reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. In fact, as a result of the settlement, Atlanta is soon expected to submit its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which not only embodies a new focus on more regional planning and transportation alternatives, but also includes most, if not all, of the grand-fathered projects which were halted. The difference here of course is that these grand-fathered projects are now incorporated into a more comprehensive long-range transportation plan which takes into account Atlanta's clean air problems. This is a win-win situation for Metro Atlanta. However, this is a serious, serious problem and is in large measure a product of the very economic success which has made, year after year, Metro Atlanta one of the fastest growing areas of the country. Because the problem has been building over many years, the planners in Metro Atlanta understand that a solution will not occur overnight. However, Atlanta's experience has highlighted the need for providing local planners with additional flexibility during a conformity lapse. It is this experience that has led me to introduce the Road Back to Clean Air Act. The purpose of the Road Back to Clean Air Act is to assist metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, which are facing severe transportation problems that are complicated by time-consuming, inflexible constraints. First, the Road Back to Clean Air Act codifies the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) guidance put forward as a result of the D.C. District Court decision. The Atlanta situation has demonstrated that these guidelines can allow transportation projects to move forward while ensuring that local residents are protected from the negative health effects of dirty air. Second, the bill provides local planners with additional flexibility to obtain federal funding for beneficial transportation projects during a conformity lapse. Among other projects which could move forward during such a lapse would be public transit and high occupancy vehicle lanes. The main benefit of this legislation is that it provides transportation planners in cities across the country with additional flexibility in meeting their transportation goals while preserving the health benefits of clean air. Additionally, it has the endorsement of numerous environmental groups, including the plaintiffs in the D.C. District Court case. Therefore, costly litigation that can only delay Atlanta's, and other areas, good faith efforts to alleviate traffic congestion and improve air quality will be avoided should this legislation be enacted into law. Beyond Atlanta, other metropolitan areas in the United States are currently or will in the future face the constraints of non-conformity and non-attainment as they attempt to develop and implement their transportation plans. I believe the Road Back to Clean Air Act will provide these cities with the flexibility to move forward with vital transportation projects while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the Clean Air Act. I thank my colleagues for their attention and I urge your co- sponsorship of this important legislation.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, to support Americans faced with long-term care needs I am proposing a savings bond tax credit. Many people are struggling to pay for the assistive care needs associated with conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. An estimated 5.8 million Americans aged 65 or older need long-term care. Nursing home care is only one component of long-term care services that includes assisted living, adult day and home care. Medicare and health insurance do not cover long-term care. In 1995, federal and state spending for nursing home care was approximately $34 billion and an additional $21 billion was used for home care. It is projected that half of all women and a third of men in this country who are now age 65 are likely to spend some time in their later years in a nursing home at a cost from $40,000 to $90,000 per person. About 40% of all nursing home expenses are paid for out-of-pocket by patients and/or family members. Liquidating family assets is often the only way for many to fund the high costs for care. These staggering statistics and the pleas for help from Americans in such situations reinforce the critical need for long-term care assistance. To qualify for this proposed tax credit, the person receiving care must have at least two limitations in activities of daily living or a comparable cognitive impairment. Activities of daily living, like eating, bathing, and toileting, are basic care needs that must be met. Families that claim parents or parents-in law as dependents on their tax returns can qualify for this tax credit if savings bonds are used to pay for long-term care services. ``Sandwich generation'' families paying for both college education for their children and long-term care services for their parents can use this tax credit for either program or a combined credit up to the maximum. Mr. President, I ask that this proposed measure to provide long-term care cost relief be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, to support Americans faced with long-term care needs I am proposing a savings bond tax credit. Many people are struggling to pay for the assistive care needs associated with conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. An estimated 5.8 million Americans aged 65 or older need long-term care. Nursing home care is only one component of long-term care services that includes assisted living, adult day and home care. Medicare and health insurance do not cover long-term care. In 1995, federal and state spending for nursing home care was approximately $34 billion and an additional $21 billion was used for home care. It is projected that half of all women and a third of men in this country who are now age 65 are likely to spend some time in their later years in a nursing home at a cost from $40,000 to $90,000 per person. About 40% of all nursing home expenses are paid for out-of-pocket by patients and/or family members. Liquidating family assets is often the only way for many to fund the high costs for care. These staggering statistics and the pleas for help from Americans in such situations reinforce the critical need for long-term care assistance. To qualify for this proposed tax credit, the person receiving care must have at least two limitations in activities of daily living or a comparable cognitive impairment. Activities of daily living, like eating, bathing, and toileting, are basic care needs that must be met. Families that claim parents or parents-in law as dependents on their tax returns can qualify for this tax credit if savings bonds are used to pay for long-term care services. ``Sandwich generation'' families paying for both college education for their children and long-term care services for their parents can use this tax credit for either program or a combined credit up to the maximum. Mr. President, I ask that this proposed measure to provide long-term care cost relief be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise before you today to recognize the outstanding achievements and hard work of the Georgia Board of Regents. This dedicated group of men and women has committed itself to improving higher education in the state of Georgia and I am proud of their accomplishments. As John F. Kennedy said, ``Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education.'' Over the past five years, the Regents have developed a commitment to bring the Georgia higher education system into the new millennium through strategic planning and sweeping vision. In October of 1994, just as Dr. Stephen Porch was officially inaugurated as the University System's ninth Chancellor, the Board adopted the first step of a new program, ``Access to Academic Excellence for the New Millennium.'' The Board called for Georgia's public colleges and universities to be recognized for first-rate education, leading edge research and committed public service. The Board's new statement took into account input from various student groups, University and Regent presidents, and leaders in the education community. Later that same year, the Regents adopted a new set of guiding principles to serve as the foundation for future policy making and modified the affiliated graduate degree structure. This cleared the way for institutions throughout the state to offer graduate programs autonomously, collectively, or under shared authority. In March of 1995, Chancellor Porch introduced another new policy direction to address the need for ``co-reform'' of public education in the state. This reform was an effort to recognize that all sectors of education are fundamentally linked and that improvement in one sector requires a comprehensive effort of all sectors. Governor Miller's support of this initiative became a critical element in its success and he appointed a statewide Council to implement the directive. Throughout 1995, the Board of Regents continued to see successes in its effort to improve the delivery of education throughout Georgia. In June, the Board introduced a new admissions policy with the goal of breaking the cycle of low admissions expectations and inadequate college preparation. The new admissions policy aimed to make such changes in two ways: fostering more effective preparation of students before they are accepted for admission; and broadening the admissions evaluation process to look beyond single quantitative measures such as standardized test scores. In 1996, the Board approved the framework for a new core curriculum, just eight months after the first meeting of the Advisory Committee meeting. The committee was charged with redesigning the original core curriculum--a redesign that focused on a multidisciplinary effort that maximizes the resources of a particular institution. All of these efforts came together in December of 1997 when the Board gave final approval on the University System's new admissions policy. This approval included policy on admissions for students without a high school diploma and outlines specific courses that fulfill the College Preparatory Curriculum requirements. In August of 1998, Chancellor Porch began a tour of all 34 System institutions. He travelled to update faculty, staff, students and elected officials as well as local communities on the progress the University System had made over the past four years, and the work that remains to be done to create a more educated Georgia. By this fall, the members of the Georgia Board of Regents saw the fruits of their labor. SAT scores of students entering the University System were up, and a survey of state business leaders showed their satisfaction with the quality of the University had increased from two years prior. Plans to increase access to technology were drafted, and an effort to be even more responsive to the educational, economic and fiscal needs of the state was committed. As Ben Franklin once said, ``An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.'' How true that is. I once heard Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund say that ``service is the rent each of us pays for living.'' I want to thank the men and women of the Georgia Board of Regents for their service and dedication to the higher educational system in the great state of Georgia. We will all benefit from your efforts. At this point, I would ask to include in the Record the names and hometowns of the distinguished Georgians who have served on the state's Board of Regents from January 1993 to the present. The material follows: Thomas F. Allgood, Sr. of Augusta; Shannon L. Amos of Columbus; John Henry Anderson, Jr. of Hawkinsville; David H. (Hal) Averitt of Statesboro; Juanita Powell Baranco of Lithonia; James E. Brown of Dalton; Kenneth W. Cannestra of Atlanta; Connie Carter of Macon; John Howard Clark of Moultrie; S. William Clark of Waycross; J. Tom Coleman of Savannah; W. Lamar Cousins of Marietta; Joel Cowan of Peachtree City; A.W. ``Bill'' Dahlberg of Atlanta; Suzanne G. Elson of Palm Beach, FL; Dwight Evans of Gulfport, MS; Elsie B. Hand of Pelham; Joe Frank Harris of Cartersville; Hilton H. Howell, Jr. of Atlanta; George Hunt of Tifton; Edgar Jenkins of Jasper; Warren Y. Jobe of Atlanta; Charles H. Jones of Macon; Donald M. Leebern, Jr. of Columbus; Elridge W. McMillian of Atlanta; Martin W. NeSmith of Claxton; Barry Phillips of Atlanta; Edgar L. Rhodes of Bremen; William B. Turner of Columbus; Glenn S. White of Buford; Virgil R. Williams of Stone Mountain; Joel O. Wooten, Jr. of Columbus; and James D. Yancy of Columbus.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before my colleagues today to pay tribute to a great American and dear friend, Mr. Zachary Fisher. Zach led an extraordinary life that included service to his fellow man and to our country. He was a major philanthropic benefactor for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. His generosity was shared with numerous non-profit organizations and foundations including causes such as Alzheimer's Disease, military retiree housing, and educational benefits for our men and women in uniform. When the United States entered World War II in 1941, Zach was ineligible to serve in the armed forces due to a serious knee injury sustained in a construction accident. ``I could have cried,'' he said, recalling the day he was told he did not pass the Marine Corps physical. ``I wanted to go defend my country.'' Nevertheless, determined to do his part, he aided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in building coastal fortifications at home. Following the war, Zach, along with his brothers, earned an international reputation as a leader in the construction industry. Zach spent the rest of his life doing good deeds for his country, turning the wealth he earned as a developer into good will for the men and women of the armed services. In 1978, Zach founded the Intrepid Museum Foundation to save the historic and battle-scarred aircraft carrier Intrepid. Through his efforts the vessel became the home of the Intrepid Sea Air Space Museum, which opened in New York City in 1982. Zach went on to contribute more than $25 million for the establishment and operation of the Museum, a tribute to the thousands of military men and women who have served and continue to serve our country. In addition to founding the Intrepid Museum, Zach and his wife Elizabeth also formed the Fisher Armed Services Foundation to provide contributions to families who survive the death of a loved one in the armed service. Since then, the Foundation has supported hundreds of families of military personnel. The Foundation also provides scholarship funds to active duty and former service members as well as their families. Since 1987, hundreds of students have received significant scholarships to further their education. In 1990, the Fishers began the Fisher House Program, dedicating more than $15 million to the construction of housing for families of hospitalized military personnel. The houses are designed to provide all the comforts of home and allow families to support one another through their difficult times. The Presidential Medal of Freedom Award, the highest honor that can be awarded a United States citizen, was presented to Zachary Fisher by President Clinton in 1998. Fisher was awarded the Medal for his steadfast and generous support of the U.S. military. His support of the military was also recognized this year as legislation, which I had the honor of sponsoring in the Senate designating Zachary Fisher as an honorary veteran of the United States Armed Forces. Zach was only the second person ever to receive such a designation. In addition, Zach was also awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom. Sadly, Zach lost his long battle with cancer on June 4, 1999. Zach was truly the friend of the everyday soldier. He will be dearly missed and remembered for his selfless devotion to United States service members and their families. Zachary Fisher was a great man who leaves behind a legacy that will continue to better the lives of American men and women for years to come.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to add some additional comments to my statement that appeared in the Congressional Record on Tuesday, November 16, 1999. Just a few days ago, on Tuesday, November 16, several constituents of mine were involved in a disastrous truck-related crash on I-285, a major commuter route around Atlanta. The crash took place during the morning rush hour. Four tractor-trailer trucks were involved in the crash, two of which were tankers hauling flammable materials. Four passenger cars were also involved in the crash, and tragically, one woman was killed when her vehicle was crushed between two tractor- trailer trucks. Four others were rushed to the hospital to be treated for injuries. Thankfully, no further fatalities have been reported and no evacuation was required due to the sensitive material two of the trucks were hauling. This crash underscores the need to guarantee that truck safety is a priority in this country, and hopefully, reduce the occurrence of accidents such as this. H.R. 3419 is a step in the right direction. It creates a new motor carrier safety administration. In a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General (IG) testified that the current oversight system for the trucking industry within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is not adequate. In fact, one of the main supporters of this legislation is Transportation Secretary Slater, who saw the need to create a separate motor carrier oversight administration focused entirely on safety. Now that Congressional sentiment has swung toward adoption of H.R. 3419 and the establishment of a new Motor Carrier Safety Administration, my colleagues and I should track the implementation of this statute to ensure that the new agency will not bring with it the problems associated with the former body. Safety and compliance should be the utmost concerns of this office, with the American motorist as the benefactor of their efforts.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, on November 9, 1999, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed (411-8) the conference report on H.R. 1554, the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999. Arriving at a conference report compromise was a long process. For months, conferees have been negotiating over these provisions. The bill the Committee produced was a good bill, and that is underscored by the overwhelming, bipartisan support the final version received. However, the Senate will not act on this bill propr to adjourning for the year. Instead, Congress will recess without passing the complete Conference Committee version of H.R. 1554. In an attempt to achieve some of the gains from this bill, a modified version of the Satellite Home Viewers Act will be attached to the final omnibus appropriations bill and passed by Congress. However, it will be absent one important provision that would help ensure that rural citizens are not overlooked as they often are in other sectors. The two major direct broadcast satellite (DBS) companies have stated to Congress that they will only serve the most popular markets with local broadcast channels once the statutory restriction prohibiting this action is removed. An incentive needs to be there for businesses to develop this same service for households in second tier markets and rural areas as well. The conference report to H.R. 1554 would have provided $1.25 billion in loan guarantees for satellite companies that seek to serve these often overlooked markets. It was an idea I strongly supported because it would have encouraged development of this service in second tier and rural markets in Georgia and elsewhere in the country. Instead, a single Senator demanded the removal of this provision because of procedural issues and because, at the end of a legislative session it generally takes unanimous consent to expedite consideration of each measure, the bill presented to the Senate as part of the final appropriations bill reflects an acquiescence to this demand. To respond to those of us who supported the loan guarantee, the Chairman of the Banking Committee has promised to take up this provision and pass appropriate legislation by April 1, 2000. In the meantime, millions of satellite viewers who live in middle and rural America will not have the opportunity to view their local channels nor will they have the solace in knowing such service will be coming soon. This is very disappointing, and it is my sincere hope that the promise to act swiftly on the loan guarantees will be kept in an environment where promises and compacts are too often ignored. As a member of the Commerce Committee, I have been closely following this bill throughout the entire process. At the heart of this debate is viewers' access to local broadcast television. I say to my colleagues that rural Americans deserve the same access to their local broadcast stations that urban and suburban DBS customers will soon enjoy. I will work next year to ensure that this loan guarantee program is acted upon swiftly.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I share with my colleagues some very exciting news coming out of my home state of Georgia. Earlier this month, two giant pandas, Lun Lun and Yang Yang, were delivered safely by UPS from Beijing, China to their new home at Zoo Atlanta after a 17- hour global journey. Zoo Atlanta Director Dr. Terry Maple ``signed'' for the special delivery during a welcoming ceremony at Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport with more than 200 dignitaries and elementary school children looking on. The very special delivery brings to six the total number of rare giant pandas now residing in the United States. I would like to recognize the special role that UPS has played in this long journey to bring the pandas to their new home. UPS became involved with the panda transport when Zoo Atlanta officials asked for their help in the construction and maintenance of the panda habitat. The UPS Foundation agreed to give $625,000 over five years to fund the habitat project at the zoo, and also agreed to provide all the logistical support necessary to move the pandas from Beijing to Atlanta. The move involved over 100 UPS employees in six cities from around the world (Atlanta, Louisville, Anchorage, Singapore, Hong Kong and Beijing) covering travels of 7,526 miles. There were backup flight crews and a backup aircraft in place in case of health problems or mechanical failures, customs support people to smooth the process of bringing the animals onto U.S. soil, and even a UPS manager to accompany the two-person flight crew and act as load master. UPS also flew two Chinese and one American veterinarians from Beijing to Atlanta. The animals were unloaded by UPS air gateway employees and placed in UPS package cars (the familiar brown delivery truck) that were specially marked with panda graphics. The vehicles (four trucks, two as back ups in case of mechanical problems) were driven by specially chosen Circle of Honor members, UPS drivers who have driven for 25 years or more without an accident. The package cars were outfitted with air conditioning and heating units for the animals. This exciting new addition to the Atlanta landscape would not have been possible without the hard work, dedication and financial support of many people, especially at Zoo Atlanta and UPS. I am thrilled that Atlanta will be a part of such an important exchange and friendship endeavor with the people of China and I am proud of the support and enthusiasm that have showered Lun Lun and Yang Yang throughout their journey and now that they are in their new home.