J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I will vote against the pending conference report because I believe it, and the policy and process behind it, represent a shameful failure on behalf of our American servicemen and women now in harm's way in the Balkans. This legislation before the Senate today displays exactly what's wrong with Washington, including the United States Senate. There is much in the pending conference report on Supplemental Appropriations which is urgently needed and which I support. American farmers need and deserve the disaster assistance included in this legislation. The Kosovar refugees need and deserve massive resettlement and reconstruction assistance, of which the pending measure provides at least a down payment. Our servicemen and women need and deserve the pay raise it provides and above all, those who are on the front lines in the Balkans and elsewhere in the world need supplies and equipment. However, in spite of these positive features, I will be voting ``no'' because of the bill's funding for an expanded, open-ended war against Yugoslavia, which in my opinion, has not been adequately and appropriately considered by the Congress, and also because this important legislation has been used for petty provincial interests. In effect, our servicemen and women are being held hostage while the bill has been loaded up with narrow amendments to assist special interests, such as a gold mine in Washington state, a dormitory for Congressional pages, and reindeer ranchers. While I have certainly observed this same game of special interest influence on the legislative process all too often since I have been in the Senate, this current case is particularly egregious because of the boldness of the special interests and the apparent willingness of too many of our national leaders to allow those interests to be placed above consideration of the interests of our troops in the field. Our troops deserve better from all of us. I have spoken before my reservations about NATO's current policy in the Balkans and Congress' abdication of our Constitutional responsibilities with respect to war powers. To say the least, neither of those reservations have been alleviated in this conference report. Our leadership, including both the Clinton Administration and NATO, have failed to clearly state what our mission is in the Balkans, what specific goals we intend to achieve, and how we will end this mission. As perhaps the leading military analyst of the Vietnam War, Colonel Harry Summers, wrote in his excellent book ``On Strategy: The Vietnam War in Contest:'' The first principle of war is the principle of ``The Objective.'' It is the first principle because all else flows from it. . . . How to determine military objectives that will achieve or assist in achieving the political objectives of the United States is the primary task of the military strategist, thus the relationship between military and political objectives is critical. Prior to any future commitment of U.S. military forces our military leaders must insist that the civilian leadership provide tangible, obtainable political goals. The political objective cannot merely be a platitude but must be stated in concrete terms. While such objectives may very well change during the course of the war, it is essential that we begin with an understanding of where we intend to go. As Clausewitz said, we should not ``take the first step without considering the last.'' In other words, we (and perhaps, more important, the American people) need to have a definition of ``victory.'' Colonel Summers continues: There is an inherent contradiction between the military and its civilian leaders on this issue. For both domestic and international political purposes the civilian leaders want maximum flexibility and maneuverability and are hesitant to fix on firm objectives. The military on the other hand need just such a firm objective as early as possible in order to plan and conduct military operations. Mr. President, we've been here before, and speaking personally, I know all too well the kind of price that is paid by our men and women in uniform when our political leaders fail to lay out clear and specific objectives. More than thirty years ago, in Vietnam we also lacked clear and specific objectives. We attempted to use our military to impose our will in a region far from our shores and far from our vital national interests, and without ever fully engaging the Congress or the American people in the process. The result was a conflict where the politicians failed to provide clear political objectives, but intruded in determining military strategy, and where our policy was never fully understood or fully supported by the American people. Too many Americans never came home from that war, and others came home unalterably changed in mind or body. I cannot in good conscience sit here and watch it all appear to be happening again. I will not support putting American ground troops into Kosovo, and I cannot vote for this conference report which, in my opinion, moves us further in that direction.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, Winston Churchill once said that we build our homes, then our homes build us. I can say happily that my home built me! I was fortunate to have had a great childhood--with two wonderful parents, a great church, and more than a few wise and supportive teachers throughout my school years. I grew up in Lithonia, Georgia, in a community that cared. Unfortunately, not all children growing up in America today are so blessed. Not all children have homes that shape and prepare them to deal with the culture of violence in the world today. Back in the 50s, my action heroes were Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger, and Gene Autry. They were the good guys, who righted wrong and always got the girl. A witness at a Commerce Committee hearing 2 weeks ago described today's action heroes: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, whose TV show, we were told, averaged 100 acts of violence every single episode. When I was in school, the strongest drug around was aspirin, and the most lethal weapon was a sling shot. Last year, over 6,000 students were expelled for carrying a weapon to school--and most said they carried the weapon ``out of a need for protection.'' So far this year-- and the year is only 5 months old--19 young people have met a violent death while in school. Our schools were once safe havens in this country, and there is something very wrong, as President Clinton points out, ``when kids are more worried about guns and violence than math and science.'' The underlying fear of Littleton is that it is symptomatic of a broader pattern of youth violence in this country. Events at Columbine High echo the school shootings in Springfield, OR, when a student invaded the cafeteria, killed a fellow student, and wounded 22 others. It echoes events in Jonesboro, AR, where two Middle School students opened fire, killing five students all under the age of 13 and wounding 10 others. One of the young killers was reportedly angry over the breakup with his girlfriend. It echoes the West Paducah, KY murders in which a fourteen-year-old student stormed a prayer group meeting before school, killed three teenaged girls, and wounded five more students. It was reported that the teen killer may have been teased by members of the prayer group as well as members of the school's football team. In interviews with the neighbors of the Littleton killers, each one-- almost without exception--saw little sign of the tragedy that lay ahead. These are the words of one of those neighbors: I turn on the news and I see their house, and I think, ``That's my house! . . . It's the exact same house, the same windows, same driveway, same trim, everything except the color. I lie in bed thinking: 200 feet from my bedroom is where the guy conceived this idea to destroy everything we thought we had. Everything you thought you knew about your neighborhood, your schools, your churches--all just shattered. Vaporized. We feel like we are at ground zero.'' What causes two seemingly ``normal'' teenagers to go on a killing rampage? Is it a change in our culture? Is it our marketing of violent movies like ``The Basketball Diaries'' and gory video games like ``Doom?'' Is it access to Internet recipes for building bombs? Is it the plight of ``latchkey'' kids who come home every day after school to an empty house? What is the WHY of Littleton? What are the toxic factors that are producing the alarming trend in this country where young people settle their grievances with mass murders? I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment by Senator Lieberman which would create a National Commission on Youth Violence. It will bring together religious leaders, educators, Cabinet heads, experts in parenting, in law enforcement, and psychology all focused on a single mission: To understand what factors conspire to create a Littleton and what actions we can take to address the possible causes of youth violence. The task will not be easy and the answers will not be simple. But this amendment is a critically important step in addressing the culture of violence that is pervading every segment of our society. It is obvious to me that we are in a cultural war in this country for the hearts and minds of our young people. And in anything and everything we can do to help and strengthen our children through safe schools, through smaller classrooms, through greater adult interaction and support, we should absolutely do. This Congress has a role. And one of the things we can--and should do--is to adopt the Lieberman amendment. The national commission will seek answers to the perplexing questions of how we deal with the hearts and minds of our youngsters in this cultural war. And, sadly enough, like real war, there are casualties. Littleton, CO is an example of that. Our hope is that we can take some positive action that mitigates the death and destruction of the Columbine tragedy. What is at stake is no less than this Nation's most precious resource, our number one asset--our children. As the writer James Agee said, ``In every child who is born, under no matter what circumstances, and of no matter what parents, the potentiality of the human race is born again.'' Mr. President, on behalf of America's children, I am very pleased that the Lieberman amendment has been accepted by both sides and is part of this important legislation.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an exeptional company based in Atlanta, GA. The Nationwide Companies proudly established its national headquarters in Atlanta just 7 years ago, and through the progressive, dynamic leadership of its founder and president, Bill Case, it has succeeded in the marketplace from coast to coast. Success earns recognition, and Money Maker's Monthly, the prestigious business journal, recently awarded this ever-growing company the distinction as ``The Company of the Month'' in the United States. The front-page feature, appropriately titled, ``The Nationwide Miracle,'' meticulously describes the amazing progress of Nationwide, and applauds the company's founder and president Bill Case for his leadership and unquestioned integrity. Perhaps the best description of Nationwide as a uniquely American business is the conclusion in the feature that Bill Case and his company are ``revolutionizing the way the American public earns and saves money.'' The Money Maker's Monthly feature is a tribute to a man's vision and the ability to transfer dreams into reality. In order that others may celebrate this wonderful and well-deserved award and perhaps be inspired each day to realize the American dream, Mr. President, I ask you to join me and our colleagues in saluting the many successes of Bill Case and the Nationwide Companies. I ask that the Money Maker's monthly article be printed in the Record. The article follows: The Nationwide Miracle--One Man's Vision Produces Unique Network Marketing Biz Bill Case dreamed for many years of a business where people could enjoy financial freedom. He already knew that network marketing was the wave of the future, but concluded that the industry had complications that disillusioned many able and talented people. He wanted to find the simplest way that a home-based entrepreneur could earn impressively through network marketing without spending hard-earned money on things like inventory and also avoid obstacles like unproductive downlines. In other words, could you build a business where financial freedom was obtainable through good, honest work? After carefully researching other network marketing companies and interviewing a cross-section of successful networking entrepreneurs throughout the country, Case found the answer. The result became The Nationwide Companies, his seven-year-old business that is viewed by many observers as a miracle in the network marketplace. ``Instead of selling marked-up merchandise, we sell a benefits package which gives the owner the right to purchase popular items like cars, boats, furniture and health insurance with the same group buying power and low prices enjoyed by Fortune 500 Companies.'' Case emphasizes that the Nationwide Benefits Package is ``a hot item because of value in savings.'' Case says his network marketing business, which is headquartered in Atlanta, is revolutionizing the way the American public earns and saves money. Skeptics are few and far between as Case and his company gladly showcase a growing number of success stories from California to Florida who are earning six-figure incomes. Nationwide networkers called Independent Marketing Directors (IMDs), publicly and rather proudly state that they are enjoying genuine financial freedom as associates of Case's ``Team Nationwide.'' With evangelical drive, Case welcomes everyone to visit under the umbrella of The Nationwide Companies. ``We are truly one of a kind among network marketing companies,'' observes Case. ``We have a quality product that stands on its own in the marketplace because it allows purchasers to obtain items of genuine value.'' He emphasizes that the Nationwide Benefits Package can be purchased by anyone. It is a retail item in the truest sense of the word. The Benefits Package allows the owner, according to Case, to buy or lease cars, trucks, RVs, boats, along with furniture, eye care, health insurance, and even exotic vacations. ``Our Benefits Package saves consumers substantial amounts of good, hard dollars. The benefits are from recognizable Fortune 500 companies like ``the big three'' automakers, General Electric, United Parcel Service, Hertz and LensCrafters, just to name a few,'' says Case, adding that the Package is ``one of the best bargains in the country!'' without burdens Like other network marketing businesses, Nationwide operates through its IMDs from Hawaii to New York. From the company's Atlanta headquarters, Case's fast-growing enterprise provides marketing and sales information, computer support and state-of-the-art, easily accessible training for its IMDs. When asked what makes Nationwide different from other network marketers, Case, breaking into a wide grin, responds, ``Our IMDS don't have to buy or keep any inventory. There's no quota of any kind, no penalties, no competition and no levels of unpaid production.'' Case adds that Nationwide's system ``pays to infinity.'' ``You get paid what you are worth with Nationwide, and you only have to make two sales each year. We believe that our IMDs should earn good money without unnecessary difficulty,'' he says. Case describes Nationwide's management as ``hands-on.'' ``We have a National Sales Training Coordinator for Nationwide who has created the lion's share of the effective marketing tools used in the company's training program. Lynda is a crown jewel,'' says Hendryx. ``Her training expertise gives our IMDS the head start they need in earning good, solid money as quickly as possible.'' One of the key players on Nationwide's team is Dick Loehr, president of Loehr's Auto Consultants in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., who operates the benefits company for Nationwide. Loehr, who once owned nine automobile franchises, ranging from Porsche to Chrysler, has vast experience in the national automobile marketplace. A protege of Lee Iococca (Loehr was an advisor to Iococca at Chrysler and still wears the lapel pin award given for his service to Iococca and Chrysler), Loehr is a virtual encyclopedia of knowledge of the automobile industry, including the complicated areas of financing and leasing. Nationwide recently produced a video interview with Loehr, which is a reservoir of vital information that any consumer would need to know before buying or leasing an automobile. Loehr's joining Nationwide meant coming out of retirement. ``When I heard about Nationwide, I did my own investigation and knew this company was a winner,'' says Loehr. With Loehr's auto industry skills, Nationwide continues to be able to make popular items like automobiles available to its associates through the same group buying power enjoyed by Fortune 500 companies. Also, Loehr's heralded experience in the car market is invaluable to Nationwide. ``I understand pricing of automobiles and trucks, and financing and leasing is almost secondhand to me,'' says Loehr, who is not bragging, but stating fact. One of the most recent benefits available to Nationwide associates is the availability of Program cars, which became possible through Loehr's esoteric knowledge of the automobile industry. Loehr says this makes the Benefits Package even more valuable. ``A Program car is a recent model, low mileage auto in top shape from a fleet program which we obtain for sale or lease. These are incredible bargains available to anyone owning the Nationwide Benefits Package.'' tributes from the trenches Case describes his national network of IMD's as ``my field generals.'' ``I'm proud of the quality and high character of every one,'' he says. Robert and Donna Fason of Mount Vernon, Ark., are Nationwide's National Sales Directors who earned their lofty title through impressive success. ``Every day is a vacation to us,'' says Robert, adding, ``We are making more money than ever and our IMD's are truly excited about even greater earnings as we work together for financial freedom.'' Two key Team Nationwide Associates, says Case are Ruby and Ray Riedel of Yakima, Wash. Both are successful veteran network marketers who left one of the big names in the industry for nationwide. Their story is a fascinating, personal endorsement of Case's network business dream. ``Unlike our previous company, we now have absolutely no inventory, monthly quotas or penalties,'' stated Ruby Riedel, ``How refreshing to be part of a genuine network company and to be free of all overhead, competition and no levels of unpaid production!'' In place of these obstacles, Ruby says that IMD's now have ``value with rewards,'' ``We and all others are paid what we're worth without limitations, under an amazing income system that pays to infinity.'' She hastens to add that Nationwide's regular training program deserves accolades. ``The intensive and effective support given to every IMD by people like Jack Hendryx and Lynda Davis keeps all of us going upward with our earnings. This training may be the very best in the network marketing industry.'' Perhaps no higher praise for Nationwide has been given than the observation of internationally respected and widely read author Alfred Huang. A Maui, Hawaii resident and Nationwide IMD, Huang says he became an associate of Case's team not solely because of its proven earnings and savings, but particularly because the system ``helps people to live a better life.'' ``The true spirit and value of Nationwide is caring of people.'' Huang is a best-selling author whose next book, ``The Century of the Dragon--Creating Your Success and Prosperity in the Next Century,'' is due for publication later this year. He is convinced that network marketing will soon be the mainstream solution for financial wellness. ``Nationwide,'' Huang says, ``is the best network marketing [company] I have ever known.'' A native of China, who was imprisoned for 13 years after being wrongly convicted and sentenced as an American spy (his conviction was overturned), plans to write a book about Nationwide. ``I want to tell people how to change their attitude and build their self- confidence by sharing the beauty of Nationwide, its philosophy, its system, its opportunity and its loving and caring of people.'' Income testimonials Nationwide, according to Case, is a 100 percent debt-free company that parallels the American Dream of entrepreneurial success. ``Just look at Jack Hendryx, says Case. ``No man in America could, I believe, exceed his professional marketing ability and wonderful reputation for honesty.'' As a matter of fact, one of Hendryx's presentations, which he gives live in regional meetings, and is recorded on one of Nationwide's video programs, concludes with Hendryx' advice to everyone, ``The Benefits Package will sell itself. All you have to do is tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. the rest is easy.'' Case's expectations for 1999 and into the next millennium are high. ``We turned the corner sometime back and this year and the next will see us explode with new sales. My projection is to have tens of thousands more IMD's on board, spread evenly throughout the geographical areas of America with resulting growth in sales of the Benefits Package.'' Case revealed that new benefits are scheduled to be added to the package soon, and as they are added, they will be placed retroactively into Benefits Packages already owned. ``Remember, we are family and we share,'' says Case with his engaging smile and twinkling eyes. Every great American business pioneer has said, in one way or another, that a company is measured by the accomplishments of its people. Perhaps no better measure of Nationwide's enviable position in America's network marketplace can be found than in the successes of its IMDs. Many companies, for whatever reason, are reluctant to disclose individuals with verifiable earnings, but not Nationwide ``We want people who are looking for the best earnings opportunity in America today to contact our folks and ask them questions,'' Case says. ``They are going to hear revelations from our people whose lives have been transformed because of the Nationwide miracle. And, I might add, I am talking about genuinely impressive earnings.'' Joyce Ross, along with her husband Marvin, is a Nationwide Regional Director in Malden, MO. She revealed an upward transformation in income during her first year with Nationwide. ``For 26 years, we owned a combination barber and beauty shop in a lovely small town, but worked ourselves nearly to death with an accumulation of bills and not enough money for the work we were doing. Then came Nationwide,'' says Joyce. ``It would have taken me ten years to earn as a hairdresser what I have earned with Nationwide in less than two years.'' Similarly, Don Garrison of Lampe, MO discloses that he earned over $300,000 in the first year. ``This is the only way I want to live and work, as a free American citizen!'' David Hervey mirrors Garrison's success by revealing that he, too, earned beyond $300,000 during the past year as an associate of Team Nationwide. Hervey, it should be added, is a Nationwide Regional Director in Jackson, Miss. Lamar Adams, a Regional Director in Madison, Miss., earned over $10,000, he says ``. . . in just my first six months as a Nationwide

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona, my dear colleague and friend and fellow Vietnam veteran, for pushing to make sure that this issue of war in Kosovo, war in Yugoslavia, war in the Balkans receives the time and attention from this great and august body that I think it truly deserves. I am struck by the fact that in the earlier weeks of this year, all of my colleagues in the Senate gathered on a question of serious constitutional gravity: impeachment of the President of the United States. This is a serious matter equivalent to that, Mr. President, that is, sending young Americans into harm's way. It is a constitutional matter, one that I personally feel strongly about and one on which I am personally conflicted. As the distinguished Senator from Arizona, I served in Vietnam. I cannot help but think back, on the presentation of this resolution, to the fact that some 35 years ago the Senate voted 88-2 in favor of the Tonkin Gulf resolution which authorized the President to ``take all necessary steps, including the use of armed forces,'' in Vietnam. The House approved that resolution unanimously, 416-0. It is fascinating that my colleague, my friend, my mentor, Senator Russell, in those days chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and a great student of history, actually succeeded in attaching language which gave Congress the right to terminate the authorization of the Tonkin Gulf resolution at any time by concurrent resolution. Senator Russell, in those days, certainly spoke against open-ended conflict where the Congress gave wide open authority to the President. He tried to rein in the Executive and preserve the ability of the Senate, particularly, to exercise its constitutional authority and exercise its constitutional role. But this vote on the Tonkin Gulf resolution served as an unchallenged congressional authorization of war until 1970, by which time, of course, we were deeply involved in the conflict, but no closer, unfortunately, to our political objectives. The way out was long and difficult. The near unanimous votes in favor of war against North Vietnam in the mid-1960s reflected an apparent certainty of purpose and clarity of message to the President, our adversaries, the American people, and our service men and women. However, future events, as they unraveled, were to show that this hasty congressional action, done for the best of intentions, to display national unity, eventually produced exactly the opposite result--national disunity. And we gave an uncertain reaction to the service men and women--and I was one of those servicemen--who carried out the Government's policies and came back to a divided nation and a nation on its way out of war, not in it. But that process took 10 years, Mr. President. Growing out of our Vietnam experiences, the Senator from Arizona and I have taken the Kosovo issue very seriously. For us, it is not an issue--it is a war, a war in which young men and women's lives are at stake. And we come to very different conclusions about what should be done in that war in terms of further military conflict. But we both believe the same thing in one sense, and that is, above all, the Senate must speak, the Senate must debate, the Senate must stand up and be counted in terms of the policy that we are to follow in the Balkans. For that reason, Mr. President, I urge that the motion to table this resolution be defeated. I shall be voting against the motion to table. We cannot just table a war. We cannot just shunt aside the future lives of young men and women as they are risked at this hour. It is fascinating how the resolution reads, the last sentence of which says that the President is authorized to ``use all necessary force and other means in concert with United States allies to accomplish United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.'' ``All necessary force and other means.'' Mr. President, to me, that is an echo, a strange ominous echo of the language in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that passed this body overwhelmingly in the mid-1960s. This got us into deep trouble in Southeast Asia. I see too many similarities between that experience then and the war in the Balkans now. I see a similarity in an open- ended conflict--one with no real military solution in sight, a conflict with no real military strategy to win, and certainly a conflict in which we have no exit strategy from which to disengage ourselves from the war in the Balkans. Instead, I see a greater Americanized war. I see a doubling of the warplanes--almost to 1,000 now--with the heavy majority of those airplanes being from the United States. I see 5,000 muddy boots on the ground in Albania, all of them American forces, up cheek to jowl, right across the line, with Serbian forces in tanks and dug into the mountains with armored personnel carriers and hand-held missiles, and a tremendous capability of ground fire. God forbid if we launch the Apache helicopters into that forbidden zone. I say to you, Mr. President, I support further debate. I will oppose the tabling motion, but I will also oppose this resolution on its merits. I thank the President, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for the time to speak on this important matter. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to and honor the many accomplishments of Marianne Bond Webster, of Dunwoody, Georgia. By the age of 43, Marianne was a success by most yardsticks: happily married and the mother of two, tennis champion, gourmet cook, and a popular caterer. However, several events in Marianne's life sparked a midlife change which would cause her to re-examine her life and become more involved in our nation's political system. This realization spurred her to a more active role in WAND--the Women's Action for New Directions. WAND is a national grassroots peace group emphasizing the role of women-- activists, legislators and community leaders--on issues related to the federal budget, the military, violence, and nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. A nonprofit organization founded in the early 1980s, WAND has grown into a national organization headquartered in Boston, MA, with an advocacy office in Washington, DC, and a field office in Atlanta, GA, with chapters and organizational partners across the country. WAND's educational arm, WAND Education Fund, was started in 1982. WAND's mission is to empower women to act politically to reduce violence and militarism and redirect excessive military resources to human and environmental needs. In 1990, WiLL--the Women Legislators' Lobby, a program of WAND--was formed. WiLL is a powerful and unique membership network of progressive women state legislators. It is the only national multipartisan network of women state legislators from all 50 states working to influence federal policies and budget priorities. One out of three women state legislators is a member. During the 1990s, it seemed Marianne Bond Webster was everywhere, doing everything for WAND and WiLL: lobby days, media workshops, a session on nuclear waste for junior high school students, a tour of the Savannah River Site, campaigning for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, arranging benefit concerts with the Indigo Girls, and leading WAND both locally and nationally. By 1998 Marianne had made two major decisions: to serve as WAND's National president, and to run for an open seat in the Georgia legislature. Caring, smart, honest, brave, and decent, I know she would have made a tremendous difference. But, tragically, on April 17, 1998 she jumped on her bicycle to deliver her campaign leaflets. The bag holding her literature caught in the spokes, and she flew over the handlebars, breaking her neck when she landed. Marianne never regained consciousness. She died on June 11, 1998. Family, friends, and WAND members maintained a constant vigil by Marianne's hospital bed and joined hands with those who could not through daily e-mail updates. She touched so many with her special magic. Her spirit lives on in all of us. And her work continues through Marianne's Fund. Her family and friends developed the idea for a fund shortly after Marianne's death. And in 1999 WAND Education Fund established Marianne's Fund with the Atlanta Women's Foundation. WiLL and the other WAND programs, which had become so central in Marianne's life, will be beneficiaries of the Fund. Marianne believed wholeheartedly that all women, if offered support and training, would contribute significantly to the political process. She recruited women state legislators to WiLL enthusiastically, and connected WAND activists with WiLL members nationally, to forge powerful alliances. With courage and intelligence, she took on WAND's complex issues, becoming an expert on the subject of nuclear waste. Marianne toured nuclear weapons facilities and test sites. She wrote passionately about the legacy of nuclear weapons, alerting her audience to the dangers and costs of continued nuclear weapons production. Related programs of peace, justice, and protection of the environment identified by the Webster/Bond family will also be beneficiaries of Marianne's Fund. Marianne worked to increase the women's vote, strongly supported affirmative action for women in business and the professions, donated generously to battered women and children's causes, and contributed much to other grassroots organizations. Mr. President, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in recognizing and honoring the life of Marianne Bond Webster. Marianne was a wonderful and amazing person who positively touched the lives, and bettered the lives, of many Georgians and many Americans. Although her life was unfortunately too short, her memory and her work on behalf of our country and our political system will last forever.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in support of the need for an initiative to help address the growing long-term care needs of Americans, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Civilian and Uniformed Services Long- Term Care Insurance Act of 1999 in the Senate. The Administration proposed a plan to offer long-term health care insurance to federal civilian employees. Under my bill, the administration's proposal is expanded to include federal civilian and uniformed services employees, as well as foreign service employees. This non-subsidized, quality private long-term care insurance option can then be offered at an affordable group rate. It is anticipated that 300,000 Federal employees and 200,000 uniformed services employees would voluntarily participate in such a long-term insurance plan. With such participation, the Federal government could truly serve as the model for employers for long-term care insurance. The bill would make the following groups eligible for the long-term care insurance: Civilian employees after continuously working for the federal government for 6 months, Foreign Service employees, civilian annuitants upon retirement, members of the Armed Services, retired members of the Armed Services, and designated relatives, like parents and parents-in-laws. The bill also offers: (1) portability of this benefit regardless of future federal or military employment as long as the monthly premium is paid on a time, (2) a choice of plans to meet the insurer's needs from up to three insurance carriers, and (3) a choice of cash or service benefits (such as expense-incurred or indemnity method). Costs for this program are anticipated to be no more than $15 million for OPM administrative expenses. The price of long-term care is very expensive both in terms of the financial and emotional burden to families. In 1997, Medicare and Medicaid spent $15.4 billion providing home health care to Americans. In that same year, nursing home care cost American taxpayers approximately $16.9 billion. What I am proposing is legislating the ability to maintain self-reliance. The Federal Civilian and Uniformed Services Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 1999 is an important step to providing ``affordable, high-quality long-term care.'' I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in support of the need for an initiative to help address the growing long-term care needs of Americans, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Civilian and Uniformed Services Long- Term Care Insurance Act of 1999 in the Senate. The Administration proposed a plan to offer long-term health care insurance to federal civilian employees. Under my bill, the administration's proposal is expanded to include federal civilian and uniformed services employees, as well as foreign service employees. This non-subsidized, quality private long-term care insurance option can then be offered at an affordable group rate. It is anticipated that 300,000 Federal employees and 200,000 uniformed services employees would voluntarily participate in such a long-term insurance plan. With such participation, the Federal government could truly serve as the model for employers for long-term care insurance. The bill would make the following groups eligible for the long-term care insurance: Civilian employees after continuously working for the federal government for 6 months, Foreign Service employees, civilian annuitants upon retirement, members of the Armed Services, retired members of the Armed Services, and designated relatives, like parents and parents-in-laws. The bill also offers: (1) portability of this benefit regardless of future federal or military employment as long as the monthly premium is paid on a time, (2) a choice of plans to meet the insurer's needs from up to three insurance carriers, and (3) a choice of cash or service benefits (such as expense-incurred or indemnity method). Costs for this program are anticipated to be no more than $15 million for OPM administrative expenses. The price of long-term care is very expensive both in terms of the financial and emotional burden to families. In 1997, Medicare and Medicaid spent $15.4 billion providing home health care to Americans. In that same year, nursing home care cost American taxpayers approximately $16.9 billion. What I am proposing is legislating the ability to maintain self-reliance. The Federal Civilian and Uniformed Services Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 1999 is an important step to providing ``affordable, high-quality long-term care.'' I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and salute the heroism and bravery displayed during the brave and daring rescue of Ivers Sims by Atlanta firefighter Matt Moseley, Georgia Department of Natural Resources pilot Boyd Clines, and his navigator, Larry Rogers on April 12, 1999. Many Americans watched this frightening drama unfold on television, and all prayed for a successful and joyous rescue. Last Monday afternoon, as members of the Atlanta City Fire Department fought a raging fire throughout the historic Fulton Bag and Cotton Mill in southeast Atlanta, Ivers Sims, a construction worker, found himself trapped on top of a swaying, 250-foot crane above the raging fire that had erupted in the mill. Boyd Clines and Larry Rogers arrived on the scene and miraculously negotiated their helicopter through the menacing wind, smoke, and fire which emanated from the cotton mill, while Atlanta firefighter, Matt Moseley, dangled from a rope near the flames--all working together to save the life of Mr. Sims. Thanks to dedicated teamwork, amazing heroism, courage and valor in risking their own lives, these three brave men rescued Ivers Sims from above the flames, and moments later, all four safely returned to the ground. When I think of these three heroic Americans and their brave actions I am reminded of the words of Theodore Roosevelt who once said, ``Americanism means the virtues of courage, honor, justice, truth, sincerity, and hardihood--the virtues that made America.'' These three men have brought pride and honor to the State of Georgia and to the entire Nation. Boyd, Larry and Matt are true examples of the courage, honor, justice, truth, sincerity, and hardihood that this Nation is built upon, and are indeed great Americans! I would like to salute all Atlanta firefighters, police officers and Sheriffs deputies who diligently worked together in order to fight the massive fire that engulfed the historic cotton mill. I would also like to praise the fire fighters throughout the Nation who, like Matt Moseley, put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve our communities. Mr. President, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in recognizing and honoring the heroism and bravery displayed by Boyd Clines, Larry Rogers, and Matt Moseley under the most dangerous of circumstances in saving the life of Ivers Sims.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it is my privilege to speak on the question of Kosovo and our military and political goals there. In working with my staff to put together some background and understand the history of that region, I came across an interesting fact, because I value history. What is it Winston Churchill once said? How do you know where you are going unless you know where you have been? I find it fascinating, after 146 B.C., the Roman Republic was the world's only superpower--that sounds familiar--following the destruction of its long-time superpower rival, Carthage. This Roman triumph created a tremendous expansion of Roman territory, wealth, and influence and, not coincidentally, an expansion of Roman involvement in local conflicts far removed from Italy. One such intervention involved the Northern African kingdom of Numidia, where Rome became entangled in a seccession struggle in 112 B.C., with the Roman Senate declaring actually war against Jugurtha, the leading contender for the Numidian throne. What followed is fascinating. It is described in a book called the ``Anatomy of Error: Ancient Military Disasters and Their Lessons for Modern Strategists.'' I think there are some lessons here for us, particularly as we view Kosovo today. Viewed from a modern perspective, North Africa in the age of Jugurtha was in many ways Rome's Vietnam. The Jugurthine War is the story of the failure of the Romans to find a strategy that would determine the appropriate level of force needed to maintain sound and stable foreign policy. The Romans should have learned to operate according to the rules that Clausewitz later laid out in his book ``On War'': that war is always to be regarded as the pursuit of policy by other means and that strategy is the art of using exactly the appropriate amount of force to accomplish the ends of the policy. The Romans never had a clear policy in Numidia. This is something we have to avoid in Kosovo. We need a clear policy. Thus the Romans never had a rational strategy for winning the war. Another mistake we have to avoid. As a result, they poured a massive amount of military force into the region and accomplished worse than nothing. Mr. President, we can't accomplish worse than nothing in Kosovo. We have to accomplish something of which we can be proud. The horrifying scenes unfolding in and around Kosovo today are indeed a sad recap of many of the worst images of our 20th century: Massive refugee flight to uncertain futures, civilian casualties, large numbers of destroyed homes and shops and communities, ethnic intolerance, and hostilities fanned by demagogic political leaders. The hearts of Americans and people around the world have been truly touched by the incredible tragic plight of the Kosovar Albanians who have been the primary victims of the incredible, reprehensible, so- called ethnic cleansing policies of Milosevic. This is also a difficult situation. There are no easy answers, and any choice the President makes and, indeed, any choice the Congress makes is fraught with danger. Part of this, I think, is the world in which we live, not a new world order but a new world disorder. The post-cold-war order is one of disorder. The two administrations which have confronted the post-Soviet Union world, the Bush and Clinton administrations, have grappled mightily with the complexities of this new age in foreign places, much like the Roman Empire, foreign places like Iraq, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia, Haiti, and now Kosovo. Almost every step in these areas has been subjected to questioning and controversy before, during, and even after the operation in question. The decision to authorize the use of airstrikes against Serbia was one of the most difficult decisions I have ever had to make. I have felt in the weeks since much like President Kennedy described himself. He said he was an optimist with no illusions. I am an optimist. I am an idealist. I want to take the high ground. I thought that NATO and America needed to act, and act then, and airstrikes was our best option. Maximum impact on Milosevic, minimum impact on us. But it was a tough decision to make, and I am under no illusion that this is going to automatically get us to where we want to go in terms of our policies in the Balkans. May I say that we have a major humanitarian interest in providing effective relief for the refugees and preventing further atrocities against civilians by the Milosevic regime. We certainly have a strong interest in stopping the spread of this conflict to the surrounding countries in this historically unstable region. I find it interesting that the century opened in 1914 with a Serb nationalist assassinating Archduke Ferdinand and that led to the guns of August in 1914. We have to make sure that the current Milosevic- misled nationalism does not lead to the guns of 1999. Unfortunately, I think that no real military, or so far diplomatic, approach we have come up with can really fully guarantee our goals in the Balkans. Despite my concern about our long-term policy in Kosovo and the Balkans, the Senate was asked to vote at a point when NATO had already united in favor of airstrikes. American troops were poised to embark on their mission and the credibility of American commitments was on the line. Under these circumstances, I felt that we must not send a signal of disunity to Milosevic, to our NATO allies, to the President, to our own people. While these circumstances dictated my vote for airstrikes, by no means--and I have made this clear--by no means does this indicate my giving a green light for an open-ended, ill-defined, deeper commitment of American military force in Kosovo, especially the introduction of American ground troops. Mr. President, I was on the ground in Vietnam 31 years ago. I don't want this generation to repeat that experience. We do not need an open- ended, ill-defined commitment of American ground forces in the Balkans. I hope and pray that we can avoid that. I hope and expect that any such future expansion of military might there would be thoroughly discussed and debated in our country and within NATO before it is undertaken, not after the decision has been already made. I oppose American ground troops in Kosovo. I think this would represent further intervention in that civil war within internationally recognized borders, Yugoslavia. I think it would be in pursuit of objectives which are not vital to the United States or NATO and would do little, frankly, to secure the long-term interests that we do have in the Balkans--stability and economic prosperity. The distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, has often cited the following quotation from one of my personal heroes, Senator Richard Russell. It is an honor I cherish that I hold his seat in the Senate and his seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Russell 30 years ago in this Chamber, while I was in Vietnam, said this: While it is a sound policy to have limited objectives, we should not expose our men to unnecessary hazards of life and limb in pursuing them. As for me, my fellow Americans, I shall never knowingly support a policy of sending even a single American boy overseas to risk his life in combat unless the entire civilian population and wealth of our country--all that we have and all that we are--is to bear a commensurate responsibility in giving him the fullest support and protection of which we are capable. Mr. President, it has been my honor to visit some of the troops and facilities in Georgia that are supporting our efforts in Kosovo and the Balkans and in western Europe, some of the troops in Fort Stewart, troops at Robins Air Force Base. I know what it means to be a troop out there committed on behalf of this country and to have this country divided. It is not fun. It is not what we want to repeat. And with air operations now ongoing, with Americans soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in harm's way, our thoughts must turn to them as they tackle a very complicated and very risky mission. Our prayers are with them, and we pray for their safe return in every way. As with every American military deployment, there are risks. That is why I have chosen to visit some of the places in Georgia that have sent young men and women into harm's way, including the 93rd Air Control Wing of JSTARS Aircraft out of Robins Air Force Base; the 19th Air Refueling Group of KC135R Aircraft--which participated, by the way, in the rescue of our downed stealth fighter pilot--also out of Robins; and the 94th Airlift Wing of the C-130 transports out of Dobbins Air Reserve Base, not to mention the numerous other Georgia citizens serving in our deployed forces in the Balkans. My primary purpose today is to look beyond the military phase at our Balkans policy and ahead to the elements which I believe we must consider if we are to have a truly successful exit strategy. I said today in our hearings that there is one thing a Vietnam veteran does not like to hear and that is ``no win.'' There is another thing and that is ``no exit.'' Put those together and that becomes a tragedy: ``no win, no exit.'' We can't have that situation in the Balkans. We need a successful exit strategy which produces a long-term, stable, and humane outcome, one which also will allow our service men and women to come home safely from the Balkans without having to return again. I believe we ought to have a full debate on our exit strategies now, and not just on exit strategies, but on what constitutes victory. I think we still have to nail that down. But certainly we ought to talk about not just how we get in and what we do there, but how do we get out. Even while military operations are still underway, we must not repeat the mistakes the Romans made in the Jugurthine war, or the mistakes we made in the Vietnam war--pursuing both ``no win" and ``no exit'' at the same time. In spite of substantial disagreements about the appropriate ways to go about our goals in the Balkans, I think there is some consensus in this country and in NATO regarding our ultimate goals: 1. An end to atrocities in Kosovo. 2. Effective relief for refugees. 3. A negotiated political settlement, in terms of the status of Kosovo. 4. Stability throughout the Balkans, including Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. Another important goal, it seems to me, is an end to the U.S. and other NATO country force deployments in the Balkans, in other than a legitimate peacekeeping rather than warmaking role. Any effective exit strategy must indicate how we can achieve these ends, including the costs for doing so and also the costs for not doing so. Our involvement in Bosnia has cost us $10 billion already. I understand that the price tag, through October, for our involvement now in Kosovo will cost some $8 billion. We owe it to both the people in the region, as well as to our own service men and women, to determine what price we are prepared to pay in order to make their sacrifices in the military operations they are involved in worthwhile in the long run. Otherwise, we may actually ``win the war,'' but ``lose a peace'' by failure to pursue the nonmilitary policies necessary to attain our key objectives. I think it is important for me to quote one of my heroes, Walter Whitman, who said about the Vietnam experience that the battles we fight we may win, but the battles we fight can't win the war. One of the things I fear most about Kosovo and further military action in the Balkans is that we win those battles, but those battles can't help us bring about the ultimate goals we seek. I am afraid there is a massive disconnect there between the two, and I am afraid that is going to pull us into a deeper and more prolonged war. In that spirit, I want to offer some preliminary ideas, some key elements that I believe must be part of an exit strategy. First of all, we must develop a comprehensive, long-term plan for refugee relief and resettlement. I am not sure if I were a Kosovar Albanian that I would ever want to go back to that part of the world. I would certainly probably not want to go back as long as Milosevic was in power. It is one thing to announce the appropriate goal of the return of all the Kosovar refugees to their homes, but how many will really want to go back? Is it really possible to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again? Is it possible to put together Kosovo as it was before the war? It may not be possible. It is another thing to realize reality and put together a set of policies necessary to deal with the real life situation in which many--perhaps most--of the Kosovar Albanians exist today: 1. They don't have homes. 2. In many ways, they are dispossessed and don't have a country. 3. They don't have jobs. 4. They don't have functioning communities to return to. While the European members of NATO and other nearby nations have a great stake in the refugee population resettlement, it is the greatest obligation we have here in the United States, too. We have a significant responsibility. I believe the administration and Congress must develop a substantial aid package now to demonstrate clearly that we are fully committed to successfully working on the refugee crisis. It may be years before that crisis is resolved. The sooner we get to work on it, the better. Secondly, in terms of a successful exit strategy out of the Balkans, we must be prepared to address, as part of any lasting solution to the problems in Kosovo and the Balkans, the economic devastation which exists in much of the entire Balkan region, much of which has been brought about by Milosevic himself in making war on the Slovenians, the Croats, the Muslims, and now on the Kosovars. Much of this devastation has been at his hands and under the barrel of his guns. This devastation is not something that can be overcome overnight. It is my view that there is little prospect for lasting reconciliation between the peoples and nations of the Balkans until there is some degree of economic recovery. People aren't going to return to homes that exist in communities that don't function. They are not going to return to places where there are no jobs, no schools, no education, and no hope. So much of the Balkans now is in that condition. Given the depth of the problem, we are looking at a project which is almost certainly to be far more lengthy than the financially costly refugee problem. Again, Europe must take the lead, but the United States has to play a part as the international community leader, which it is. We have a stake in the stability of the Balkans, and this is one of the areas that we need to address. We need to begin now considering under which conditions we will offer economic reconstruction aid to the Balkans. Third, in terms of a successful exit strategy, we have to begin laying the groundwork for an international conference to determine a mechanism for a final settlement not just of the Kosovo problem and allowing the will of the people in the Balkans to determine their fate, but we have to do that for Bosnia as well. I think the only way out of our dilemma in the Balkans is negotiating a settlement acceptable to as many parties as possible. It is the only outcome I can see that would help us achieve some lasting peace in the region. Fourth, in terms of a successful exit strategy, all of these efforts that, as I mentioned, revolve around Kosovo have to be applied to Bosnia as well. American forces have been enforcing an uneasy peace in Bosnia since 1996. Many of those refugees displaced in the Bosnia war have not returned to their homes. The costs continue to mount to this country and NATO, and no clear end is in sight. I find it fascinating that the great powers of Europe, after World War I, in 1918, help set up the Balkans, help structure it as it is today. As a matter of fact, in terms of Kosovo, the Russians helped prevail upon the great powers of Europe to take Kosovo away from Albania and give it to Serbia. It is now part of Serbia. I think we need an international conference to resolve some of these dilemmas that have resulted from a century-old set of solutions that may not any longer apply. Fifth, for any successful exit strategy, and for any settlement or resettlement to stick, Serbia must be reconciled to its neighbors and to the NATO countries. Clearly, the chief source of the most immediate problems in the Balkans, the massive human rights violation in Kosovo, is the Serbian regime led by Milosevic. He stands condemned before history and humanity. I am confident that he will ultimately be held accountable for his actions--not just by an international tribunal but by the civilized world. However, we must be very careful that, in painting Milosevic as the enemy, we not demonize the Serbian people. After all, Serbia is the only part of the former Yugoslavia which fought as our allies in both of the world wars of this century. We must make a concerted effort to reach out to the Serbians to make it clear that our quarrel is not with them; it is with Milosevic and his actions. Sixth, as a vital part, a key part of an exit strategy, we must thank those who fought the war. We must redeem our pledges to the men and women in our Armed Forces who are, once again, being asked to put their lives on the line to implement American foreign policy. Our service men and women, and their families, are, once again, the ones paying the price for the policies we make here in Washington. They are on the point of the sphere. If we policymakers are going to continue to put them in harm's way, surely we can appropriately provide for the men and women and their families who depend on them. This body passed overwhelmingly S. 4, a marvelous measure to increase pay and improve pension benefits under the G.I. bill. I was proud to be part of that effort, and we need to make sure that the effort passes the House and is signed into law. It is interesting, as we find ourselves exiting the 20th century and going into the 21st with another situation in the Balkans. Hopefully, we can a avoid the guns of 1999 and move towards a more peaceful resolution of our problems. Hopefully, we have learned some things through the years. But, interestingly enough, we have a new role going into the 21st century and will face very few self-imposed restraints on our actions. Therefore, perhaps more than at any time in our Nation's history, it is imperative that both Congress and the executive branch focus clearly on defining our national interest and developing policies to effectively and appropriately protect and promote those interests. Even with our current unparalleled power and influence, I think it would be wise to heed the words of President Kennedy in 1961. He said about us in this country: And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient, that we are only 6 percent of the world's population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse every adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. Mr. President, I was laying on a beach in Miami getting ready to go to basic training at Fort Benning in the summer of 1963 and heard a marvelous speech on my little transistor radio. I can remember the technology in those days. That was high tech in those days. I remember that President Kennedy spoke at American University on June 10, 1963, in a marvelous address. And he said, ``We don't want a Pax Americana.'' That is not what we want to look for as we enter the 21st century. We don't want a Pax Americana. We don't want America to keep the peace all over the world. It is not our role. It is not our job. And we have to realize that it is not necessarily an American solution to every problem in the world. But the challenge for the post-cold war world for us is to learn from the Jugurthine War that, consistent with our national interests and our values, we ``find a strategy that would determine the appropriate level of force needed to maintain sound and stable foreign policy.'' The post-cold-war world of disorder makes the development of a bipartisan national security consensus especially relevant. We have often said, and really meant, I think, that politics must stop at the water's edge. But we need more now. I believe we need to redouble our efforts to open real dialog here within the Congress and with the administration and with the American people to discuss the fundamental role of America's power in the world as we begin the 21st century. Kosovo challenges us to define that policy now. For the dialog to be meaningful, we must be sure that policymakers, including Members of Congress, have timely and sufficient information to actually allow us to make informed decisions before we get so deeply committed in a military excursion that challenges American credibility. I had a hand last year in working with the wonderful Senator Olympia Snowe and Pat Roberts in some efforts to enact in the last Congress and to seek to require the administration, the President whenever the President committed some 500 troops abroad, or asked for money for a contingency force to be sent somewhere in the world, this requirement that Senator Snowe and I put together and Senator Roberts put together in the appropriations bill and in the authorization bill, requires the administration, when they do those kinds of things, when they make those kinds of commitments, to come before the Congress up front and early and explain why we are committing our forces abroad, what the military application is, and what the exit strategy is. Unfortunately, I am afraid these amendments went by the wayside and we don't have the kind of information up front and early that we need. I will be working with Senator Snowe and Senator Roberts to strengthen our legislation so that the Congress can get in, in terms of military commitment, on the take off as well as a potential crash landing. Let me just say that we need to adhere to the basic dictum of Clausewitz that we must know in terms of military commitment, the last step we are going to take before we take the first step. If I had any one red-letter piece of advice to give our policymakers here in Washington, that will be it. Let's make sure we fully understand the last step we are going to take before we take the first step. It is so easy to get into war; it is so difficult to get out. There is, obviously, much more to be done in formulating an effective approach to defining the proper guidelines, objectives, and policies for American foreign policy in today's world. We must successfully resolve the debate about NATO's mission statement: Is it going to participate in more offensive operations, or is it going to continue to be a defensive alliance primarily? Are we going to admit more members? Is this a good idea, or a bad idea? The members of NATO are coming to Washington in a few days. I think we ought to engage in that discussion with NATO, because we have to figure in the relationship with our friends and our allies, because those relationships affect our relationship with other countries. Our relationship with Russia, for instance--Russia, for all of its troubles, is still the only nation possessing the means to really threaten our physical security. And China? What about China? China, I think, might pose perhaps the greatest policy challenge to us as we enter the 21st century. Clearly, there is much work to do. But it all starts with the correct articulation of national interests--what is vital to our national interest and what is not, and particularly in terms of the commitment of American young men and women abroad. For all the challenges and difficulties facing us today, I would like for us to consider the other words spoken by President Kennedy in that 1963 address, on June 10, at American University. He spoke during the height of the cold war. President Kennedy put it this way: World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor; it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it. I yield the floor. Mrs. LINCOLN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I am pleased to offer an important piece of legislation designed to address a critical need of Georgia's veterans and their families. One of the greatest honors our country provides for a veteran's service is the opportunity to be buried in a national cemetery. It is logical that a veteran's family would want to have the grave site of their loved one close by. They want to be able to place flowers or a folded American flag by the headstone of their father, mother, sister or brother. Georgia veterans' families deserve such consideration. The establishment of a new veterans national cemetery in the Atlanta metropolitan area is one of my highest legislative priorities. The current veterans population in Georgia is estimated to be nearly 700,000, with over 400,000 residing in the Metro Atlanta area. One state currently has two cemeteries designated specifically for veterans, in Marietta and Andersonville. Marietta National Cemetery has been full since 1970, and Andersonville National Historic Cemetery is located in southwest Georgia, at a considerable distance from most of the states veterans population. The large population of veterans' families in Metro Atlanta and North Georgia is not being served, and we need to change that. Abraham Lincoln once said: `All that a man hath will he give for his life; and while all contribute of their substance the soldier puts his life at stake, and often yields it up in his country's cause. The highest merit, then, is due to the soldier.' We owe it to our veterans to provide a national veterans cemetery close to their home. I have been pursuing this matter for over 20 years, since I was head of the Veterans' Administration, now called the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Nationally, there are over 300,000 vacancies in national cemeteries for veterans, but in Georgia, there are no such vacancies. The only option these veterans have in Andersonville, a national historic cemetery which is operated by the National Parks Service, not the VA, and is more than 100 miles away from the Metro Atlanta area. This deeply concerns me, especially when one considers that Georgia has the highest rate of growth in terms of military retirees in the Nation, and that the majority of these veterans reside in Metro Atlanta. We really must do better for our veterans. In 1979, when I was head of the VA, our studies documented that the Atlanta metropolitan are was the area having the largest veterans population in the country without a national cemetery. Later that same year, I announced that Metro Atlanta had been chosen as the site for a new VA cemetery, which was to be opened in late 1983. The Atlanta location was chosen after an exhaustive review of many sites, including consideration of environmental, access, and land use factors, and most importantly, the density of veterans population. Unfortunately, the Reagan Administration later withdrew approved of the Atlanta site. Over the years since then, Atlanta has repeatedly been one of the top areas in the United States most in need of an additional national cemetery. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today is simple. It requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery in the Atlanta metropolitan area. It also requires the VA to consult with appropriate federal, state, and local officials to determine the most suitable site. I believe this bill is a necessary first step toward the eventual establishment of a national cemetery to meet the needs of Atlanta's veterans and their families. Admittedly, several factors must be resolved before the cemetery can be established. A site must be found and funding must be made available. However, we must move swiftly to resolve this problem so that a critical element of our commitment to the Nation's veterans can be met. I am hopeful that the Senate will take favorable action on my bill during this Congress. I want to thank my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, for joining me in this important effort, and Representative Barr for sponsoring the companion bill in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I am pleased to offer an important piece of legislation designed to address a critical need of Georgia's veterans and their families. One of the greatest honors our country provides for a veteran's service is the opportunity to be buried in a national cemetery. It is logical that a veteran's family would want to have the grave site of their loved one close by. They want to be able to place flowers or a folded American flag by the headstone of their father, mother, sister or brother. Georgia veterans' families deserve such consideration. The establishment of a new veterans national cemetery in the Atlanta metropolitan area is one of my highest legislative priorities. The current veterans population in Georgia is estimated to be nearly 700,000, with over 400,000 residing in the Metro Atlanta area. One state currently has two cemeteries designated specifically for veterans, in Marietta and Andersonville. Marietta National Cemetery has been full since 1970, and Andersonville National Historic Cemetery is located in southwest Georgia, at a considerable distance from most of the states veterans population. The large population of veterans' families in Metro Atlanta and North Georgia is not being served, and we need to change that. Abraham Lincoln once said: `All that a man hath will he give for his life; and while all contribute of their substance the soldier puts his life at stake, and often yields it up in his country's cause. The highest merit, then, is due to the soldier.' We owe it to our veterans to provide a national veterans cemetery close to their home. I have been pursuing this matter for over 20 years, since I was head of the Veterans' Administration, now called the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Nationally, there are over 300,000 vacancies in national cemeteries for veterans, but in Georgia, there are no such vacancies. The only option these veterans have in Andersonville, a national historic cemetery which is operated by the National Parks Service, not the VA, and is more than 100 miles away from the Metro Atlanta area. This deeply concerns me, especially when one considers that Georgia has the highest rate of growth in terms of military retirees in the Nation, and that the majority of these veterans reside in Metro Atlanta. We really must do better for our veterans. In 1979, when I was head of the VA, our studies documented that the Atlanta metropolitan are was the area having the largest veterans population in the country without a national cemetery. Later that same year, I announced that Metro Atlanta had been chosen as the site for a new VA cemetery, which was to be opened in late 1983. The Atlanta location was chosen after an exhaustive review of many sites, including consideration of environmental, access, and land use factors, and most importantly, the density of veterans population. Unfortunately, the Reagan Administration later withdrew approved of the Atlanta site. Over the years since then, Atlanta has repeatedly been one of the top areas in the United States most in need of an additional national cemetery. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today is simple. It requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery in the Atlanta metropolitan area. It also requires the VA to consult with appropriate federal, state, and local officials to determine the most suitable site. I believe this bill is a necessary first step toward the eventual establishment of a national cemetery to meet the needs of Atlanta's veterans and their families. Admittedly, several factors must be resolved before the cemetery can be established. A site must be found and funding must be made available. However, we must move swiftly to resolve this problem so that a critical element of our commitment to the Nation's veterans can be met. I am hopeful that the Senate will take favorable action on my bill during this Congress. I want to thank my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, for joining me in this important effort, and Representative Barr for sponsoring the companion bill in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am delighted to have this opportunity to congratulate the Life University Running Eagle Hockey team on their remarkable season. Georgia fans all across the country have had the pleasure of watching this team take its third consecutive American Collegiate Hockey Association Division II National Championship. Head Coach Dan Bouchard has, in only three seasons, led the Life ice hockey team to one national runner-up position in the 1995-96 inaugural year and two division II national titles in the two subsequent years. This season brought the Running Eagles an impeccable record with 20 wins, 1 tie and only 5 losses. Through pool play and the championship round, Life had 5 wins, no losses, and averaged 6 goals a game. Life University is fortunate to have an individual of the caliber of Dan Bouchard coaching their hockey team. Not only are he and his assistant coaches teaching their players hockey skills, but important lessons for life--courage, stamina, tenacity and dedication. Although he has enjoyed great success throughout his coaching career, his achievements go far beyond his great talent in coaching. He was a second round draft pick for the Boston Bruins in the 1970 American Hockey League where he was the co-winner of the Happs Holmes Trophy which honors the top goalie in the AHL. Coach Bouchard moved to the National Hockey League in 1972 where he gained a number of honors. In 1976, he was chosen to play for Team Canada and in 1979 he co-founded the Atlanta Sports Carnival which fund raises for leukemia research at Emory University. I would be hard pressed to enumerate all of his magnificent life achievements and contributions to Life University, the Marrietta community and to all of the athletes whose lives he has touched. In this year's championship game the team quickly jumped ahead with a 4-1 lead in the second period against Michigan State, thus setting the tone for defeat. With a final score of 6-2, they claimed their third national title. The Most Valuable Player award went to the Running Eagles' Mark Brodeur who scored 12 goals and had six assists for a total of 18 points. He led the tournament in scoring. Mr. President, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in recognizing and honoring the dedication and hard work of the athletes and coaches of the Life University Running Eagles. They have displayed their skills and dedication to excellence in hockey throughout this entire season and I extend my best wishes to them and congratulate the Life University Athletic Department on their continued success.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I want to say a word of gratitude and thanks to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia for several observations. First of all, as the war clouds gather in the Balkans, hopefully this Nation and NATO will not be drawn into war. If we are drawn into war, I hope we will, as a country, keep in mind the axiom by Baron von Clausewitz that one must know the last step one takes in terms of war before one takes the first step. That should be fully debated here on the floor of the Senate. The distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia had some wonderful observations about life itself and about spring. I could not help but identify with his wonderful comments about his great granddaughter and his love for tomatoes and the things that grow in the spring. My father has a similar love for vegetable gardens and particularly for Better Boy and Big Boy tomatoes. I was very touched by Senator Byrd's comments about me, and I appreciate his thoughts immensely. The last week or two has been fascinating in my life where I learned some things about my own experience in war that have, in effect, triggered a lot of the emotions of war and, hopefully, will lead to a deeper healing of the wounds I incurred there. The story is in the Hill newspaper, and Senator Byrd was kind enough to enter that into the Congressional Record. I thank him personally for that, and it is an honor to be serving with him. He has been one of my personal heroes for many, many years. I wanted to say those words, Mr. President, because we have an incredible human being with us in the Chamber, Senator Byrd, whose light and life continues to guide us all. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I gladly yield.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I am addressing the Senate to express my view on the importance of maintaining a regulatory system that has resulted in a renaissance of the nation's rail freight railroads, which are so critical to the economic vitality of my state of Georgia. In Georgia, we depend heavily on railroads to bring us raw materials and to carry our finished goods to market. Two major railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern, operate more than 3,500 miles of rail line in Georgia, and service is provided over more than 1,000 miles of track by regional and local railroads. More than 3 million carloads of such commodities as coal, minerals, and pulp and paper are carried through Georgia every year, and more than 6,000 Georgians are directly employed in the rail industry. The importance of railroads in my state reaches much deeper than the customers they serve and the citizens they employ, however. As a member of the Small Business Committee, I am particularly aware of the numerous small businesses throughout my state--including hundreds of logging and sawmill operations that produce crossties--which depend for their livelihood on railroads having the financial resources to undertake infrastructure maintenance and improvements. If the railroads do not have the resources for that investment, these small businesses-- as well as rail shippers and employees--will suffer. This financial strength has not always been there. Indeed, the rail industry has undergone a remarkable resurgence from the late 1970s, when much of the industry was in bankruptcy and facing nationalization. The foundation of this resurgence has been the statutory changes made under the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. This bipartisan legislation lifted much of the regulatory burden that was stifling the industry, and permitted the railroads to compete in the marketplace for business, make contracts with customers, and use differential pricing to support the enormous capital investment they require for safe, efficient operations. These are basic activities engaged in by businesses across the nation, activities which had been denied the railroads for nearly a century. The results have been little short of amazing. A moribund industry has come back to life, investing $225 billion in its infrastructure, and providing good jobs to a quarter of a million employees. And, while the industry has had capacity constraints and other difficulties in some areas in providing the high level of service customers deserve, I believe the industry is committed to making needed investments and working with its customers to do better. Despite the rail industry's gains, there are current efforts to turn back the clock and reimpose some of the destructive regulatory interventions which in the past hindered the railroads' ability to operate efficiently and price their services competitively. If we do so, we will be heading right back from where we have come: inefficient, poorly-performing railroads that were not dependable carriers of goods. We cannot afford that, if our nation's businesses are to grow and remain globally competitive. Reauthorizing the Surface Transportation Board (STB), which administers the statute regulating the industry, is an important goal of the Senate Commerce Committee, and it is an objective that I endorse. Only by having a stable regulatory agency in place, can we ensure the continued application of the law in a balanced manner that takes into account the need to enable the railroads to earn enough to maintain their infrastructure, while ensuring fair rates for shippers. Indeed, the railroads are one of the most capital intensive industries in our nation, and despite their increased viability, they still fall short of the capital necessary to sustain and improve their plant and equipment. I support the current economic regulatory regime that has served the nation well by sparking this rail rebirth. At the same time, I intend to carefully evaluate issues brought to the Committee's attention by rail labor organizations as this review goes forward. We must ensure that our railroads can operate in ways that allow them to maximize their growth and earn a sufficient rate of return. Our shippers and the businesses that supply the rail industry need dependable, economically sound carriers to transport their goods and to buy their products. Rail employees need a safe, fair and efficient system in which to work. These are mutually interdependent objectives, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve sound policy determinations that satisfy these objectives.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I want to first thank my dear friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. His dedicated leadership on this important matter is unparalleled and, without it, we would not have been able to gain all of the support we have for this important legislation. I am proud to say that the resolution regarding the flag protection amendment Senator Hatch and I are introducing today has 57 original co-sponsors, and I am hopeful that we will be able to bring this important matter to a final vote in the Senate this year. As I have stated many times before, I am a strong supporter of a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag. The amendment we are proposing is simple. It simply vests Congress with the authority to protect the flag through statute. We need not fear that the states will create a hodge-podge of flag protection statutes. Instead, Congress can create one uniform statute for the entire nation. I understand the concerns that others have about the impact on the First Amendment that this bill might have, and as a veteran who risked his life in Vietnam to protect the principles of freedoms that Americans hold sacred, I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment. However, I believe that an amendment to protect the flag is an acceptable limitation in order to protect the most sacred of American symbols. I strongly believe that the societal interest in preserving the symbolic value of the flag outweighs the interest in an individual choosing to physically desecrate the flag. The flag unites Americans as no symbol can. The flag is sacred. Those who would desecrate the flag would desecrate America and the freedoms that we hold inviolate. I cannot presume to know the importance of the American flag for each individual American. But I can say without doubt, that it is the only unifying symbol that the vast diversity of this great nation has. No matter one's age, religion, culture, ethnicity, race, or gender--every American is represented by the United States flag and the flag undoubtedly bonds Americans together. The tradition of the flag goes back to this country's birth. Indeed, it even inspired our national anthem. Until the Supreme Court struck down a state flag protection law in Texas versus Johnson in 1989, there have always been state and federal laws protecting the flag from acts of physical desecration. In fact, flag protection can be traced back to our founding fathers who strongly supported the government's protection of the flag. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who were instrumental in framing the Constitution, recognized that protecting the flag and preserving the First Amendment were consistent. They often spoke out against desecration of the flag and sought to protect the sovereignty interest in the flag. Both Madison and Jefferson considered that a defacement of the flag should be a violation of the law. In fact, Jefferson believed that such a violation should invoke a ``systematic and severe'' course of punishment for persons who violated the flag. I do not profess to be a constitutional scholar. But I, like many Americans, do not agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Johnson, and United States v. Eichman which struck down statutes protecting the United States flag as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment right to free speech. I respect the wisdom of the Justices of the Supreme Court, yet I was saddened that we no longer were able to rely upon statutory authority to protect the flag. I was especially saddened in light of the views expressed by some of the most learned scholars in American jurisprudence. Several Supreme Court Justices over the years have issued opinions recognizing the importance of protection of the flag, including Justices Harlan, Warren, Fortas, Black, White, Rehnquist, Blackmun, Stevens, and O'Connor. These Justices have each supported the view that nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states or the federal government from protecting the flag. Perhaps Chief Justice Rehnquist explained it best in his dissent in Texas versus Johnson which was joined by Justices O'Connor and White, when he said: [t]he American flag . . . throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another `idea' or `point of view' competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag. Nonetheless, the current Supreme Court view stands. That is what brings us here today. In an attempt to protect the flag, Congress has been forced to enact a constitutional amendment. The House has twice overwhelmingly passed resolutions that would begin the formal process of amending the Constitution to protect the flag. Unfortunately, it has been the Senate that has blocked these efforts. However, the vote has always been close in the Senate and I am hopeful that we will succeed this year. The will of the people in this matter is clear. The polls continue to show that more than 80 percent of the American people believe that Congress should act to protect the flag and that it is worth amending the Constitution to do so. The Supreme Court decision in Texas versus Johnson in effect invalidated the laws in 48 states and the District of Columbia that prohibited flag desecration. Since the Supreme Court's decision, 49 of the 50 State legislatures have adopted resolutions asking Congress to send the flag protection amendment to the States for ratification. I believe we ought to let the American people decide. Therefore, I lend my full support to efforts to send this initiative back to the States and American people for ratification. Although support for government action to protect the United States flag comes from all sectors of the American public, I have been particularly moved by the voices of our veterans who have fought and died to defend the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans in the Constitution. The U.S. flag is a manifestation of those freedoms and holds particular significance to those who have risked their lives to protect this country and the flag which embodies them. In fact, in many cases the U.S. has presented the Medal of Honor to veterans for their uncommon valor in protecting the flag in times of war. As Justice Stevens said in his dissenting opinion in Texas versus Johnson: The freedom and ideals of liberty and ideals of liberty, equality and tolerance that the flag symbolizes and embodies have motivated our nation's leaders, soldiers, and activists to pledge their lives, their liberty and their honor in defense of their country. Because our history has demonstrated that these values and ideals are worth fighting for, the flag which uniquely symbolizes their power is itself worthy of protection from physical desecration. The military has always used the flag to honor those who fought and died to protect our freedoms. We honor the members of our armed forces by draping a flag over the coffin of a slain soldier, placing a flag near a soldier's grave, or displaying a flag on Memorial Day and Veterans' Day. To permit people to physically desecrate the flag diminishes the honor we bestow upon them and tarnishes its value and the brave service of those individuals who fought to defend it. As Chief Justice Harlan once said, ``love both of the common country and of the State will diminish in proportion as respect for the flag is weakened.'' Perhaps my colleagues who do not agree with me upon this issue will believe that I have overly dramatized the meaning of the flag, but for me personally, who fought to defend the principles of freedom we hold sacred, the protection of the flag which represents them cannot be ignored. I believe we must use this opportunity to show the world that we reaffirm our commitment to the ideals the flag stands for and what so many Americans fought for.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and salute the Georgia Historical Society, which on March 20, 1999 will celebrate 160 years of collecting and preserving our rich history for all Georgians. The Georgia Historical Society was chartered in 1839 by the Georgia General Assembly and currently has more than 5,000 members from all across Georgia and the entire nation. As a non-profit organization, the Society remains the oldest cultural institution in the State of Georgia and is one of the oldest organizations in our country. For sixteen decades the Society has collected, preserved and shared Georgia's rich history with many Georgians through various educational outreach programs and research services. The Georgia Historical Society's archives and library are operated in cooperation with the office of Georgia's Secretary of State. During my years as Secretary of State I relied on the Georgia Historical Society on numerous occasions for valuable information concerning our State's history, and I truly believe that the Society is a real treasure that all of us should use and enjoy. The Society has the most extensive collection in the country of manuscripts, books, maps, photographs, newspapers, architectural drawings, portraits and artifacts related to Georgia's history that date back to the founding of the Colony and continue through the twentieth century. The Georgia Historical Society stays in close contact with the citizens it serves so well. Since the founding of the Colony of Georgia at Savannah on February 12, 1733 by James Edward Oglethorpe, Georgians have celebrated this historical date. This year the Georgia Historical Society and the Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools continued this tradition by organizing and hosting the Georgia Heritage Celebration on Thursday, February 12, 1999. As part of the Celebration the Society honors Georgians who have made a positive impact on the state. This year's honoree was Peter Tonedd, who was a master carpenter and tavern owner. Previous honorees have included James Jackson, Revolutionary War hero, U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator and Governor of Georgia; Mary Telfair, philanthropist in the arts and medicine; Abraham Baldwin, signer of the Declaration of Independence; Juliette G. Low, Founder of the Girl Scouts; Andrew Bryan, a Baptist minister; and James Oglethorpe. The Society also holds monthly lectures on a wide variety of historical topics and yearly conferences focusing on local communities, and conducts special tours at various historical locations across Georgia. The Georgia Historical Society also publishes books and a quarterly news magazine, Footnotes, on Georgia's history and genealogy, as well as The Georgia Historical Quarterly, a journal on Georgia's history that was established in 1917. I would especially like to commend the Georgia Historical Society for diligently working on behalf of all Georgians in the historical preservation of our State's history. The Society provides a vast collection of records and artifacts to thousands of researchers and genealogists from around the world. I applaud the Georgia Historical Society for preserving and teaching our State's history. We must not allow the pride and glory of our State and our Nation to be forgotten--it must be celebrated by all. The benefits of enriching the people of Georgia by promoting a better understanding of our past and who we are as Georgians must not be ignored. Mr. President, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in recognizing and honoring the dedication and hard work of the Georgia Historical Society during the past 160 years. The efforts put forth by the Society have preserved and will continue to preserve our rich history by ensuring a future for Georgia's past.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to rename the National School Lunch Act after Senator Richard Russell. I am pleased to have Senator Coverdell as a original co-sponsor. Having met Senator Russell over 30 years ago when I was an intern on Capitol Hill, I gained a deep respect and reverence for the ``Senator from Georgia'' Richard B. Russell. Since being elected to the Senate over two years ago, I have been looking for a way to appropriately honor and express my appreciation for the contributions of Senator Russell. Honestly, I, like many others, usually associate Senator Russell with military issues and the work he did to provide our nation with a strong national defense. However, in researching his history in the Senate, I noticed that, time and again, Senator Russell stated that he viewed his proudest achievement in the Senate as the School Lunch Act. On February 26, 1946, speaking on the Senate floor, Senator Russell noted that the School Lunch Program, ``has been one of the most helpful ones which has been inaugurated and promises to contribute more to the cause of public education in these United States than has any other policy which has been adopted since the creation of free public schools.'' Strong words, not only about the school lunch program, but about Senator Russell's commitment to the same. Starting the first grade in 1947, I, like some of you, have always considered myself to be a true product of the national school lunch program. The program has been woven into the fabric of the American family. Today, the National School Lunch Program operates in more than 95,000 public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions throughout the country, providing nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to more than 26 million children each school day. The knowledge that every one of our children is ensured a healthy and affordable meal every school day provides us all with a great deal of comfort and satisfaction. The program is available in almost 99 percent of all public schools, and in many private schools as well. About 92 percent of all students nationwide have access to meals through the National School Lunch Program. As cited in several studies, a well fed child is more likely to do better in school and is less likely to misbehave--both highly desirable outcomes. Senator Russell was a tireless champion for establishing a program to deliver a healthy meal to our nation's schoolchildren. Senator Russell began his campaign to make school feeding programs available in the mid 1930's by utilizing Section 32 funds of the Act of August 24, 1935. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations, Senator Russell exerted a great deal of influence and was a vigilant advocate of directing the Section 32 food surpluses towards school feeding programs. In the early 1940's, Senator Russell introduced several bills authorizing a national school lunch program. And, after several unsuccessful attempts, Senator Russell sponsored and pushed through the National School Lunch Act in 1946. Senator Russell's strong commitment to domestic agriculture production strengthened his support for the school feeding programs. In fact, Senator Russell's commitment to a strong national defense may have also played a role in his support for the program. As you know, Senator Russell served as a member, and later Chairman, of the Senate Armed Services Committee. During World War II and in post war hearings before the Armed Services Committee, testimony was provided by General Hershey and Surgeon General Parran and others indicating that a large percentage of men rejected from military service had diet-related health problems. This revelation resulted in the recognition by many that the school lunch program is a matter of national security. As stated in a report I received from the Congressional Research Service, ``Senator Russell played a key role in the creation and formation of the national school lunch program. The historical record of Senator Russell's actions on behalf of this program in the 1930's and 1940's give him a strong claim to being regarded as the ``father'' of the national school lunch program, and make a strong case for renaming the 1946 Act after him.'' There have most certainly been several other members from the House and Senate, both past and present, who have played an irreplaceable role in developing and championing the cause of the school lunch program and I believe that all of these members should be commended for their dedication. This proposal is not meant to diminish the contribution of countless others, but simply to recognize that Senator Russell played a primary role in the passage of the National School Lunch Act. I am convinced that no other member was as significant as Senator Russell in seeing the National School Lunch Act enacted into law. I am pleased to have received the strong endorsement of the Georgia School Food Service Association in their Resolution of support on January 23, 1999. Considering Senator Russell's vital role in making the school lunch program a reality and the passion he expressed for being its author, I believe that by renaming the School Lunch Act in his honor, we can fittingly memorialize his contribution, as well as call renewed attention to this vital national program. I ask for my colleagues support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text, a letter of support, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to rename the National School Lunch Act after Senator Richard Russell. I am pleased to have Senator Coverdell as a original co-sponsor. Having met Senator Russell over 30 years ago when I was an intern on Capitol Hill, I gained a deep respect and reverence for the ``Senator from Georgia'' Richard B. Russell. Since being elected to the Senate over two years ago, I have been looking for a way to appropriately honor and express my appreciation for the contributions of Senator Russell. Honestly, I, like many others, usually associate Senator Russell with military issues and the work he did to provide our nation with a strong national defense. However, in researching his history in the Senate, I noticed that, time and again, Senator Russell stated that he viewed his proudest achievement in the Senate as the School Lunch Act. On February 26, 1946, speaking on the Senate floor, Senator Russell noted that the School Lunch Program, ``has been one of the most helpful ones which has been inaugurated and promises to contribute more to the cause of public education in these United States than has any other policy which has been adopted since the creation of free public schools.'' Strong words, not only about the school lunch program, but about Senator Russell's commitment to the same. Starting the first grade in 1947, I, like some of you, have always considered myself to be a true product of the national school lunch program. The program has been woven into the fabric of the American family. Today, the National School Lunch Program operates in more than 95,000 public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions throughout the country, providing nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to more than 26 million children each school day. The knowledge that every one of our children is ensured a healthy and affordable meal every school day provides us all with a great deal of comfort and satisfaction. The program is available in almost 99 percent of all public schools, and in many private schools as well. About 92 percent of all students nationwide have access to meals through the National School Lunch Program. As cited in several studies, a well fed child is more likely to do better in school and is less likely to misbehave--both highly desirable outcomes. Senator Russell was a tireless champion for establishing a program to deliver a healthy meal to our nation's schoolchildren. Senator Russell began his campaign to make school feeding programs available in the mid 1930's by utilizing Section 32 funds of the Act of August 24, 1935. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations, Senator Russell exerted a great deal of influence and was a vigilant advocate of directing the Section 32 food surpluses towards school feeding programs. In the early 1940's, Senator Russell introduced several bills authorizing a national school lunch program. And, after several unsuccessful attempts, Senator Russell sponsored and pushed through the National School Lunch Act in 1946. Senator Russell's strong commitment to domestic agriculture production strengthened his support for the school feeding programs. In fact, Senator Russell's commitment to a strong national defense may have also played a role in his support for the program. As you know, Senator Russell served as a member, and later Chairman, of the Senate Armed Services Committee. During World War II and in post war hearings before the Armed Services Committee, testimony was provided by General Hershey and Surgeon General Parran and others indicating that a large percentage of men rejected from military service had diet-related health problems. This revelation resulted in the recognition by many that the school lunch program is a matter of national security. As stated in a report I received from the Congressional Research Service, ``Senator Russell played a key role in the creation and formation of the national school lunch program. The historical record of Senator Russell's actions on behalf of this program in the 1930's and 1940's give him a strong claim to being regarded as the ``father'' of the national school lunch program, and make a strong case for renaming the 1946 Act after him.'' There have most certainly been several other members from the House and Senate, both past and present, who have played an irreplaceable role in developing and championing the cause of the school lunch program and I believe that all of these members should be commended for their dedication. This proposal is not meant to diminish the contribution of countless others, but simply to recognize that Senator Russell played a primary role in the passage of the National School Lunch Act. I am convinced that no other member was as significant as Senator Russell in seeing the National School Lunch Act enacted into law. I am pleased to have received the strong endorsement of the Georgia School Food Service Association in their Resolution of support on January 23, 1999. Considering Senator Russell's vital role in making the school lunch program a reality and the passion he expressed for being its author, I believe that by renaming the School Lunch Act in his honor, we can fittingly memorialize his contribution, as well as call renewed attention to this vital national program. I ask for my colleagues support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text, a letter of support, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, last week, after more than two years of negotiations, an agreement was finally reached to release funding for land acquisition on Cumberland Island National Seashore. Located off the coast of Georgia, Cumberland provides a unique experience for visitors by enabling them to view seemingly endless undeveloped beaches and dunes in pristine condition. The beautiful coastline is contrasted by marshes and vast forests of mixed hardwoods. The natural environment plays a critical role in habitat protection for several threatened and endangered species including the bald eagle, the loggerhead sea turtle and the manatee. The Island also allows individuals to visit the incredible cultural and historical remnants which exist on the Island. The remarkable history of the island indicates human habitation dating back thousands of years. First occupied by the Spanish in the early days of the colonial period, the island was eventually claimed by the English in the mid-1700s. Cumberland also has historical connections to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. One unique historical reference to the island--brought to my attention by the Senate's own resident historian, the distinguished Senior Senator from West Virginia, relays the story that after his duel with Alexander Hamilton on July 11, 1804, Aaron Burr fled to Cumberland Island in exile--only to eventually leave after being snubbed by the island residents. With this agreement, we have not only preserved the Island in accordance with its designation as a National Seashore, but we have taken the critical steps necessary to restore and maintain the historic and cultural resources on Cumberland which had been seriously neglected for several years. The agreement also provides additional access to individuals wishing to visit the historic resources on the island. By releasing the monies for the land purchase and implementing these changes, we will be making the ultimate benefactors the future generations of Americans who will have the opportunity to experience the natural and historical treasures possessed by Cumberland Island. I would like to take a moment to publicly recognize and express my sincere appreciation to Don Barger, Southeast Regional Director of the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), for his assistance in resolving the issues on Cumberland Island National Seashore. Don has been with NPCA since 1992. Having once climbed Mount Rainier, Don transfers this same motivation and dedication to his work. He is an avid and passionate defender of preserving and protecting our National Park System. Don played a vital role in crafting the Cumberland agreement by actively engaging and compromising with numerous interested stakeholders while at the same time fulfilling his duty to preserve the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the National Park System. His tireless effort and willingness to commit his time, energy and enthusiasm to this process reflect well upon him and on the National Parks and Conservation Association. I would like to pay special thanks to Tavia McCuean, Georgia State Director of The Nature Conservancy, who vigilantly pursued the critical land acquisition funds for Cumberland. The Cumberland agreement would not have been possible without the generous commitment of The Conservancy to contribute $6 million for the land purchase. There were certainly several occasions over the past two years in which Tavia and The Nature Conservancy could have lost all patience as repeated efforts to obtain the land acquisition funds were blocked. However, Tavia tirelessly and patiently focused her energy and that of her dedicated staff towards securing the release of these funds. Future generations visiting Cumberland Island will owe a great debt of gratitude for this experience to the efforts of Tavia McCuean and The Nature Conservancy. President Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.'' Both Tavia McCuean and Don Barger have done well in upholding this doctrine and truly represent the best of public spiritedness.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President. I rise today to address the important issue of campaign finance reform. As we begin the 106th Congress, campaign finance reform continues to be an important national need. Therefore, I am again introducing my Federal Election Enforcement And Disclosure Reform Act with the hope that this will be the year that Congress makes positive strides towards meaningful reform. After participating in the Governmental Affairs Committee's extensive 1997 campaign finance hearings, it was apparent to me that there is a critical need for reform of our entire campaign finance system. What I witnessed, heard and read made me even more convinced that we must strengthen our campaign financing laws, and provide strong enforcement through the Federal Election Commission of these laws, or risk seeing our election process be swept away in a tidal wave of money. In spite of public support, and positive action in the House, the Senate failed last year to enact meaningful legislation addressing these problems, and we have now gone through yet another election cycle in which the abuses continued to persist. With the record high of $1 billion spent in pursuit of federal office in 1996--a 73 percent increase since 1992, I had hoped that the 1998 election would at least reflect a natural decline from the grossly inflated figures. However, post-election reports filed with the FEC show that spending in Senate general election campaigns went from $220.8 million in 1996, to $244.3 in 1998, an 11% increase. It has been estimated that if these trends continue, by 2025 it will take $145 million to finance an average Senate campaign. This absurd trend cannot continue. Although the Senate failed last year to enact meaningful reform, I am hopeful that, with a new Congress, we will take up this important issue in earnest. The legislation I am re-introducing today, the Federal Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act, addresses one of the most serious problems with our current system, the inability of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to adequately enforce our existing campaign laws. I recently read a compelling article entitled ``No Cop on the Beat,'' which appeared in the January 23, 1999 issue of the National Journal. The author, Eliza Newlin Carney, perhaps summarizes best the current judgment on the effectiveness of the FEC when she states that ``[a] long-standing joke around town is that the commission is a government success story: It is precisely the weak and ineffective agency that Congress intended it to be.'' The article was written following a December 1998 FEC hearing on the 1996 elections during which FEC auditors alleged that the national campaign committees of both major parties violated campaign finance rules with respect to broadcast advertising. Although party leaders maintained that the advertisements in question were legitimate ``issue'' ads appropriately paid for by millions of dollars in ``soft'' money, based on their investigation, the FEC auditors alleged that they were illegal ads which caused both major party Presidential campaigns to exceed the federal spending limit and, more importantly, allowed both campaigns to ``essentially bilk . . . the federal Treasury out of no less than $25 million.'' The auditors recommended that the campaigns repay the money. However, the commissioners unanimously rejected these recommendations and refused to specifically address the alleged grievous violations of federal campaign laws. Although the author of the National Journal piece is very critical of the enforcement system, her criticism correctly does not end with the FEC. ``[T]he FEC isn't the only cop that seems to have deserted the beat.'' According to the author, the FEC's refusal to enforce the campaign regulations has also had a chilling effect on the Justice Department's willingness to complete thorough investigations of the abuses in the 1996 election cycle. Furthermore, she points out that last year Congress again failed to enact new campaign finance laws to help correct the problems. She concludes by mentioning the movement by some politicians to totally deregulate the system--``By default, the no-holds-barred camp seems to be winning. Their deregulation model is starting to look an awful lot like the system we have today.'' As we can see in the preliminary preparations already underway, the 2000 election cycle is likely to be heading in the same direction and I believe that this is the optimal time for us to act in order to prevent such abuses. Although my bill will not address all of the campaign finance system problems, it will revitalize the Federal Election Commission to enable it to more effectively enforce current campaign finance laws, and to close some loopholes in current campaign disclosure requirements in order to provide the American people with more comprehensive and more timely information on campaign finances. As I made clear last year, I do not intend my legislation to fix all of the problems with the campaign finance system. It is my understanding that Senators McCain and Feingold also intend to re- introduce their important legislation, which I intend to again co- sponsor. I continue to believe that enactment of McCain-Feingold or similar legislation is an essential step for the Senate to take this year in beginning the process of repairing a campaign finance system which is totally out of control. Banning soft money and imposing disclosure and contribution requirements on sham issue ads aired close to an election, as provided for under McCain-Feingold, are absolutely vital reforms, without which the campaign finance system will only grow less accountable, and more vulnerable to the appearance, if not the fact, of undue influence by big money. However, I want to broaden the scope of debate, and to begin the process of seeking common ground on important reforms which go beyond the problems of soft money and issue ads. As previously discussed, one of the most glaring deficiencies in our current federal campaign system is the ineffectiveness of its supposed referee, the Federal Election Commission. 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. Thus, the first major element of my bill is to strengthen the ability of the Federal Election Commission to be an effective and impartial enforcer of federal campaign laws. Among the most significant FEC- related changes I am proposing are the following: Alter the Commission structure to remove the possibility of partisan gridlock by establishing a 7-member Commission, appointed by the President based on qualifications, for single 7-year terms. The Commission would be composed of two Republicans, two Democrats, one third party member, and two members nominated by the Supreme Court. 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, both of which should dramatically improve the prospects for timely enforcement of the law. 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--estimated to be $50 million a year. A second major component of the Federal Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act is to create a new Advisory Committee on Federal Campaign Reform to provide for a body outside of Congress to continually review and recommend changes in our federal campaign system. The Committee would be charged, ``to study the laws (including regulations) that affect how election campaigns for Federal office are conducted and the implementation of such laws and may make recommendations for change,'' which are to be submitted to Congress by April 15 of every odd-numbered year. As with the FEC, the Advisory Committee would receive independent and sufficient funding via the new federal candidate filing fees. The impetus for the Advisory Committee is two-fold: (1) to build a ``continuous improvement'' mechanism into the Federal campaign system, and (2) to address the demonstrable fact that Congress responds slowly, if at all, to the need for changes and updates in our campaign laws. In both instances, the conclusion is the same: we cannot afford to wait twenty-five years or until a major scandal develops to adapt our campaign finance system to changing circumstances. The final section of my bill seeks to enhance the effectiveness of campaign contribution disclosure requirements. As Justice Brandeis observed, ``Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most effective policeman.'' This is certainly true in the realm of campaign finance, and perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Watergate Reforms of a quarter-century ago is the expanded campaign and financial disclosure requirements which emerged. By and large, they have served us well, but as with everything else, they need to be periodically reviewed and updated in light of experience. Therefore, based in part on testimony I heard during the 1997 Governmental Affairs Committee investigation and in part on the FEC's own recommendations for improved disclosure, my bill will make several changes in current disclosure requirements. Specifically, I am recommending two reforms which will make it more difficult for contributors and campaigns alike to turn a blind eye to current disclosure requirements by, first, preventing a campaign from depositing a contribution until all of the requisite disclosure information is provided; and second, 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, my legislation adopts a number of disclosure recommendations made by the FEC in its 1997 report to Congress, including provisions: requiring all reports to be filed by the due date of the report; requiring all authorized candidate committee reports to be filed on a campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a calendar year cycle; and mandating monthly reporting for multi candidate committees which have raised or spent, or anticipate raising or spending, in excess of $100,000 in the current election cycle. It is easy to be pessimistic when considering campaign finance reform efforts especially after last year's inaction by the Senate. The public and the media are certainly expecting Congress to fail to take significant action to clean up the scandalous campaign system under which we now run. But ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I suggest that we cannot afford the luxury of complacency. We may think we will be able to win the next re-election 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. But I am confident that it is only a matter of time, and perhaps the next election cycle-- which will undoubtedly feature more unaccountable soft money, more sham issue ads of unknown parentage, more circumvention of the spirit and in some cases the letter of current campaign finance law--before the scales are decisively tilted in favor of reform. We will have campaign finance reform. The only question is whether this Congress will step up to the plate, and fulfill its responsibilities, to give the American people a campaign system they can have faith in and which can preserve and protect our noble democracy as we enter a new century. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am proud to offer this amendment to S. 4, with my colleagues Senator Jeffords, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Landrieu, to give the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve the opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. Members of the Guard and Reserve have been participating at record levels. Nearly 270,000 Reservists and Guardsmen were mobilized during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Over 17,000 have answered the Nation's call to bring peace to Bosina. Members of the Guard and Reserve have delivered millions of pounds of humanitarian aid all over the world. And, closer to home, they have responded to numerous state and federal emergencies. Thousands of Reservists and Guardsmen are serving in communities across the country and around the world every day. I firmly believe we should recognize the contributions the Guard and Reserve have made to our defense efforts over the years. We should recognize those contributions by extending to members of the Guard and Reserve the same savings opportunity we are offering their active duty counterparts under S. 4. The Guard and Reserve are an integral part of our national defense strategy. We can't afford to overlook them.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Levin, Allard, and others--to support S. 4, The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. I strongly agree that this bill represents an excellent step toward providing the men and women of the military a clear signal that we the people of the United States and we the members of the Congress of the United States value their contributions, understand their needs and concerns, and understand our obligations to provide for those who have answered the calling to defend our Nation. The signal that we send to the people in the military and to the people of the United States should be one of hope and opportunity, and one that understands the critical needs of military members and their families. Twenty-five years ago Americans opted to end the draft and to establish an all-volunteer military force to provide for our national security. That policy carried with it a requirement that we invest the needed resources to bring into existence a competent and professional military. Currently, all services are having various but alarming difficulties in attracting and retaining qualified individuals. Seasoned, well-qualified personnel are leaving in disturbing numbers. Specifically, the Navy is not making its recruiting goals. The Army cites pay and retirement, and overall quality of life as three of the top four reasons soldiers are leaving. For the first time the Air Force is not expecting to make its re-enlistment goals, and the Air Force is currently 850 pilots short. The Marine Corps is hampered by inadequate funding of the pay and retirement and quality of life accounts in meeting its readiness and modernizing needs. All services, including the Guard and Reserve Components, are experiencing similar recruiting and retention problems. These shortfalls must be addressed if our Nation is to continue to have a highly capable, cutting edge military force. In fact, if we do not address these critical needs correctly, we may well have missed our chance to properly provide for our National Defense in the 21st Century. In light of our recent successful operations around the world, in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we continue to recruit, train and retain the best of America to serve in our armed forces, which is the goal of this legislation. Equally important, this bill, for the first time in a long time, addresses the immediate family members of our brave Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 addresses the concerns of Secretary of Defense Cohen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress regarding recruiting a strong, viable military force for the 21st Century. It also significantly assists in retaining the right military personnel for the 21st Century. If we fail today to address these key issues, now when we have the combination of a strong economy, a relatively positive budget outlook, and a world which is largely at peace, we may well have missed a key window of opportunity. The bill we are introducing today goes a long way toward eliminating the deficiencies that we all have recently heard so much about from the Chiefs and a myriad of experts who are greatly concerned about the readiness of our military force, especially as we look a few years ahead. Military experts, defense journalists, former Secretaries of Defense, former Service Chiefs, former theater Commanders in Chief, research and development specialists and even civilian industry leaders agree: the number one factor undergirding our superpower military status is the people of our Armed Forces. This critical ingredient means something different today than it did on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles of Vietnam, or in fact even on the deserts of Kuwait. Today, the people of our miltiary are as dedicated, as committed, as patriotic as any force we have ever fielded. They are, in fact, smarter, better trained, and more technically adept than any who we have ever counted upon to defend our Nation. Operation Desert Fox proved this fact. This flawless, but dangerous and stressful, operations involved 40,000 troops from bases virtually around the world. Over 40 ships performed around the clock strikes and support. Six hundred aircraft sorties were flown in four days, and over 300 of these were night strike operations. This massive efforts was carried out without a single loss of American or British life. And, this is but one operation that our military (active and reserve) are successfully conducting worldwide. In contrast to this and other post-Vietnam successes, consider the problems which face the people in uniform. New global security threats and our strong economy each exert enormous pressures on the people in the military and their families. By some measures the pay for our military personnel lags 13 percent behind the civilian pay raises over the last 20 years. Yet, we ask our military to train on highly technical equipment, to commit themselves in harm's way, to leave their families, and to execute flawless operations. Sometimes these operations are new and different from any past military operations, but they can be just as dangerous. Meanwhile, some of our service members qualify for food stamps, do not have the same educational opportunities as their civilian counterparts, must deal with confusing and changing health benefits and/or can not find affordable housing. Something is badly wrong with this picture, and the Congress and the administration must work together to set things right. Specifically, we need to recruit good people, continue to train them, and retain them in the military. This is difficult at best with the changes in our society, the rapidly changing threats to our security, and a prosperous economy. As I heard a service member say during a hearing I held at Fort Gordon, GA, last year, we recruit an individual, but we retain a family. Some of the recruiting and retention problems of today's United States military are well documented. Others need to be more thoroughly explored. They all need to be addressed. The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 is but the first step. It is the beginning. I caution my colleagues that today's servicemen and women, and their families, are intelligent and are quick to recognize duplicity in the words and actions of our civilian and military leadership. Our military's most important assets--its people-- are leaving the military, and many of America's best are not even considering joining the military. We must proceed expeditiously, with firm purpose and unified non-partisanship if we are to reverse these dangerous trends. We must act now, but we must consider the time proven process of the United States Senate. We need to make sure that we have the proper hearings and discussions within the proper framework before we over- react to the critical needs facing our military Services. This bill responds to current data which provide some insight into how we can more effectively respond to today's youth and their service in the military. This 106th Congress has a tremendous opportunity to respond to today's military personnel problems. We must keep our focus on current and future personnel issues, including recognizing and responding to the need to retain a family. This legislation is only a start. Mr. President, the bill includes all three parts of the Department of Defense's proposed pay and retirement package. It incorporates some of the recommendations made by the congressionally mandated Principi Commission, and it provides some additional innovative ideas for addressing these key personnel issues, now and into the future. First, the bill provides a 4.8 percent pay raise across the board for all military members, effective January 1, 2000, and carries out the stated objective of Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of bringing military pay more in line with private sector wages. This increase raises military pay in FY2000 by one-half a percentage point above the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and represents the largest increase in military pay since 1982. This plan would provide for future annual increase in military pay of one-half percent above the annual increase in the ECI. Although I believe we should support the Department of Defense on this issue, of providing one-half percent above annual increase in the ECI for FY2000 to FY2005, our chairman and others have chose to provide more. Another of the Joint Chiefs' recommendations included in our legislation is the targeted pay raise for mid-grade officers and enlisted personnel, and also for key promotion points. These raises, amounting to between 4.8 percent and 10.3 percent, which includes the January 1, 2000, pay raise and would be effective July 1, 2000. This is a powerful retention tool for our Service Secretaries. The third part of our legislation is a revision in the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986, which would provide an option at 15 years of service for a service member to return to the pre-Redux retirement system (50 percent basic pay benefit for military members who retire at 20 years of service) or to elect to receive $30,000 bonus and remain in the Redux retirement. I am proud to say that in addition to the pay and retirement benefits package proposed by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, our legislation includes several key recommendations from the recent report of the Congressional Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance, also known as the Principi Commission. These provisions are specifically designed to assist the military services in their recruiting and retention efforts. Information and data that we are seeing indicate that education benefits are an essential component in attracting young people to enter the armed services. This may be the single most important step this Congress can take in assisting recruitment. Improvements in the Montgomery GI Bill are needed, and our bill represents a vital move in that direction. In keeping with the Principi Commission, our legislation would increase the basic GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 per month and eliminate the current requirement for entering service members to contribute $1,200 of their own money in order to participate in the program. These changes should dramatically increase the attractiveness of the GI Bill to potential recruits, and give our Service Secretaries a powerful recruiting incentive. This legislation also adopts the Principi Commission recommendations to allow service members to transfer their earned GI Bill benefits to one or more immediate family members. Mr. President, this idea is innovative, it is powerful and it sends the right message to both those young people we are trying to attract into the military and those we are trying to retain. CBO estimates that in the long run over 500,000 children of members or former members would use the educational assistance each year but that level would not be reached until about 2013. It is important that we continue to act on this piece of legislation. History tells us that these chances come only once, and this Nation changed drastically under the original GI Bill, and now we have the chance to address future issues with this education piece of this legislation. This legislation includes a provision that would allow military members to participate in the current Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal civil servants. Under this proposal, which adopts another recommendation of the Congressional Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance, military members would be permitted to contribute up to 5 percent of their basic pay, and all or any part of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus, to the Thrift Savings Plan. Mr. President, based on our initial estimates, it is my understanding that the provisions contained in this legislation will not require us to increase the funding for national defense above the levels in the President's FY2000-2006 Future Years Defense Plan. However, more precise costing will have to be done by the Congressional Budget Office over the next several weeks. I know that all Members of the United States Senate are committed to the well-being of our service men and women and their families. They are doing their duty with honor and dignity. They are serving our country around the globe. They, along with their families, deserve our commitment. The bill we are introducing today is fair and will ensure that we continue to attract and retain high quality people to serve in our armed forces. It represents the beginning of a process to provide hope and opportunity to those who wear the uniform of our Services. The President has announced a very good plan, as has the distinguished majority leader. We must move forward, together, in addressing these important personnel and readiness issues. In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of Senator Warner, and Senator Levin, and the other members of the Armed Services Committee who are cosponsoring this legislation. We are all absolutely committed to the welfare of our service men and women and their families. They provide for us, and it is time for us to provide our obligation to them. I look forward to working with Senator Levin, Chairman Warner, and all of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in the months ahead so that we can honor those who have honored us. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate my amendment to S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, which would extend key bonuses and special payments to the men and women of our armed forces for another three years. Mr. President, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Service Secretaries have all testified and stated for the record that recruiting and retention are the most important challenges facing our military today. With a strong economy and the perception of a reduced military threat abroad, the incentives to leave the military, or to not enlist in the military, are greater than ever before. However, even with the end of the cold war, we have increased our military commitments around the world, in such places as Bosnia, Iraq, and Somalia. We are now facing a possible use of American forces in Kosovo. Those brave individuals, who are preparing to respond to our Nation's call deserve our every consideration and effort on their behalf. That is the whole reason of S. 4. The amendment I am now offering seeks to correct an oversight in the pending bill: namely, an extension of the authority for the services to provide special pay incentives for positions which have been hard to fill. The authority for many of these special pays and bonuses will expire in December 1999. My amendment would simply extend funding authority through the end of 2002. It would give the Services the certainty that these essential retention tools will continue to be available. These incentives affect many positions within our military, ranging from bonuses for aviation officers to special pay for health professionals. Passage of this amendment will reinforce S. 4's message that we as a nation take seriously our commitment to give our military the ability to continue to recruit and retain the finest servicemen and women in the world. I urge my colleagues to further that objective by adopting this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.