J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great American institution and its leader. The American Legion Barrett-Davis- Watson Post #233 is located in a small Georgia town called Loganville and it is commanded by a true patriot in every sense of the word--Mr. Bobby Boss. For over 50 years this man's leadership has allowed the post to continue offering community services that any American would be proud of. Post #233 held its first meeting on November 19, 1946 with the Legion's standard program of the day: patriotism, rehabilitation, community service, community welfare and membership. Less than ten years after its inception, the Post responded to the town of Loganville's need for a medical doctor by building a clinic. The Post later donated a truck and tractor to the city. Over the past 40 years, the Post has continued to make numerous donations to the community, including an annual $1,500 donation to the town's elementary school to help purchase shoes and clothes for the needy and a $12,000 donation for dropout prevention programs in all Walton County Schools. Tragedy struck the Post in 1977 when a fire all but destroyed the Post building, leaving nothing but ashes and concrete. At the first monthly meeting after the fire, a majority of the members present chose not to rebuild, but Commander Boss was not in that majority. Two weeks after that meeting, he took his own bulldozer and cleared the charred remains. His efforts resulted in the fine building the Post uses today. Once the Post was back on its feet, many of the programs that had fallen by the wayside due to rebuilding costs were reinstated. In the past 10 years alone, Post #233 has supported renovation projects for the city of Loganville and donated $8,000 towards the purchase of computers for the local high school; donated half the costs of building a baseball field complete with lights, restrooms and a concession stand. Post #233 has also contributed funds to help the local Sheriff's department purchase camera equipment for patrol cars. This Christmas season, members of Post #233 will prepare and deliver more than one thousand baskets for widows, the disabled and needy families. The good work of Post #233 represents all that is noble in our great nation. I applaud their community service and their patriotism. They are an asset to their community, the great state of Georgia and the United States of America.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, on the eve of its one hundred and seventy-fifth birthday, I rise today to recognize a most charming and prosperous town, Perry, GA. When the first settlers came to the fertile plains of central Georgia, they found a wealth of natural resources that promised prosperity. The land proved not only beautiful, but also perfectly suited for agriculture. The town's initial successes attracted entrepreneurial citizens who contributed greatly to Perry's strong industrial and agricultural presence in Georgia which continues to grow to this day. Perry is the seat of Houston County, and is blessed with a rich abundance of natural, historic and cultural diversity. Formerly known as Wattsville, Perry became the first official town in the county on November 25, 1824. Perry is named after Commodore Oliver Perry, who became famous for a battle on Lake Erie during the war of 1812. During the battle of September 10, 1813, Perry defeated and captured a flotilla of six large British frigates with an improvised fleet of nine American vessels and in so doing neutralized the British naval presence on Lake Erie. For as long as anyone can remember, Perry has been a favorite place for tourists to stop. Known as the ``Crossroads of Georgia,'' Perry is located in the geographic center of the state where U.S. Highways 341 and 41 and the Golden Isles Parkway intersect with Interstate 75. With an ideal location along I-75, Perry has long enjoyed the distinction as Georgia's halfway point to Florida. As a result, snowbirds and vacationers of every type have recognized Perry as a pleasant place to stop and rest, grab a bite to eat at one of Perry's many restaurants, including one of my favorites, The New Perry Hotel, or simply to enjoy the peacefulness of the small town. Combined with the graciousness with which they are received by Perryans, many have found it difficult to leave! For festival-goers, Perry's warm climate and 628-acre events complex provide ample opportunity for fun and entertainment. Perry is home to Georgia's National Fair, a much-anticipated, 10-day extravaganza held each October. Activities at the fair are reminiscent of county fairs of old, revolving around livestock and horse shows, FAA and FHA events, home and fine arts displays, as well as the ever-popular baking and quilting competitions. This year marked the 10-year anniversary of the fair. The 628-acre complex is the largest of its kind, and the events hosted at the Georgia National Fairgrounds and Agricenter have an estimated economic impact of $30 million annually. For about two weeks starting in mid-March, the Peach Blossom Trail on U.S. 341 north of Perry is lined with pink and white blossoms. From mid-May through mid-August, an abundance of fresh peaches can be found for sale at roadside stands. Dogwoods and azaleas bloom profusely during the spring and camellias brighten the landscape during the winter. The dogwood has been adopted as the city's official tree. Perry's downtown has been maintained as a colonial-style village with specialty shops and restful atmosphere. More than the festivals, beauty, history or industry, it is the wonderful people of Perry who make it such a unique place. Perry manages to maintain a less hectic pace and small town friendliness that has become a rarity in today's hustle-bustle society. There is an extremely strong sense of community in Perry as is evident in the strong church attendance, school participation, civic activism and neighborhood involvement among Perry's citizens. Additionally, Perry can be claimed as home by such noted national leaders as General Courtney Hodges of World War II fame, former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, and the late former Congressman Richard Ray. Mr. President, I warmly request that you and my colleagues join me in paying tribute to a jewel of a town, Perry, GA.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before my colleagues today to pay tribute to a dear friend, Jerry Davis, Jr. Jerry and I first met in the Army when we were stationed in New Jersey together before we headed to Vietnam. Jerry is a man with an extraordinary story and I am proud to be among his circle of friends. Jerry was born on January 2, 1925 in Terry, Louisiana--a humble beginning for a sharecropper's son destined for the cover of FORTUNE Magazine (October, 1975). Jerry was a man committed to a life of service and his family, his church, his community and his country. A generous, loving and forgiving spirit, a respect for order and tradition and a legendary helping hand were the hallmarks of his life. After graduating first in his class from the Magnolia Training School, he cut his formal education short , despite receiving a scholarship from Southern University, by enlisting in the U.S. Army. Joining the all African-American 94th Engineer Construction Battalion at the end of World War II, he began his military career as an enlisted man in Paris. Seven years later he completed Officer Training School in Fort Benning, Georgia and as a new 2nd Lieutenant was company commander in the Korean War. In 1967, he returned to combat as one of two African-American battalion commanders in Vietnam. After 26 years of distinguished service, Lieutenant Colonel Davis retired. From there, Jerry went on to accomplish many great things. Among them were, being Chairman of the Board of M.U.S.C.L.E.--a non-profit organization providing low income housing in Southwest Washington--and serving as a trustee for the retirement fund of the Washington Suburban Sanitation Commission. In the early 1970's, Jerry founded Unified Services Inc., a successful building service management company and was Chairman of the Board and CEO of Unibar Maintenance in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Jerry was also a delegate to the 1980 White House Conference on Small Business. While on a business trip to Portland, Oregon with a friend, he met Jean Cotton Simmons and swept her off her feet. They married and shortly after created a family whose dimensions extend miles beyond their shared hearth with a tradition of hospitality, humor and huge holiday celebrations. Jerry fills his free time with the sounds of Duke Ellington, Frank Sinatra and Miles Davis, and when his wife isn't looking, it's long cigars and the Redskins. And I can't forget our shared love of Westerns, especially ``Gunfight at the OK Corral.'' Countless people have had life defining moments with this ordinary man who produced extraordinary results, leaving behind an enduring legacy of living life to its unreasonable fullest. As Jerry and his family battle against his cancer, I applaud the courage and determination he has shown throughout his life. As George Bernard Shaw once said, ``The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him. The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself. Our progress depends on the unreasonable man.''

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 1501, the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. During the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Surface Transportation hearing on this bill, I brought the attention of the entire room to a deadly tractor trailer accident that occurred in Atlanta in the early morning hours of August 31, 1999. Two lives were lost as a result of that accident, but if the incident would have occurred at a busier time of day, I shudder to think of the fatalities that could have resulted. In 1998, 221 people were killed in Georgia as a result of truck related crashes, and thousands more were injured. Recently, I met with two people who lost their families in truck related accidents. These stories are ones which I hope will become less frequent as a result of the action we are taking in S. 1501. This bill has the opportunity to improve safety for drivers and truckers. S. 1501 would make the Office of Motor Carrier a separate office within the Department of Transportation (DOT), as opposed to being within the Federal Highway Administration as it is now. This action will allow Congress to statutorily mandate safety as the main focus of the office. Additionally, it promotes enforcement as a main goal and provides some teeth to this new agency's punitive actions. However, there are some areas within the legislation that I believe need attention as we work to form a final bill. For example, I believe that a conflict of interest provision should be included. Without such a provision, the new agency could continue to award contracts to the very industry that operates under the federal motor carrier safety regulations the new agency will administer. An unbiased, multifaceted panel would be a better option to conduct sensitive research with federal money. In fact, the DOT's Inspector General (IG) released a report to Congress that cites the too close relationship between the industry and the regulators who oversee it: [A collaborative, educational, partnership-with industry] is a good approach for motor carriers that have safety as a top priority, but it has gone too far. It does not work effectively with firms that persist in violating safety rules and do not promptly take sustained corrective action. I believe this finding supports the inclusion of conflict of interest standards in the final bill. S. 1501 does a great deal to improve motor carrier safety in this country, but we can do more. I hope that the conferees on this bill will give strong consideration to including a conflict of interest provision in the final bill.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am reminded of incredibly sacred places and moments in our history when I rise to talk about recognition of our veterans--past and present--on Veteran's Day--recognizing all our veteran's from all our wars. Places like Arlington National Cemetery, Andersonville, Georgia, the beaches of Normandy, Pearl Harbor, the Chosin Reservoir, Keshan, the deserts of Kuwait, and now the skies over Kosovo, should be indelibly etched in all our thoughts. It is often said ``Poor is the nation which has no heroes, but poorer still is the nation which has them but forgets.'' We will gather all over this great nation on Thursday, November 11, 1999 to remember for the last time this century our veterans and to restate our commitment that they will never be forgotten. I consider all those who has ever been in uniform to my brothers and sisters. We all came to these hollowed chambers through distinguished routes, I got to Washington because of those who served in the military and I work here, day in and day out, for them! As we depart Washington, I ask that we reiterate our promise to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, DoD civilians, and their families-- that they will not be slighted, now or ever--that we honor their service--that we honor the service of those still missing, because their plight is our plight. We cannot remember our Veterans properly without remembering the sacrifices of war--these are the issues that hit home. We remember those service members who have sacrificed for this nation, and we pay special tribute to their families. I ask through my resolution that we additionally pay special tribute this Veteran's Day to those service members--active, guard, reserve, and civilians--who participated in the recently successful military operations--combat and humanitarian--in Kosovo and the entire Balkans area of operations. Over 39,000 members of the Armed Services deployed to the Balkans area during the peak of Kosovo operations, 700 U.S. aircraft were deployed, 37,000 overall missions were flown with 25,000 of these by U.S. aircraft, and 5,000 missions were weapons strike missions. We all know that this is only a partial picture of what was occurring on the ground, on the high seas, and in the air. These facts fit any definition of warfare. We can not forget these individuals and their families any more than we can forget those of all of our past wars. If freedom is the fruit of victory, Veteran's Day reminds us too of the cost of war--casualties, POWs, and MIAs. They live in our hearts while we live in the world they made safe for us. I call for us all this Veteran's Day to remember specially our Kosovo and Balkans service members as we remember all past veterans. Every day I wake up, I thank God I am here. I am inspired to continue living by the memory of our veteran's. The vigilance of those that went to Kosovo, like those who still serve in the Balkans, those in the desert, those in ships, and those in Korea and in the far corners of the earth, is now my vigilance, their fight is now my fight. I ask my colleagues to remember and to ensure that their sacrifices are not made in vain. Secretary Cohen recently stated at the POW/MIA recognition ceremony at Arlington Cemetery--an awesome, somber experience--that ``we are the heirs of freedom, paid for with the blood of patriots.'' I ask my colleagues to remember our Kosovo and Balkans patriots in their ceremonies this Veteran's Day. How fortunate we are, how much we owe. I will be remembering veterans from Georgia in the Kosovo conflict, especially veterans from Warner Robbins Air Force Base, Fort Stewart near Savannah, the naval air station in Atlanta and Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support of private sector innovation to solve a public problem. My state is the site of a brand new, state of the art facility that will recycle carpets, chemically breaking them down to their virgin chemical components. Allied Signal and DSM are jointly opening the first-ever carpet recycling plant in Augusta, GA, on November 15. It's a fitting day for the opening of a carpet recycling plant since it is America Recycles Day 1999. Carpets comprise of a significant portion of the Nation's landfills. Yet there are few programs at the state or local level targeted to redirecting carpets out of community landfills. The AlliedSignal-DSM facility, aptly named ``Evergreen,'' will ensure that each year over 200 million pounds of carpet never see a landfill. Now it may be hard to imagine 200 million pounds of carpet, so let me help you visualize it. If you had a 12 foot wide roll of carpeting you could lay it from New York to San Francisco and back again, and that would equal about 200 million pounds. And the Evergreen facility will save that much landfill space each year. The carpeting that will be recycled in Augusta will not simply be broken down mechanically and remade into new carpets. Instead it will be depolymerized--broken down chemically into the individual chemical polymers that comprise the nylon fiber in the carpets. The primary chemical is caprolactum, but they can't produce enough at their facilities to meet the demands of their customers. So they had a choice to make--either find another source of caprolactum or build new chemical plants that could be used to make caprolactum. With dedicated research engineers, they made several technological breakthroughs that enabled them to obtain caprolactum from used carpeting in a more economical fashion than to produce it at a new chemical plant. They can actually recycle old carpets into caprolactum more economically than they could produce it from scratch. Avoiding the production of caprolatum in itself yields tremendous environmental benefits. To produce from scratch the amount of caprolactum that the Evergreen facility will generate would take more than 700 million barrels of oil a year, and 4 trillion Btus more in energy usage. That is enough energy to heat 100,000 homes a year. So it is not just landfill space that is saved under the Evergreen project. AlliedSignal and DSM plan to market nylon 6 products made with caprolactum from the Evergreen facility to carpet manufacturers, auto makers and others to produce the highest quality nylon products. You will soon see Infinity Forever Renewable Nylon on products in early 2000. I applaud the private sector initiatives that led to the evergreen project and I am particularly pleased that they have chosen the great state of Georgia in which to operate.

Mr. CLELAND

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

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it has been said that ``Poor is a nation which has no heroes. Poorer still is the nation which has them, but forgets them.'' I rise today before my colleagues to pay tribute to two fallen heroes, Sergeant Steve Reeves and Officer Stephen Gilner. These policemen were two of Cobb County's, and indeed America's, finest. Unfortunately, in a tragic incident earlier this year, they were killed in the line of duty. These men dutifully served and protected the great citizens of Georgia up until the last moments of their lives, when on July 23, 1999, these heroes were struck down by gunfire. Colleagues described Stephen Gilner as a wonderful human being who had never been happier than when, after seven years in the Marine Corps, he was handed his police uniform and could make a career out of helping people. In 1999, Officer Gilner was nominated for the Officer of the Year award after saving a man from a burning van. He died last summer trying to save the life of a fellow officer. Officer Gilner leaves behind his wife Elisa and their daughter Nicole. Sergeant Reeves had been with the Cobb County Police Department for fourteen years. Fellow officers remember Reeves for his sense of humor and his ability to remain calm under pressure. Just two months before the tragic shooting claimed his life, Steve Reeves had been promoted to Sergeant. The beloved hero was twice decorated--once for saving the life of a fellow officer during a struggle with an armed suspect and again for rescuing a family from their burning house while he was off- duty. Sergeant Reeves is survived by his wife, Beth, and two sons, Clint and Chris. The selfless bravery and public service displayed by these heroes are in the finest tradition of the United States. I am sure my colleagues in the Senate will join me as I extend my thoughts and prayers to Elisa, Nicole, Beth, Clint and Chris. This tragic incident is the first of its kind in more than thirty five years where two police officers were killed in the same incident in the Atlanta Metro area. Our prayers are sent up to these men in heaven who made the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow citizens.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I once heard Marian Wright Edelman, President of the Children's Defense Fund, say that ``Service is the rent each of us pays for living--the very purpose of life and not something you do in your spare time or after you have reached your personal goals.'' I can think of no greater example of that philosophy than Mr. Lyndon A. Wade. Lyndon A. Wade has served as President of the Atlanta Urban League for over 30 years. Since 1968, under his leadership, this broad-based community and social service agency has affected major decisions and brought about changes in among other things, land and transportation planning, equal employment opportunities and minority employment in building and construction trades. Currently, the League operates programs of service in the areas of employment, housing, education and youth services. The agency provides social services to over 3,000 people annually and is affiliated with the United Way Agency and also receives funding from city, county, state, and federal governments, foundations, and corporations. Mr. Wade is a native Atlantan and a product of the Atlanta public schools. He received his BA form Morehouse College and his Masters degree in Social work from Atlanta University. He began his career as an assistant professor in Emory University's Department of Psychiatry, a position he occupied from 1963 to 1968. Between 1971 and 1975, while serving as President of the Atlanta Urban League, Mr. Wade was appointed by Federal Judge Frank Hooper to chair the bi-racial Advisory Committee to the Atlanta Board of Education. This group was successful in forging the Atlanta Compromise which ended 15 years of protracted court struggle surrounding the desegregation of Atlanta's public schools. From 1971 until 1985, Mr. Wade served on the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority where he held the posts of Secretary, Chairman of the Development Committee and Vice- Chairman. He was one of the major architects of Marta's Affirmative Action Program which has resulted in hundreds of jobs for minorities and females as well as producing approximately $3 billion in contracts for minority and female entrepreneurs since the beginning of the system. During the early 1970's, the Atlanta Urban League, under Wade's leadership, paved the way for minorities and women to gain admission to the building trades elite crafts. Working with Arthur Fletcher and the U.S. Department of Labor a federal employment plan was developed for the construction industry in Metropolitan Atlanta. This plan served as a monitoring guide for hiring and utilization of minority and female workers. Over his long and distinguished career, Mr. Wade has received numerous citations and honors including: Fulton County Medical Society's Distinguished Service Award; Social Worker of the Year 1971 by the North Georgia Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers; and the Distinguished Service Award by the Atlanta Morehouse Alumni Club. He is a member of the Academy of Social Workers, the Atlanta Action Forum, the Atlanta Committee for Public Education, Organizing Committee for Gilda's Club, Channel 36's ``Quest'' Advisory Board, the Association of United Way executive committee, the Urban Insurance Task Force, and District Attorney Paul Howard's Transition Team as well as a 1970 Graduate of leadership Atlanta. From September 1958 to July 1962, Mr. Wade served in the United States Military and received an honorable discharge with the rank of First Lieutenant. He is married and the father of four children. He is also a life-long member of the Central Methodist Church in Atlanta. I thank Mr. Wade for the wonderful work he has done on behalf of Atlanta and its residents and I wish the very best for him and his family in his much deserved retirement.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to speak about a subject which has been the topic of much political rhetoric in recent days: Social Security. While there was a time when not all in Congress acknowledged this fact, Social Security's long-term solvency is crucial to today's and tomorrow's retirees. There has never been a more successful Government program: Social Security has helped cut the poverty rate of older Americans by two-thirds. We must ensure this program will survive well into the 21st century. The current dispute centers on which party is more committed to preservation of the Social Security program. I must say that I am personally pleased to see this development, which reflects the fact that Social Security is truly a consensus issue among the American people. The current debate takes place in the confusing world of arcane budgetary terminology and it is sometimes difficult to sort out. However, in evaluating the present-day claims and counterclaims, the historic record clearly shows that it is the Democratic Party which has consistently fought to protect the program since its inception in the Social Security Act of 1935. And though I could certainly be accused of being biased on the question, I believe that a close look will reveal unmistakably that Democratic proposals to save Social Security for future generations greatly surpass the recent efforts of my friends across the aisle in laying claim to be the protectors of Social Security. For example, let's look at the competing proposals to place a ``lockbox'' around Social Security and see which one truly best protects the benefits of tomorrow's recipients. First, Democratic lockbox proposals establish a Social Security and Medicare lockbox that precludes any portion of the Social Security surplus or any portion of the surplus reserved for Medicare to be used for any purpose other than to strengthen and preserve these programs. Over the next 15 years, the Democratic lockbox would protect 100 percent of the Social Security surplus each year, and one-third of any on-budget surplus for Medicare. On the other hand, the Republican lockbox proposal does not reserve any of the projected surpluses for Medicare, nor does it extend the life of the Social Security trust fund, which, under their proposals, will be insolvent in 2034. Furthermore, in the absence of protections for Medicare, this critical program is projected to be insolvent in 2015. Perhaps most importantly, the Republican proposals include language which creates a large potential loophole for the lockbox protections. Specifically, if any legislation is designated as ``Social Security reform provisions''--regardless of whether such provisions help or hurt the interests of beneficiaries--lockbox surpluses would not have to be used to pay benefits and could be used for tax cuts. Finally, the Republican lockbox proposal does not even require that such Social Security ``reform'' legislation extend the solvency of the Social Security program. Is this meaningful, long-term protection for Social Security? Some on the other side have accused Democrats of raiding Social Security surpluses, yet the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office-- whose head was appointed by the Republican leadership--has determined that spending bills supported by the congressional majority have already tapped into the Social Security surplus by at least $13 billion. In belated recognition of this fact, House Republicans have proposed a 1.4 percent across-the-board cut in the operating budgets of Federal agencies. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am loath to take a step in the wrong direction just after we have recently provided--on a bipartisan basis--the Department of Defense with much-needed budget relief for both personnel and equipment costs. But when we consider the impact of recent congressional proposals on the future of Social Security we must look back no further than August 1999 when the Republican majority pushed through Congress a tax cut that, at the time, I labeled a ``convenient but fiscally irresponsible measure.'' This tax bill would have consumed virtually all of the projected $1 trillion non-Social Security budget surplus over the next 10 years, without setting aside any funds for Medicare solvency. The direct revenue loss was estimated at $792 billion over that period, and with the sharply diminished surplus, higher interest costs on the national debt would bring the total to $964 billion. And the projected $1 trillion surplus itself is dependent on large cuts in national defense, education, and other priority programs. If one only assumes that these programs are held at their current levels, plus inflation, the projected 10-year surplus falls from $1 trillion to $46 billion. Clearly, enactment of this massive tax cut, which the President appropriately vetoed, would have vastly compromised and complicated our ability to preserve Social Security and Medicare. No other action considered in this Congress comes even close to having this large a negative impact on Social Security's future. We can continue to attempt to ``one-up'' each other over who has the better plan to protect the existing Social Security trust fund. In trying to set the record straight from my own viewpoint, I have spoken today from perhaps a partisan perspective. However, there is plenty of blame to go around for our joint failure in this session of Congress to use the unique opportunity afforded by the long-sought end to massive Federal budget deficits to enact true Social Security reform to protect the benefits of millions of future recipients. The millions of Americans who depend on Social Security for themselves or their parents and grandparents, now and in the future, deserve no less. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the sailing vessel Sandpiper, Official Number 1079439, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, U.S. Code. The hull and interior of the Sandpiper were constructed in Taiwan in 1998 by Ta-Yang Yacht Building Company, Ltd. She is a 48 foot Cutter Rig presently used as a recreational vessel. Since construction, the vessel has been rigged and outfitted in the United States. It is estimated that 60% of the cost of the vessel has been spent on the mast, rigging, sails, electronics, navigational instruments, safety equipment, interior furnishings, and various other deck fittings. These items were acquired in Annapolis, Maryland and refitting was completed in April, 1999. The vessel is owned by Mr. and Mrs. David Maner of Augusta, Georgia. The Maners would like to utilize their vessel in the coastwise trade of the United States. However, because the vessel's hull was constructed in Taiwan, it did not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. The owners of the Sandpiper are seeking a waiver of the existing law because they wish to use the vessel for charters. The desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If the Maners are granted this waiver, it is their intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Sandpiper to engage in the coastwise trade of the United States. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the sailing vessel Sandpiper, Official Number 1079439, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, U.S. Code. The hull and interior of the Sandpiper were constructed in Taiwan in 1998 by Ta-Yang Yacht Building Company, Ltd. She is a 48 foot Cutter Rig presently used as a recreational vessel. Since construction, the vessel has been rigged and outfitted in the United States. It is estimated that 60% of the cost of the vessel has been spent on the mast, rigging, sails, electronics, navigational instruments, safety equipment, interior furnishings, and various other deck fittings. These items were acquired in Annapolis, Maryland and refitting was completed in April, 1999. The vessel is owned by Mr. and Mrs. David Maner of Augusta, Georgia. The Maners would like to utilize their vessel in the coastwise trade of the United States. However, because the vessel's hull was constructed in Taiwan, it did not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. The owners of the Sandpiper are seeking a waiver of the existing law because they wish to use the vessel for charters. The desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If the Maners are granted this waiver, it is their intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Sandpiper to engage in the coastwise trade of the United States. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which would allow my home state of Georgia to participate in the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program. Prior to the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) all 50 states were eligible for SIB revolving funds, which are capitalized with federal and state contributions and used to provide loans and other forms of non-grant assistance to transportation projects. TEA-21, however, limited an enhanced SIB program to four states (California, Florida, Missouri, Rhode Island). My bill would add Georgia as a fifth state for participation in the SIB program. Georgia and Metro Atlanta, I believe, can be a national model on how to meet clean air standards and manage suburban sprawl without compromising economic growth. Governor Roy Barnes and the Georgia General Assembly deserve a great deal of credit for grabbing the bull by the horns when they enacted historic legislation creating the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). GRTA will work with other state agencies and organizations to solve the traffic, pollution, and sprawl problems that plague Metro Atlanta. In order to carry out its legislative charge in conjunction with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), and other transportation agencies, GRTA will need sufficient financial resources to become a regional authority with teeth. To assist in procurement of these resources, the legislation I am introducing today would extend the State Infrastructure Bank program to include Georgia. I believe that this program can be a vital component in funding such important projects as the multi-state high speed rail corridor. The SIB program authorizes loans to a public or private entity to cover the partial or complete cost of an approved project, and it allows for innovative planning and development of funding streams for repayment, which does not begin until five years after the completion of the project. Additionally, TEA-21 allows for the creation of a multistate infrastructure bank system among the pilot states. In so doing, states would be encouraged to share not only funds but also ideas for combating pollution and traffic problems and encouraging alternative forms of transportation. Georgia would be a perfect addition to this mix. Georgia can be a model for the nation--an example for other states that are facing similar problems of balancing growth and livability. Georgia's participation in the SIB program would provide more options to fund the solutions that will allow the proper balance to be struck. GRTA, GDOT and the other transportation entities in Georgia have expressed to me their enthusiasm over the possibilities that are presented by Georgia's participation in the SIB program. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join with me in support of this legislation which will allow Georgia to participate in the SIB program and in doing so it will illustrate to the country the full potential of this program. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which would allow my home state of Georgia to participate in the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program. Prior to the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) all 50 states were eligible for SIB revolving funds, which are capitalized with federal and state contributions and used to provide loans and other forms of non-grant assistance to transportation projects. TEA-21, however, limited an enhanced SIB program to four states (California, Florida, Missouri, Rhode Island). My bill would add Georgia as a fifth state for participation in the SIB program. Georgia and Metro Atlanta, I believe, can be a national model on how to meet clean air standards and manage suburban sprawl without compromising economic growth. Governor Roy Barnes and the Georgia General Assembly deserve a great deal of credit for grabbing the bull by the horns when they enacted historic legislation creating the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). GRTA will work with other state agencies and organizations to solve the traffic, pollution, and sprawl problems that plague Metro Atlanta. In order to carry out its legislative charge in conjunction with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), and other transportation agencies, GRTA will need sufficient financial resources to become a regional authority with teeth. To assist in procurement of these resources, the legislation I am introducing today would extend the State Infrastructure Bank program to include Georgia. I believe that this program can be a vital component in funding such important projects as the multi-state high speed rail corridor. The SIB program authorizes loans to a public or private entity to cover the partial or complete cost of an approved project, and it allows for innovative planning and development of funding streams for repayment, which does not begin until five years after the completion of the project. Additionally, TEA-21 allows for the creation of a multistate infrastructure bank system among the pilot states. In so doing, states would be encouraged to share not only funds but also ideas for combating pollution and traffic problems and encouraging alternative forms of transportation. Georgia would be a perfect addition to this mix. Georgia can be a model for the nation--an example for other states that are facing similar problems of balancing growth and livability. Georgia's participation in the SIB program would provide more options to fund the solutions that will allow the proper balance to be struck. GRTA, GDOT and the other transportation entities in Georgia have expressed to me their enthusiasm over the possibilities that are presented by Georgia's participation in the SIB program. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join with me in support of this legislation which will allow Georgia to participate in the SIB program and in doing so it will illustrate to the country the full potential of this program. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, campaign finance reform was the first issue on which I chose to speak when I was duly elected to the Senate almost 3 years ago. I occupied this desk and talked about my understanding of the state of campaign financing in America. I had just gone through one of the most expensive Senate races in the history of the United States where I was outspent some 3\1/2\ to 1. I am lucky to be here. The current status of campaign financing in America is a moral swamp; it is full of skunks; it is full of special interests out to buy their way into the heart of the American Government. Those of us in this Senate, 100 selected, want to make sure the public interest prevails, not special interests. I tip my hand and my hat to two fine Members of this body who day in and day out, year in and year out, have fought the good fight in cleaning up this moral swamp of campaign financing. My dear friend and fellow Vietnam veteran, Senator John McCain, and my seatmate, Senator Feingold, have put together an effort which I believe has a reasonable chance of succeeding. I can remember sitting here a couple years ago after a whole year of sitting on the Governmental Affairs Committee and listening to one horror story after another about problems of campaign financing in America, and a majority of our Governmental Affairs Committee decided we needed campaign financing; we needed the McCain-Feingold bill. I was an original cosponsor of it and a majority of the Senate supported it, but we could not get 60 votes. Senator McCain, in those days, said something like: It is a question of time. This Senate will pass campaign finance reform. It is just a matter of when, and it will be whether or not we are here. I am glad the issue of campaign finance reform is back before this distinguished body, and it is none too late. In 1998, the last general election in this country, we had higher spending, more negativity, greater public cynicism, and not coincidentally, lower voter turnout than at any time in this century. We are at a turning point. I thank Senator John McCain and Senator Russ Feingold for offering to us, again, a chance to clean up this moral swamp. My dear colleague from Arizona and I were in the Vietnam war. We have been shot at before. We have been attacked before. We have been criticized before. But his integrity is still intact. He is incorruptible, he is unbought and unbossed, and I am honored to serve with him today. Over the years, opponents of McCain-Feingold have continued to concentrate their spoken criticisms on its alleged violations of free speech, though that is, in my opinion, a flawed equation of money with speech. I look back at the 1976 decision by the Supreme Court which, in effect, equated the ability to spend money with free speech. In the campaign finance hearings a couple of years ago, I asked the simple question: If you do not have any money in this country, does that mean you do not have any speech? Of course not. The problem is we have equated money with speech and the ability to get on the air with 30- and 60-second spots which make us want to throw up. I share the concern of the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, about these negative attack ads that come from out of State and seem to originate from God knows where. They come in and assassinate someone's character. That is not the country for which Senator McCain and I fought. That is not the kind of democracy we intend to serve. That is one reason why I have bonded with him in such a close way: to support cleaning up this incredible process. Right now we have a system where every millionaire in America can expect to run for public office. The rest of us will have to take a back seat. I would say there is little doubt about the commitment of James Madison, father of the Constitution, an architect of the Bill of Rights, and President of the United States, to the great cause of free speech. Madison was the author of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. In The Federalist Papers, Madison put the challenge of governing this way. He said: But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. We have to control this campaign finance system or it will eat us alive. Our system of elections is fast becoming a system of auctions. While Madison was certainly both a revolutionary and a visionary, he never allowed himself to stray too far from the practical realities of the world in which he lived. To him, the lack of human perfection was thus the basis for government and a factor which must be taken into account in providing a government with sufficient powers to accomplish its necessary functions. The last time the Senate debated McCain-Feingold, back in 1997, Senator Fred Thompson, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, delivered a very fine statement on the Senate floor about campaign finance reform and free speech in which he pointed out that, in the real world, the debate about campaign finance reform and free speech is not one of absolutes, as some would have it. There is not a choice between a system of unfettered free speech and government regulation, for our current system recognizes many instances in which there is a legitimate and constitutional public interest in regulating speech, from slander laws, to prohibitions on the disclosure of the identities of American intelligence agents, to the campaign arena itself, with a longstanding ban on corporate contributions and quarter- century and older limits on other forms of contributions and disclosure requirements. So the debate isn't really over whether or not there will be government regulation of campaigns but on what form that regulation will take. In the words of Dr. Norm Ornstein, a noted political scientist and a witness in the Governmental Affairs hearings, the question is whether or not we will erect some ``fences'' to prevent the worst abuses from recurring. As I have told anyone who has asked me, I love being a Senator. I cherish this body. As does Senator Byrd, I cherish its traditions. Having the privilege of representing my State in this body, where such giants as Clay and Webster and Calhoun and Norris and LaFollette and Dirksen and Russell and Senator Byrd have served with great distinction, is the greatest honor of my life. But, my fellow Members of the Senate, I was not honored by the process that I and every other candidate for the Senate had to undergo in order to get here. We have to spend years in raising millions of dollars just to defend ourselves out there in the marketplace. I have not felt privileged sitting here day by day, with evidence continually mounting in congressional hearings, in newspaper reports, of campaign abuses, or public opinion surveys chronicling the loss of public trust in the political process, or the ongoing massive fundraising which takes place all the time in this, the Nation's Capital. The current system is broken, and it cries out for reform. We have heard a lot of talk, and we will hear more talk, about these abuses, and about the general topic of campaign finance reform. But the time is coming when we must take action. Certainly the revised McCain- Feingold package is not perfect; it is not all that I think needs to be done to remedy our problem, but it is an essential first step, aimed at dealing with the worst of the abuses which currently plague our campaign system. It is fascinating how the term ``soft money'' has grown up. It is really not soft money; it is hard money with soft laws. It is now time to correct that abuse. The revised bipartisan campaign finance reform proposal does not contain spending limits. I wish it did. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has declared that unconstitutional. It does not contain limits on PACs. The current law does. It does not provide free discounted broadcast air time for Federal candidates. I think we ought to have that. And the bill does not place any limitations on sham issue ads, which we need very badly. We need to place some limitations on that, especially 60 days out from an election. But what the proposal does do is this: One, it bans soft money contributions to and spending by national political parties and candidates for Federal office. That, in and of itself, is an achievement. Two, it curbs soft money contributions to and spending by State parties when such activities are related to Federal elections. And three, it strictly codifies the Beck decision concerning the right of nonunion members to have a refund of any union fees used for political purposes to which they object. There are certainly areas where I believe this package should be strengthened, but we must not let the pursuit of a politically unattainable ideal prevent us from adopting the very useful and important provisions in this package. Let us remember that it was soft money which was at the heart of most of the egregious campaign abuses uncovered by the Governmental Affairs Committee's investigation of the 1996 campaign. I sat through a whole year of listening to those horror stories, and it convinced me it is long since time that we act. The country is watching what we do on campaign finance reform. Make no mistake about that. They are understandably skeptical that we will take action to reform the very system under which we all were elected, and, shall we say, expectations are extremely low. Unfortunately, based on our behavior to date, those expectations are being fulfilled. But this is a real opportunity, the best we will have in this Congress to show we can take the hard but necessary steps to help begin to restore the public's faith in the workings of our great experiment in democracy. Earlier this year, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, the House of Representatives approved the Shays-Meehan bill, which goes far beyond the measure currently before the Senate. The President of the United States stands prepared to sign any reasonable version of either of the bills into law. Now the ball is clearly in our court. As we consider the McCain-Feingold legislation, I hope we will at long last be allowed to engage in the normal amendment process whereby the Senate can truly work its will and seek to improve the pending legislation. There are a number of areas in which I think the existing bill can and should be improved. For my part, I will be offering a series of amendments related to enforcement of existing laws by strengthening the Federal Elections Commission and campaign disclosure requirements. The FEC is the referee in this ballgame. It is time we gave the referee some strength. One of the most glaring deficiencies in our current Federal campaign system is the ineffectiveness of this referee. The FEC, whether by design or through circumstance, has been beset by partisan gridlock, uncertain and insufficient resources, and lengthy proceedings which offer no hope of timely resolution of charges of campaign violations. It is similar to a referee in a football game blowing a whistle and 9 months later throwing the flag. Thus, the first major element of my amendments is to strengthen the ability of the Federal Election Commission to be an effective and impartial enforcer of Federal campaign laws. I will be offering amendments to do several things: One, alter the Commission structure to remove the possibility of partisan gridlock by adding a seventh member, who would serve as Chairman and would be appointed by the President --with the advice and consent of the Senate--from among 10 nominees recommended by the Supreme Court. Two, require electronic filing of reports to the FEC; authorize the FEC to conduct random audits; give the FEC independent litigating authority, including before the Supreme Court; and establish a right of private civil action to seek court enforcement in cases where the FEC fails to act, all of which should dramatically improve the prospects for timely enforcement of our campaign finance laws. Three, provide sufficient funding of the FEC from a source independent of congressional intervention by the imposition of filing fees on Federal candidates, with such fees being adequate to meet the needs of the Commission. There is another area to be addressed by my amendments. The area I would like to address is to enhance the effectiveness of campaign contribution disclosure requirements. I have to admit, of all the laws, of all the requirements I have seen at the State level and the Federal level, over the years in which I have been dealing with the question of campaign finance reform--and I was the State official in Georgia for 12 years who was the State elections officer, and I pushed for campaign finance reform then, and now I am pushing for it as a Senator. Of all the requirements I have seen, of all the laws and the rules and regulations, I think the most effective brake on abuse in the campaign finance system is disclosure. As Justice Brandeis once observed: Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. This is certainly true in the realm of campaign finance. Let there be more sunlight. Perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Watergate reforms of a quarter century ago is the expanded campaign and financial disclosure requirements which emerged from that tragedy. By and large, those increased disclosure requirements have served us well, but as with everything else, they need to be periodically reviewed and updated in the light of experience. Therefore, based in part on testimony I heard during the last session's Governmental Affairs Committee investigation and in part on the FEC's own recommendations for improved disclosure, my amendments would make several changes in current disclosure requirements. Specifically, I am recommending a reform which will make it more difficult for contributors and campaigns alike to turn a blind eye to current disclosure requirements by requiring those who contribute $200 or more to provide a signed certification that their contribution is not from a foreign national and is not the result of a contribution in the name of another person. In addition, I will offer amendments embodying a number of disclosure recommendations made by the FEC in its reports to the Congress and by other campaign finance experts, including, among others: One, requiring all reports to be filed by the due date of the report; two, requiring all authorized candidate committee reports to be filed on a campaign- to-date basis rather than on a calendar-year cycle; three, mandating monthly reporting for multicandidate committees which have raised or spent or anticipate raising or spending in excess of $100,000 in the current election cycle; again, clarifying that reports of last-minute independent expenditures must be received at the FEC within 24 hours of when the expenditure is made; and, finally, requiring that noncandidate political committees which have raised or received in excess of $100,000 be subjected to the same last-minute contribution reporting requirements as candidate committees. It is so easy to be pessimistic about campaign finance reform efforts. The public and the media are certainly expecting this Congress and this Senate to fail to take significant action in cleaning up this swamp. The scandalous campaign system, though, under which we all now suffer must be changed. I suggest we cannot afford the luxury of complacency. We may think we will be able to win the next election or reelection because the level of outrage and the awareness of the extent of the vulnerability of our political system have perhaps not yet reached critical mass. I am confident it is only a matter of time, as Senator McCain has said, and perhaps the next election cycle, which will undoubtedly feature more unaccountable soft money, more sham issue ads, more circumvention of the spirit and, in some cases, the letter of current campaign finance laws, before the scales are decisively tilted in favor of reform. We will have campaign finance reform, Mr. President. The only question is whether or not this Congress and this Senate step up to the plate and fulfill their responsibility to the American public and give them a system in which they can have confidence. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I will vote for the Defense Appropriations Conference Report because there is much in it that I strongly support, especially including funding for the essential pay and benefit improvements for our service men and women which had been created by the Defense Authorization bill. I will also cast an affirmative vote as a measure of my admiration and respect for the fine work done by the Senate conferees, who were ably led by the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska and the distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii. Without the hard work of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye I would likely have had to oppose the final product of the conference. The reason for my concern, and for my reluctant support for the Defense Appropriations Conference Report, is that, because of the adamant position of the House conferees, the conference report, in my judgment, seriously hampers the rational and cost-effective development and production of the Pentagon's highest-priority new weapons system, the F-22 aircraft. The slow-down in production will undoubtedly result in increased costs and the House conferees indeed have indicated that the final production level will likely have to be reduced to well below the currently planned 339 aircraft which would precipitously drive up the unit costs. The F-22, which has been under development for 16 years and has received close and ongoing testing and Congressional oversight, is absolutely critical to maintaining our air superiority into the 21st Century. Once again, I would like to thank Senators Stevens and Inouye for producing the best result for the F-22 that could be obtained, given the position of the House. While the compromise is an impediment to the F-22 program, it is not fatal, and with some extra effort, plus some shifting of Air Force funding, the delays and higher costs can be minimized. Nonetheless, I think all Members of the Senate, especially the 56 other Senators who joined with Senator Coverdell and me in writing to the conferees in support of the Senate's position on the F- 22, must be on notice that we will face another, and perhaps even tougher, fight on the future of the F-22 next year and beyond. In closing, I want to note that the work on this Defense Appropriations bill, and the preceding Defense Authorization bill has been marked by bipartisanship and pragmatism, resulting in the kind of national consensus and resolve which is perhaps the single biggest factor undergirding a nation's security. Unfortunately, this stands in stark contrast to what we saw yesterday, with the near-party line vote rejecting the Comprehensive Test Ban. I believe both parties bear some of the blame for that most unfortunate outcome. What I want to say today is that, beyond the Test Ban Treaty, beyond any specific dispute in national security policy, we in this body, as well as those in the House, and in the Executive Branch must, I repeat must, work to repair the partisan breach, and begin to recreate a bipartisan consensus on national security policy. I have some ideas along those lines which I will be sharing with my colleagues in the days ahead, but I think we can all take a lesson from the cooperative efforts of Senators Stevens and Inouye who have achieved that objective in the critical area of Defense Appropriations.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, there are many important Constitutional responsibilities of United States Senators, but none is more important than providing ``Advice and Consent'' for treaties with other nations. And among treaties, those involving control of nuclear arms, which continue to be the only instruments capable of threatening the physical survival of the United States, must top the list of our concerns. Since the landmark Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, every American president, no matter his party affiliation, has recognized the value of responsible and verifiable arms control agreements in making the arms race less dangerous and the American people more secure. And each time an American president has entered into negotiations, concluded a treaty and then sought ratification by the United States Senate, the debate in the Senate and in the country has been remarkably similar. For example, when President Kennedy announced the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty on July 16, 1963, he responded to the concerns and criticisms then being directed at that proposed first step in the effort to control nuclear weapons: Secret violations are possible and secret preparations for a sudden withdrawal are possible, and thus our own vigilance and strength must be maintained, as we remain ready to withdraw and to resume all forms of testing if we must. But it would be a mistake to assume that this treaty will be quickly broken. The gains of illegal testing are obviously slight compared to their cost and the hazard of discovery, and the nations which have initialed and will sign this treaty prefer it, in my judgment, to unrestricted testing as a matter of their own self-interest. For these nations, too, and all nations have a stake in limiting the arms race, in holding the spread of nuclear weapons and in breathing air that is not radioactive. While it may be theoretically possible to demonstrate the risks inherent in any treaty--and such risks in this treaty are small--the far greater risks to our security are the risks of unrestricted testing, the risk of a nuclear arms race, the risk of new nuclear powers, nuclear pollution and nuclear war. Now, thirty-six years later, the United States Senate is being asked to give its advice and consent on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a goal first formulated in the Eisenhower Administration. The Treaty itself was approved by the United Nations General Assembly in September of 1996 by a vote of 158 to 3, and signed by President Clinton later that same month. As of today, 153 nations have signed the treaty, with 47 of those formally ratifying it. Today, in spite of the long history of the treaty's development, in spite of the fact that we now have over a third of a century of experience in negotiating, implementing and monitoring arms control agreements, in spite of the long list of current and former military leaders have endorsed the treaty and in spite of the treaty's widespread support among the American people and other nations, we still confront the same doubts and fears that President Kennedy sought to address so long ago. While I have heard legitimate concerns voiced about certain aspects of the treaty, I reject the notion that the test this proposal must pass is one of perfection. Rather, in this world of imperfect men and women and laws, the test must be a less absolute one--Will the people of the United States, on balance, be better off if this treaty enters into force than if it doesn't? In other words, is it an acceptable risk, realizing that no possible course is risk free? In my opinion, this agreement appears to be very much in the best interests of the United States and its ratification will inhibit nuclear proliferation, enhance our ability to monitor and verify suspicious activities by other nations, assure the sufficiency of our existing nuclear deterrent, and inhibit a renewal of the nuclear arms race. Speaking on behalf of the unanimous view of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told us on the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that: The Joint Chiefs support ratification of the CTBT with a safeguards package. This treaty provides one means of dealing with a very serious security challenge, and that is nuclear proliferation. The CTBT will help limit the development of more advanced and destructive weapons and inhibit the ability of more countries to acquire nuclear weapons. In short, the world will be a safer place with the Treaty than without it, and it is in our national security interests to ratify the CTBT Treaty. In other words, what the Joint Chiefs are telling us is that the fewer fingers on the nuclear trigger, the better. As reported in an October 8, 1999 New York Times article about a recent conference organized by the United Nations on the CTBT: Several delegates seemed mystified that hawkish Republicans oppose the treaty. It was negotiated by a Republican president, and polls show that 82 percent of Americans support it. It would freeze the arms race while the United States enjoys a huge lead. And instead of paying 100 percent of the cost of the world's second-most-sophisticated nuclear- test detection system (the current American one), they said, the United States would pay only 25 percent for the world's most sophisticated one, with sensors deep inside Russia, China, Iran and other nations where the United States is not normally encouraged to gather data. Most of this debate has centered on questions like these, related to the risks of ratifying the treaty, and has been concerned about the verifiability of the proposal, and its impact on the credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. These are indeed important questions, and I stand with the large majority of the American people, of our military leadership, and of our allies in concluding that, on balance, the CTBT is a net plus for our security. But when weighing the risks involved in the Senate's action on this treaty, we must also examine the risks involved in rejecting the treaty. The leaders of three of our major allies who have already ratified the CTBT, Great Britain, France and Germany--who also represent two of the world's seven recognized countries which have successfully tested nuclear weapons--recently sent an unprecedented joint communication to the United States Senate which concluded: Rejection of the treaty in the Senate would remove the pressure from other states still hesitating about whether to ratify it. Rejection would give great encouragement to proliferators. Rejection would also expose a fundamental divergence within NATO. The United States and its allies have worked side by side for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty since the days of President Eisenhower. This goal is now within our grasp. Our security is involved, as well as America's. For the security of the world we will leave to our children, we urge the United States Senate to ratify the treaty. The consensus assessment of what will happen if the Senate rejects the treaty is that none of the other nuclear powers--Russia, China, India and Pakistan--will ratify the agreement while all are likely to do so if we ratify. In May of 1998, in an irresponsible show of strength, both India and Pakistan detonated nuclear devices to demonstrate to the world, but, more importantly each other, their formal initiation in the ranks of nuclear powers. Yesterday's disturbing news that the democratically elected government of Pakistan had fallen victim to a military coup stresses just how important the CTBT is to both the subcontinent and to global security. These events coupled with the recent elections in India which returned Prime Minister Vajpayee's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)--the party which chose to ignite the nuclear arms race on the subcontinent--further underscore the need for sensibility when it comes to testing nuclear weapons. Both India and Pakistan have indicated their unwillingness to consider ending their nuclear arms race and sign the CTBT only if the United States has ratified the treaty. The national security of the United States and, in fact, the security of everyone on the planet, will be enhanced when countries such as India and Pakistan decide to stop testing nuclear weapons. The United States stands today as the unchallenged military superpower, with by far the largest, most reliable and most versatile nuclear arsenal, as well as the strongest conventional arsenal. Indeed, the trends of the last decade, where the demise of the Soviet Union has led to an ongoing and inexorable decline in the capacity of what had been the only comparable strategic nuclear force and a continuing ``technology and investment gap'' has led to a circumstance where our conventional forces are vastly more capable than those of even our closest allies as evidenced by the recent war against Serbia, have placed us in the strongest relative military posture we have perhaps ever experienced as a Nation. As such, we are certainly more secure than when John F. Kennedy sought ratification of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, more secure than when Ronald Reagan sought approval of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1988, and more secure than when President Bush submitted the START I Treaty for Senate ratification in 1992. While no course of human action is ever risk free, of all nations in the world, we have the most to gain from slowing the development of more capable weapons by others and the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries, even if we cannot expect to prevent such developments altogether. In addition, the Treaty cannot enter into force unless and until all 44 nuclear-capable states, including China, India, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, have ratified it. Should any one of these nations refuse to accept the treaty and its conditions all bets are off. Finally, even if all of the required countries ratify, we will still have the right to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty if we determine that our supreme national interests have been jeopardized. After debating concerns about verification and the impact on our nuclear arsenal on September 22, 1963, the United States Senate, on a bipartisan basis ratified the Limited Test Ban Treaty by a vote of 80 to 19. On October 7th of that year, President Kennedy signed the instruments of ratification in the Treaty Room at the White House. He said: In its first two decades, the Age of Nuclear Energy has been full of fear, yet never empty of hope. Today the fear is a little less and the hope a little greater. For the first time we have been able to reach an agreement which can limit the dangers of this age. The agreement itself is limited, but its message of hope has been heard and understood not only by the peoples of the three original nations but by the peoples and governments of the hundred other countries that have signed * * * What the future will bring, no one of us can know. This first fruit of hope may not be followed by larger harvests. Even this limited treaty, great as it is with promise, can survive only if it has from others the determined support in letter and in spirit which I hereby pledge on behalf of the United States. If this treaty fails, and it need not fail, we shall not regret that we have made this clear and national commitment to the cause of man's survival. For under this treaty we can and must still keep our vigil in defense of freedom.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I have a strong sense of deja vu today. On September 22, 1963, the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, ratified the Limited Test Ban Treaty by a vote of 80-19. I was present in the Chamber, in the gallery, as a young 21-year-old student observing my country in action and studying government and politics. I was very proud of the Senate on that day. I was very proud of President Kennedy when, on October 7, 1963, he signed the instruments of ratification of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in the treaty room at the White House. Today I am saddened. I am saddened by our rush to judgment. I am saddened that our Nation may see a rejection by this Senate of the first real treaty in terms of arms limitation in 70 years. We are in the strongest military posture I think we have been in as a nation. As such, we are certainly more secure today than when John F. Kennedy sought ratification of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, certainly more secure than when President Ronald Reagan sought approval of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1988, and certainly more secure than when President Bush submitted the START I treaty for Senate ratification in 1992. Of all the nations in the world, we have the most to gain from slowing the development of more capable weapons by others and the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries. The treaty cannot enter into force unless and until all 44 nuclear- capable states, including China, India, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, have ratified it. Should any one of these nations refuse to accept the treaty and its conditions, all bets are off. Finally, even if all the required countries ratify, we will still have the right to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty if we determine that our supreme national interests have been jeopardized. President Kennedy said, when he signed our first real nuclear test ban treaty: In the first two decades, the age of nuclear energy has been full of fear, yet never empty of hope. Today the fear is a little less and the hope a little greater. Mr. President, it is my hope that at the end of today's work, this Senate can say the same. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, these are difficult times for our nation's children as they watch their peers turn to violence, drugs, truancy and gang membership. If one were to believe the evening news, there appears to be little good news coming from our schools. But I rise before my colleagues today to share with them some good news. Thunderbolt Elementary School in Savannah, Georgia, has been recognized by the Concerned Businessmen's Association of America as violence-free and the ``Best Example in America'' of what a safe and drug-free school should be. Thunderbolt Elementary is the only school out of the 10,600 which enrolled in the national ``Children's Set a Good Example'' Competition during the past 12 years to win the national award three times in a row. Additionally, Thunderbolt has also been chosen this year by the judges of the first ``Best of the Best'' competition, which will be held just once every ten years, as the best of the best elementary schools in America. The war against drug abuse, violent crime, illiteracy and intolerance is a multifaceted battle being fought in every sector of our community. It is a war that ravages our streets and has kids killing other kids. Too many of our children have become casualties of this epidemic. We as a society must apply proven, workable methods if we are to salvage our youth and rid our cities of those social ills. Positive counter peer pressure could be more effective than authoritarian efforts when it comes to influencing youth away from drug abuse and gang involvement and I am so proud of Thunderbolt Elementary for showing this to be true. The work that the students at Thunderbolt have done is inspiring and I hope that they will be an example to other students around the country.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr President, I rise today to honor the contributions of the Mel Blount Youth Home of Georgia, Inc. The primary mission of the Mel Blount Youth Home is to provide youth with the guidance, education, and life skills needed to get their lives back on track, resulting in self sufficient, productive contributors to society. The Mel Blount Youth Home of Georgia, Inc., was founded in 1983 by Melvin and Clinton Blount. It is located in Vidalia, Georgia, and offers an alternative for troubled youths who have not been successful in their home environment. The home is licensed by the State of Georgia and serves youth from all around the country to meet the spiritual, educational, physical, and emotional needs of all children participating in the program. The Mel Blount Youth Home program places an emphasis on academics, discipline and hard work with a consistent effort to meet the spiritual and emotional needs of young men placed the program. The average stay is from nine to eighteen months. Residents attend school on the grounds of the home and can earn credits toward graduation upon returning to high school at home. A GED program in collaboration with Southeastern Technical Institute is also offered. The academic program consists of a curriculum designed for youth who have been left behind in public school, with tutors available to work with each child on an individual basis. The Mel Blount Youth Home of Georgia provides young men of diverse backgrounds and cultures who have experienced difficulty adjusting during adolescence a secure and safe haven to grow and develop. The home provides a family setting with a spiritual base in addition to a foundation which places high emphasis on education, hard work and discipline. For some youth, the Mel Blount Youth home is the only place they can call home. Every child deserves to grow and develop in an environment where they are nurtured and molded by hands and hearts that care. Different circumstances have brought each child to the Mel Blount Youth Home, but all have come with a quiet hope of restarting their lives. At this home, they get a second chance. I ask my colleagues in this body to join me in recognizing the noteworthy and noble mission of this great institution.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. This great nation, which was born as a nation of immigrants, is quickly becoming even more one of many faces, many voices, and many ideas, and it is this diversity which is one of our greatest assets. One of the fastest growing populations in our Nation today is the Hispanic American population. I rise before my colleagues today to bring attention to and celebrate the occasion of Hispanic Heritage Month. This month of recognition is a wonderful opportunity to recognize the wide-ranging achievements and contributions of the Hispanic American population. This is a community with leadership which is notable in every facet of our society, a community filled with courage and persistence who have continually shown a commitment to family, business and education, and economic growth. America's diverse and vibrant Hispanic population has made an enormous contribution to the building and strengthening of our nation, its culture, and its economic prowess. As the 21st century approaches, Hispanic Americans are poised to play an increasingly prominent role in our Nation's political, economic, and cultural life. Look no further than Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson; or Small Business Administration head, Aida Alvarez; Chicago Cub Sammy Sosa; or entertainers Ricky Martin and Jennifer Lopez; or business leaders like Sal Diaz-Verson of Columbus, Georgia or the late Roberto Goizueta. Hispanic Americans offer a valuable and vital social, intellectual, and artistic component of American society and their culture deeply enriches the vast American landscape. What unites Hispanic Americans is a fundamental respect for the traditions and values of their native lands combined with a strong commitment to the American dream. In return, we in the Congress must show a commitment to a legislative agenda that addresses the needs and priorities of Hispanic American families, which are in fact the same as the those of most Americans. We must continue the policies that have laid the foundation for the longest peacetime expansion of the economy, improve and strengthen our education system, provide access to quality healthcare, and protect this nation's children from crime and drugs. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the valuable contributions of the Hispanic American population and honoring Hispanic Heritage Month.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Ranking Member of the Labor/HHS/Education Subcommittee on funding for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention's building and facilities project. The CDC's physical plant facilities are in dire need of expansion and renovation. The lack of adequate laboratory and research facilities is crippling one of the nation's critical resources. Some of the infectious disease laboratories which conduct research on deadly organisms are 60-year old temporary wooden structures. This raises serious concerns regarding safety for employees and the public. The existing CDC's buildings and facilities threatens the United States' position as the world's last line of defense for protecting the health of the public.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator. One last point: does the Chairman and Ranking Member believe that it would be appropriate for the Administration to submit a more adequate proposal for CDC buildings and facilities in its FY 2001 budget?

Mr. CLELAND. I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member and the Labor/ HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee for the FY 2000 appropriations bill. Under the circumstances, The Subcommittee has done a more than adequate job than others in addressing CDC's needs. The Administration's FY 2000 budget request was $39.8 million for all of CDC's buildings and facilities activities, including the repair and improvement of existing structures. The House Labor/HHS/Education Subcommittee mark was for $40 million for buildings and facilities. The Ranking Member is correct in stating that the Senate Subcommittee exceeded the Administration and marks by $20 million. I want to state for the record that, given the need, the initial funding request was set far too low. The CDC needs $141 million or an additional $81 million to modernize the substandard existing buildings and laboratories. I would request that Senate conferees examine all possible sources to obtain additional funding for CDC, and at the very least, hold firm behind the Senate's funding level in conference.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Atlanta Braves baseball team for winning their eighth consecutive divisional championship and, once again, finishing the season with the best record in Major League Baseball. While their record may suggest that this championship was won with a great deal of ease, this could not be further from the truth. Before the season began, the Braves and baseball as a whole were shaken by the news that Andreas Galarraga, the All-Star first baseman of the Braves, had been diagnosed with non- hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer. Although Galarraga had to sit own the entire 1999 season, he has now fully recovered and everyone is eagerly awaiting his return to the field next year. Despite the loss of Galarraga and several other individuals who had been an integral part of the previous championship teams, the Atlanta Braves never gave up. Through this difficult time, the Braves played to the best of their ability and exceeded everyone's expectations. This season the Braves won more games than any other team in baseball which is why, including the worst to first season of 1991, this season may have been the most meaningful of all their recent successes. In this year when each major league team individually celebrated Hank Aaron Day--a day devoted to the memory of baseball's all time homerun leader breaking Babe Ruth's staggering record of 714 homers--the Atlanta Braves once again rose to the top. Their national following combined with their hard work and perseverance have given the Braves the moniker of ``America's Team,'' an honor well suited for these champions.