J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their outstanding leadership on this important piece of legislation. Given the hard work that went into this bill, I wanted to first express my appreciation for what they have done. I am reminded of the old phrase ``too many cooks spoil the broth.'' Sometimes the legislative branch might be thought of in that way. As I offer this amendment, I have attempted to be mindful not to ``spoil the broth.'' As the former head of the Veterans Administration, the veterans portion of this bill continues to be near and dear to my heart. I am extremely pleased to see that the Appropriations Committee under the leadership of Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski has increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs by over $1.5 billion when compared to last year's budget. This represents a real increase in funding even when inflation is factored in. Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski are true friends of America's veterans, and we thank them. The amendment I have offered attempts to fill a void that exists with respect to services for veterans. When I was head of the Veterans Administration, it was clear to me that the VA could not be everywhere at all times. We relied heavily on other government agencies and private entities in our attempt to assure that all veterans could obtain the benefits they were entitled to and the assistance they needed. Today, in an era of balanced budgets, we cannot depend solely on federal dollars to solve every problem. The era of balanced budgets brings with it the era of partnership. The VA must continue to partner with other entities to fulfill its mission. For instance, in this year's Defense Authorization bill, I have authored language which would strongly encourage the VA to partner with the Department of Defense to provide health care for our nation's military personnel, their dependents, military retirees, and veterans. Today, I am advocating much stronger partnering between the VA and the private sector to fill the basic needs of our nation's veterans. The Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program was established in 1992 to fund the development and operation of transitional housing for homeless veterans who are free of alcohol and drugs. Over 2,000 beds have been made available under this program. Over $21 million has been appropriated for this purpose. Unfortunately, the current program is completely inadequate in the face of the overwhelming need which exists for housing for homeless veterans. The VA estimates that over 275,000 veterans are currently homeless on any given night. In a given year, over 500,000 veterans find themselves homeless at some point. In Atlanta, Georgia, nearly 10,000 veterans are in need of homeless assistance. This is clearly unacceptable. A mere 2,000 beds, while important, would not meet the needs of one state, let alone the entire nation. The program does not come close to fulfilling the entire need. Currently at approximately $7 million, it represents less than two-hundredths of a percent of the entire VA budget. The amendment I have offered would set aside $20 million for the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem program. This would nearly triple the amount available for this program. It would also insure that funds are available for rehabilitation, vocational training, and outreach. These are critical elements because the list of successful programs have demonstrated that helping veterans become drug and alcohol free and employable is the best way to insure that they not find themselves homeless again. Furthermore, it is important to provide for successful outreach to veterans in need to insure that veterans are able to take advantage of the services, both public and private, that are available to them. Several groups have contacted me since I was elected to the Senate to seek support for the veterans assistance projects they are trying to establish or expand. I would like to take a few moments to describe two such programs. Last year, the Georgia Military College conducted a pilot program in which veterans voluntarily undergoing drug rehabilitation were offered a college course. The program was paid for through the proceeds of a golf tournament sponsored by the Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center. Eighteen veterans participated in the original program. In light of the initial success, the Georgia Military College seized on the idea of expanding the program not only to provide for education but to offer additional counseling and to provide shelter for the participants. The College is in the process of establishing a 5-year program aimed at improving the lives of Georgia's homeless veterans. This is the type of program that can truly make a difference. Instead of a ``band-aid'' approach, it offers true skills training, and the transitional housing these veterans need to be able to continue with the program. The National Veterans Foundation offers perhaps one of the most important services a nation can provide to our veterans in need--a human voice. The Foundation was founded by Floyd ``Shad'' Meshad in 1985 to help veterans recover from the pain of war. It has aided over a quarter of a million veterans, funding housing, legal services, job training, counseling, and rehabilitative programs. A major focus of the Foundation is its toll-free Information and Referral Line. Shad Meshad refers to it as a ``Clearing House'' to direct veterans and their families to the assistance they need. It is a real human voice on the other end of the line, not a recording. Over the years, the National Veterans Foundation has logged thousands of calls. Unfortunately, this critical outreach program is only available during business hours, Monday through Friday. Our veterans deserve the kind of service provided by the National Veterans Foundation--but they deserve it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These are just two of the types of programs that deserve the support of the VA. In my view, it is only lack of resources which currently limits that support. It should be made clear that what we are talking about is not the old give-away of federal funds. This is not new ``corporate welfare.'' I was introduced to the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem program fairly recently. I was surprised to learn that the Veterans Administration does not currently have a comprehensive grant program that could fund meritorious projects, but it does have this program. I believe the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program combined with a future comprehensive grant program will leverage federal dollars with private, state, and local money to create a multiplier effect that will aid our nation's veterans for years to come. It is my intent to introduce legislation in the future to provide the necessary statutory authority to establish a comprehensive grant program that goes beyond the current homeless assistance program. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their cooperation and support for this amendment. Without their leadership, this amendment would not be possible. I look forward to working closely with them in the future to further assist our nation's veterans. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Ed Williams of Valdosta, Georgia, a man who has dedicated more than three decades of his life to bringing a Veterans Clinic to the Valdosta area. His dreams and hard work were realized with the April 28, 1998 opening and dedication of the new Valdosta Veterans Health Care Clinic. Ed is one of the few survivors of the original group of veterans who began working to bring a veterans clinic to Valdosta 35 years ago. I commend and graciously thank Ed Williams for all of his determination and hard work over the years in bringing this clinic to Valdosta. The Valdosta Veterans Health Care Clinic, located at 2123 N. Ashley St. in Valdosta, will serve the 7,000 veterans in Lowndes County and almost 5,000 veterans in the surrounding counties. The veterans of Georgia owe Mr. Williams the deepest gratitude and appreciation for his tireless efforts to secure the new facility. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge and honor Ed Williams for his outstanding and innumerable contributions over the years to the Valdosta area, to the State of Georgia and to our Nation. He has dedicated his life to inspiring and improving us all, and I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting and congratulating Ed Williams on the opening of the Valdosta Veterans Health Care Clinic. It is great to see all of Ed's hard work pay off!

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, as we approached the final Senate vote on H.R. 2676, the IRS Reform and Restructuring bill, I was reminded of Dickens' ``A Tale of Two Cities''. As a conferee on this badly needed piece of legislation, I am led to observe that it is the best of bills, it is the worst of bills. In its germane provisions reforming the operations of the Internal Revenue Service it represents the best of Congress in identifying and enacting legislation to address the real needs of American citizens. But in its last minute, secretive addition of several extraneous matters, most notably the ISTEA technical corrections, it represents the Congress at its worst in circumventing public debate and scrutiny. In its putting the emphasis on the ``Service'' part of the IRS it demonstrates the best of policy-making in pursuit of the public interest which should be the focus of our efforts as national legislators. But, it also demonstrates the worst of our process in that in our haste to get something done rapidly, before the July 4 break, we are willing to cut some corners on important matters of national security. Mr. President, I support, 100 percent, the public's right to know when a federal agency abuses a taxpayer, and I support the public's demand for a remedy to that intolerable situation. I was extremely proud to have been chosen to serve as a member of the conference committee on the IRS bill. Chairman Roth, Vice Chairman Archer, Senator Moynihan, Congressman Rangel, and the remaining conferees from the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee did yeoman's work in crafting one of the most significant acts of the 105th Congress--the IRS Reform and Restructuring bill. This is groundbreaking legislation which recreates the IRS and puts in place dramatic changes which will make the agency more accountable to the American taxpayer. This bill revives the original purpose of the Internal Revenue Service: to collect tax revenue while providing the assistance and service taxpayers deserve. Most importantly, taxpayers will receive overdue rights under the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act. Under the new law, the burden of proof will lie with the IRS, and taxpayers' rights in recovering civil damages as a result of unacceptable collection practices by the IRS will be expanded. An ``innocent spouse'' provision is also contained in this legislation. This provides that all understated tax is transferred to the culpable spouse. Also, for couples who are divorced or have been legally separated for more than 12 months, taxpayers are only liable for the deficiency that is attributable to their income reporting. This is an important provision for those who have burdened with a tax bill for which they are not responsible. This conference report also reorganizes the tax collecting agency around the idea of taxpayer service. Knowledgeable employees who are specialized in meeting the needs of specific taxpayer categories--like individuals, small businesses, and corporations--will be available to answer taxpayers' questions. And, the IRS Commissioner will have some hiring flexibility to offer special packages to qualified, successful private sector employees who will increase the professionalism and responsiveness of the agency. Because of these and other needed improvements, I endorse the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act, and despite some misgivings I am about to enunciate, I will vote for the adoption of the conference report. However, I did not sign the report because, at the last minute, extraneous material was tacked on to this landmark legislation. Out of the blue, and without being considered in either the House or Senate bill, the ISTEA technical corrections bill was included as part of the IRS conference report. Through this maneuver, Senator Rockefeller was prevented from offering his amendment on the floor of the Senate to correct an injustice done to disabled veterans with smoking-related disabilities in the original ISTEA reauthorization bill. Through this maneuver, the Senate and the American people were denied the opportunity for open debate and an up-or-down vote on an issue affecting America's veterans who put their life on the line for this nation. Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``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 efficient policeman.'' I could not vote to report out of committee the conference report because it runs counter to the open door, public process by which Congress should responsibly pass our laws. Sadly, all too often conference committees are the vehicle by which lawmakers fast-track controversial measures behind closed doors in order to avoid unpopular votes. There are no fingerprints. Issues which were not in the House-passed bill, not in the Senate-passed bill, too often mysteriously appear in the final conference report. Where is our accountability as the legislators of this country? However, though I will vote for this conference report because on balance it is good legislation which American taxpayers need and deserve, I want to make it crystal clear that this issue of appropriate compensation to veterans with smoking-related disabilities will NOT go away. When we come back into session after the July 4 break, I will work with Sen. Rockefeller, and others, to correct the injustice done to our veterans in the ISTEA reauthorization bill. Specifically, I believe we need to strike the veterans' disability compensation offset which was included in the President's budget and in the ISTEA bill as more of budget-saving device rather than as a clearly considered matter of veterans' benefit policy. On another front, I am also troubled by two provisions in this conference report which I believe, unintentionally, compromise the security of our nation. The first provision removes the lawful ability of the President, and most Cabinet members, to start or stop an audit or investigation of a taxpayer. Make no mistake: we all condemn the misuse of power to halt legitimate investigations or audits. But the lack of an exemption in the case of national security and law enforcement jeopardizes critical efforts to protect American citizens. It is my understanding that the Department of Justice has stated that the provision is unconstitutional. I have similar concerns about the second provision, which carves out an exception to the Inspector General statute, so that the Secretary of the Treasury is prohibited from exercising his authority to stop an investigation by the Tax IG when national security or law enforcement issues are at stake. The Treasury Department and the Central Intelligence Agency are both opposed to this provision. I worked with the other conferees to try to work out these national security problems but ultimately those efforts fell short because of time constraints. On balance, though, I support, enthusiastically, H.R. 2676, the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act. It will significantly improve the position of American taxpayers in their dealings with the IRS. But I abhor the closed door process by which the ISTEA technical corrections bill was attached. However, this and the national security flaws are correctable, if not now on this legislation, then certainly before the Senate adjourns for the year. I pledge my efforts to achieve that goal.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Herbert Green from Norcross, Georgia for his service in the United Auto Workers Union, and on 50 years of love and devotion to his lovely wife Autince as they celebrate their Golden Wedding Anniversary on Sunday, July 19, 1998. Walter Ruether, the great UAW leader, once said, ``the most important thing in the world is to fight for the other guy.'' This quote reminds me a lot of Herb Green because, for the last several decades, he has been organizing, educating and tirelessly fighting for the rights of working men and women in Georgia and our Nation. Many of us know how important the labor movement has been for the improvement of working conditions and fair compensation for millions of Americans. None of this would have happened if it had not been for tireless, visionary individuals who were willing to work on behalf of their coworkers, such as Herb Green. Prior to his retirement in 1987 as the International Representative for Region 8, he focused his efforts in the educational and political arenas of the UAW and the State of Georgia. His UAW involvement continues as a member of the UAW's Advisory Council. Herb's union work began in 1938 when he became a member of the Boot & Shoe Workers Union, followed by membership in the Packing House Workers Union from 1940 to 1942. After being hired at Local 10 (then GM BOP, now GM CPC) in Doraville in January 1949, Herb established his first UAW membership. He quickly became an active participant in Local 10's affairs, where he served as an Alternate Committeeman, Trustee, member of the Building Committee, District Committeeman, and for a number of years, Chairman of the Shop Committee. In January 1962 he was appointed as a member of the Region's CAP Education Staff by then Director, E. T. Michael, a job he held through most of his union career, representing Georgia, Florida and South Carolina. He also served as a UAW International Representative of Region 8, consisting of the states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, four counties in south central Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and Berkeley County, West Virginia. I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with Herb for many years. On issues like employee rights and education for our children, nobody has worked longer, fought harder or been more committed than him. I am proud to call Herb a close friend and someone who I look to for advice and guidance. A long time activist in the political and civic life of Georgia, Herb has served as a member of the Board of Review of the Georgia Employment Security Agency, the Urban League, Board Member of the United Way, Vice Chairman of the Gwinnett County Democratic Party, Member of the Board of Elections of the Gwinnett County Democratic Party, Member of Georgia State University's Advisory Committee of Labor Studies, and Chairman of the Trustees of Winter's Chapel Methodist Church, where he and his family have been members for many years. Herb, who just celebrated his 77th birthday, was born on July 6, 1921. He and his wife have two children, a daughter Kathy and a son Terry, and five grandchildren--the true inspirations of their lives. I am pleased to call attention to Herb's nearly half a century of dedicated service to the UAW and to congratulate him and Autince on 50 years of marital bliss. I know that they have many more years of happiness ahead of them. I wish them both the best and look forward to continuing our cherished friendship.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I thank my esteemed colleagues for their assistance on this matter and I feel confident that, with your commitments, this critical funding will be provided. Considering the cost-benefit ratio of this research as well as our desire to maintain the superiority of American food quality and abundance, I believe that such funding is well justified and in the national interest.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss a very important issue, specifically my efforts to provide critical research funding for Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus. First, I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues, the Chairman, Senator Cochran, and Ranking Member Senator Bumpers, for their skillful work and superb leadership on this bill. I, like many of my colleagues, find it extremely fortunate to have two gentlemen in these posts who not only provide a valuable resource on matters facing agriculture, but can be depended on to work with Senators with candor and cooperation. As you may know, spotted wilt, caused by the tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), has become a serious impediment to effective production of several economically important crops in the Southeast, causing an estimated $100 million in losses to peanuts and vegetable crops annually. The disease is endemic to the Southeast and the wide host range of the virus makes it extremely difficult to control. If you recall, in the letter which I sent to you earlier this year, I requested that $330,000 be appropriated to the College of Agriculture at the University of Georgia for a project titled the Integrated Approach to Mitigate Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus Epidemics in the Southeastern United States. Although funding has not been provided in this bill, I understand that the House version contains $200,000 for this project's research.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator. While I would like to see funding for this project included in the Senate bill, I understand the difficulties that my colleagues are facing in trying to accommodate my request at this time and I defer to your advice on this matter and will not offer an amendment to provide the funding. Given that my ultimate goal is to ensure that adequate funding for this important project is obtained, I would truly appreciate my colleagues providing recognition of the seriousness of this problem as well as a commitment to work to obtain this funding in conference.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to salute Washington, DC's beloved Sholl's Colonial Cafeteria for 70 years of prospering business and never-ending dedication to its customers and employees. People have come from all around the world simply for a sampling of Sholl's down home hospitality and great food. I cannot count the number of meals I have eaten at this Washington institution, but as I am sure many of you who have also visited this landmark know, the memories of dining at Sholl's are endless. Each person who has dined at Sholl's has their own memory of what has made it so special to them. For some it was simply a piece of their apple or rhubarb pie. For others it was the unique experience of dining amongst close friends, colleagues or even new friends you made during a visit. But for everyone who has frequented Sholl's, there are fond memories of the wonderful people who worked at this restaurant and made it such an enjoyable place to start or end your day. The friendly hello from the late Evan Sholl, Cafeteria founder, and his beloved wife, Gertrude, or their son-in-law and current proprietor, George Fleishell has kept us all returning to Sholl's over the years. Patrons of Sholl's have described members of the Sholl family, who have owned and operated Sholl's over the last 70 years, as having the biggest hearts in Washington. Sholl's is not just a business. It is more like a home where friends meet regularly to get together and enjoy some good food and have a good time. Whenever I dine at Sholl's, it is like going to dinner at a friend's house. I have enjoyed eating at Sholl's Colonial Cafeteria for many years-- since the days when I was an intern in 1963 until today. I hope that we will all be able to enjoy many more home cooked meals at Sholl's Cafeteria for many more years to come. Recently reporter James P. McGrath chronicled the ``70 Years of Nourishing Body and Soul'' of Sholl's Colonial Cafeteria in an article in the Washington Post. I ask for unanimous consent that this inspirational story of hard work, perseverance and determination be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, March 15, 1998] (By James P. McGrath) Most city dwellers of a certain age have fond memories of a great cafeteria they patronized at some point in their lives. Given the velocity and scope of urban redevelopment, however, many of those grand, old dining palaces are gone, but, happily, the flagship of them all survives: Sholl's Colonial Cafeteria at K and 20th streets NW in downtown Washington. Although the Sholl's at Vermont and K closed in 1984, the Sholl's cafeteria a half-dozen blocks away managed to survive, and today it celebrates its 70th year of operation. In this city of monuments, Sholl's is a monument unto itself. Long before multiculturalism came into fashion, diversity was its hallmark. Its current staff of 40 represents 17 nations, and at one time or another, every Latin American country has had a representative on staff. Humanity, generosity and kindness also have been Sholl's standards. A family atmosphere permeates the place--from the lounge at the entrance, to the vastly long steam table laden with delectable food, to the huge dining room, where customers can seek out a seat in their favorite nook or cranny. Sholl's is not interested in political correctness, and it makes no bones about its religious sentiments. While its owners don't proselytize, neither do they hide their convictions. On a simple plate in the cafeteria lobby is a supply of `grace-before-meals' prayer cards, featuring Protestant, Catholic and Jewish devotions. Cafeteria founder Evan Sholl and his beloved wife, Gertrude, both devout Catholics, regularly invited visiting clergy of all denominations for complimentary meals. Those meals were and are as basic and all-American as apple pie (and, boy, what delicious apple pie Sholl's makes). The cafeteria's famous powder-milk biscuits are world-class (eat your heart out, Garrison Keillor). Food preparation at Sholl's emphasizes freshness too, with all items prepared daily from scratch, on the premises, in as-needed quantities, with no leftovers for the next day. Some might consider such Sholl's fare `square,' but the cafeteria routinely ranks among Phyllis Richman's `Best 50 Restaurants in Washington.' In an Oct. 19 review, The Post's food critic wrote, `Every city needs a down-home cafeteria, and few have one with more character than Sholl's. It's been a D.C. fixture . . . long enough to qualify for Medicare. . . .' Sholl's has attracted its share of notables over its long career. When Harry S. Truman was vice president, he enjoyed dining there, as did H. L. Hunt, the parsimonious billionaire from Dallas. It is easy to imagine Truman and Hunt sitting across from one another and enjoying a good old fashioned `rhubarb.' That, of course, would be rhubarb pie, a daily Sholl's delicacy. The late Evan Sholl, who died in 1983 at the age of 85, and his son-in-law and current proprietor, George Fleishell, are responsible for the cafeteria's amalgam of great food and good works. Both gentlemen have dispensed generosity, wholesale and retail. The amount of free food distributed by Sholl's over the years would have fed an army many times over. In addition, shortly before his death, Evan Sholl distributed a year's profits in bonuses to his employees on the basis of $100 for each year of service. Many believe that a nation's greatness is best measured by how it treats its old, its disabled and its young. Using that yardstick as a standard, also has earned high marks, giving meal passes to the needy, many of them elderly and/or disabled, and donating thousands of food baskets to the poor at Thanksgiving and Christmas. The cafeteria keeps its prices down too, and low-, modest- and fixed-income people, many of whom are elderly, flock to the cafeteria. Dining room employees gently guide infirm customers to convenient tables, carry their trays for them and routinely decline tips. Sholl's is popular with the young and hale too. Tourist buses, looking for the best food buy for the buck, routinely drop off throngs of kids at the cafeteria's doors, and from the decibel level, the kids seem to be having a whale of a time. The dining room walls at Sholl's are covered with wonderful memorabilia and pictures of yesteryear as well as awards from the food industry and other organizations. The one that says it best, however, is from the Cosmopolitan Club, which saluted Evan Sholl in 1982 as `the citizen who has performed the most outstanding, unselfish service to the Washington Metropolitan Community.'

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I want to recognize Major General Robert A. McIntosh for his distinguished service to our Nation. General McIntosh epitomizes our Air Force Reserve citizen-airman. He has demonstrated exceptional leadership as chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C., and commander, Air Force Reserve, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia for the past three and a half years. General McIntosh served as the principal advisor to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and to the Secretary of the Air Force on all Air Force Reserve matters. As commander of the Air Force Reserve Command, he had overall responsibility for the command, control, and supervision of all U.S. Air Force Reserve units around the world. General McIntosh performed outstanding service and exhibited exceptional commitment to the Air Force Reserve. His in-depth knowledge of Air Force and Reserve Component issues was a tremendous asset to the Congress as we deliberated the major national defense issues impacting both our Active and Reserve Forces. His insight into Reserve issues was also instrumental in his well-deserved selection to this new position as the Assistant on Reserve Matters to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Commissioned through the Reserve Officer Training Corps Program at Ohio University in 1966, General McIntosh's early training prepared him well for his later assignments commanding Reserve fighter units in Louisiana, Missouri and Texas. Ultimately, he rose to command the more than 70,000 member Air Force Reserve. He is a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran for his extraordinary aerial achievement and devotion to duty while assigned as an A-37 pilot with the 604th Special Operations Squadron at Bien Hoa Air Base in South Vietnam. General McIntosh separated from active duty in August 1971 to join the air reserve technician program as a full-time civil service employee with active participation as an Air Force reservist. He is a command pilot with more than 4,000 flying hours in the A-10, A-37, C- 130 and F-4. His military awards include the Distinguished Service Medal; Legion of Merit; Distinguished Flying Cross; Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster; Air Medal with 18 oak leaf clusters; Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster; and Vietnam Service Medal with three service stars. Throughout his distinguished career, he has commanded an Air Force Reserve wing, two Reserve numbered Air Forces, served as the vice commander of the Air Force Reserve, and his most recent position as the chief of the Air Force Reserve and commander of the Air Force Reserve Command--a dual hatted position. General McIntosh's outstanding leadership, sense of purpose and singular dedication to duty was crucial in the continuing successful integration of the Air Force Reserve into the total Air Force, culminating in the Congressionally-directed activation of Air Force Reserve Command as the service's ninth major command. Through initiatives he has sponsored, the Air Force Reserve has successfully entered new mission areas during his service as the chief of the Air Force Reserve, including the Reserve instructor pilot program; Space Command Group; Fighter Reserve Associate Test; Airborne Warning and Control System; and Combat Camera. In today's environment of shrinking budgets, downsizing and the increased role the Reserve Component plays in the national defense of our country, General McIntosh has provided us with a clear and concise view of the contributions and the versatility of our citizen-airmen. In that regard, he has provided us with a full spectrum of Air Force Reserve issues which helped in our decision making process. The United States is indebted to General McIntosh for his many contributions to this Nation. As his hallmark, he left a stronger Air Force Reserve. We thank Bob and his wife, Susie, for their selfless service to the men and women of the Air Force Reserve, and wish him the best in his new challenging position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their future endeavors.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for doing his homework. He is very courageous in touching on one of the serious issues regarding the F-22. All of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, including myself, were rightly concerned about the issue of whether enough flight testing on the F-22 would be accomplished prior to making an informed decision on whether to proceed with low-rate initiation production. The dilemma we faced was simple: Do we move forward with the program at the risk that unknown problems would arise causing significant cost overruns and delays or do we shut down the production line in response to our concerns about testing which would certainly lead to cost overruns and a delay in the program? The Catch-22 we found ourselves in was not an easy one to solve. The Armed Services Committee took this head on, and I believe we arrived at an approach that addresses the testing issue, while also addressing the issue of keeping the program on track. Let me briefly explain what the Armed Services Committee did: First, we fenced Lot II funding, and made it absolutely contingent upon completion of 183 test hours. Let me repeat: It is absolutely contingent upon completion of 183 hours. If that level of testing cannot be done in FY-99, Lot II funding will not be released. Second, the committee placed an additional restriction on release of funding for Lot II. The Air Force must complete 433 flight-test hours or the Secretary of Defense must certify that less than 433 hours is acceptable, explaining why less than 433 is acceptable, showing how less than 433 hours is consistent with prior Defense Acquisition board recommendations, and showing why it is more cost-advantageous to proceed with Lot II than to delay the production line. These requirements are real. They are tough. they are realistic. Let me offer some perspective on the first requirement. Prior to an initial production decision for 2 aircraft, the F-22 will have 183 flight test hours. In comparison, the F-16 had only 21 flight test hours prior to initial production decision for 16 aircraft--162 less than the F-22. The F-18 A/B had no flight test hours prior to an initial production decision for nine aircraft. The second threshold, the completion of 433 hours or a certification for less than that provides us with this. The F-22 program has changed in many ways. And so many things have changed the way aircraft are designed and built today. With the advances in technology and concerns for keeping control of costs, in the future more and more testing will be done without actual flight test hours. It is undisputed that flight test requirements cannot be replaced entirely, but there are certain amounts of simulations and ground testing that can take the place of actual in-flight tests. Here is what the F-22 has gone through, to date: 153 prototype flight test hours--on high angle-of-attack, supercruise, and thrust vectoring technology; over 365,000 equivalent flight test hours on aircraft components and subcomponents; over 23,000 hours of software/hardware integration testing; over 6,000 hours of engine testing; 600 hours of high-fidelity radar cross section model testing; 450,000 hours of avionic ground tests; 123,000 hours of component structural tests; 2,000 hours of engine ground tests; 43,000 hours of wind tunnel testing. More importantly, there has been 25,000 hours of scaled wind tunnel testing without experiencing the ``wing drop'' phenomenon discovered in the F-18E/F wind tunnel testing. The Senate Armed Services Committee provisions would require the Secretary of Defense to certify all of this and make the case that less than 433 flight test hours on this gives us the level of confidence to proceed. I would like to say, Mr. President, that I speak in opposition to the Bumpers amendment. The Air Force informs us that a delay in the F-22 program associated with not being able to meet overly stringent requirements could increase the program some $4 billion. So, Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the amendment and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CLELAND. I rise today to discuss my grave concerns about the policy implications if a decision to produce tritium in a commercial nuclear reactor were to be made. My concerns are especially serious in light of the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan last month. The recent detonation of nuclear devices in South Asia should serve as a wake-up call to the U.S. and the international community about the unfinished business with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Most of the international effort to slow the spread of nuclear weapons has been focused on limiting access to plutonium and uranium. However, less attention has been given to tritium which can increase the capabilities of these nuclear weapons. To those unfamiliar with the use of tritium in nuclear munitions, tritium is to a nuclear weapon what Tabasco Sauce is to a good bowl of chili--it adds kick. The key point is that it is the tritium which allows the use of smaller delivery systems because it allows a smaller weapon to produce a much greater yield. In the age of concerns about suitcase bombs and the smuggling of weapons across borders, it is critical that we also attempt to limit access to tritium. It has been long-standing American policy to discourage the use of commercial reactors to produce weapons material. Instead, the Atomic energy Act mandated that the Atomic Energy Commission would be the exclusive owner of production facilities related to nuclear weapons. That authority now lies within the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, when drafted, the Atomic Energy Act did not specifically list tritium as a special nuclear material covered under the act. The House has passed legislation that would insure that tritium is covered as a special nuclear material which is only to be produced in a facility owned by the Department of Energy. I believe such an approach is a reasonable one given our non-proliferation objectives. Our dwindling supply of tritium and our need to preserve the nation's nuclear deterrent require the U.S. to develop a new tritium production capability at this time. To that end, the U.S. is currently considering two types of tritium production methods. Unfortunately, one of the two technology options under consideration contrasts sharply with our traditional policy. The use of commercial nuclear reactors raises serious concerns about non-proliferation. The U.S. has worked too long and too hard to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction to abandon the principles of the Atomic Energy Act which has served as well over the last four decades. How can we urge the governments of India, Pakistan, North Korea, and any other country seeking a nuclear weapons capability not to attempt to use reactors designed for peaceful energy production for military purposes when we are contemplating doing a very similar thing here in America? Now, I am certainly no expert in nuclear physics and the production of nuclear weapons material. However, America has tremendous human resources within the Department of Energy in the form of our scientists, engineers, and plant workers. These Americans helped win the Cold War. Their contributions are significant and not to be overlooked. What is key is that their contributions are not yet done. The Department of Energy's Savannah River Site has been where tritium has been traditionally produced and processed. That is where America's expertise in tritium production lies. That is where we can be assured that our national non-proliferation objectives will never be subordinated to commercial or other concerns. It is my view that we should once again turn to those great workers there to get the job done as they have proven they are capable. I will certainly admit, proudly, to my constituency interest in seeing that the Savannah River Site be given fair consideration. However, there is a larger issue at stake here than the economic interests of competing constituent interests. Prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons and the preservation of American leadership on this issue is in the interests of every state, of every region, and of every American. I do not have the expertise to determine which technology is most viable and cost effective if the choice is between a reactor-based option and an accelerator option. However, I do know that at this point in history, it would be wrong to turn our backs on one of our most effective non-proliferation policies. It is my view that we should continue to maintain our nuclear weapons capability within DOE facilities where we have traditionally done this work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 5 minutes in opposition.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair. Madam President, the debate on Bosnia has raised some fundamental questions regarding the conduct of our foreign policy particularly with respect to the deployment of U.S. military forces around the world. I will point out just a few of the questions that members have raised: What is the mission of U.S. forces in Bosnia? When can we expect to bring them home? What should the role of the Congress be in the fulfillment of this mission? How can we manage the cost of the Bosnia commitment in terms of dollars and the overall strain to our forces? It is good that we debate these important issues here in the Senate today. But I feel it is important to say that I believe we should ask only one question: Should we continue to support a U.S. troop presence in Bosnia? That is a simple question. If the answer is yes, then I do not see anything we can do but to support the troops and insure that their mission is achievable. If the answer is no, then we should bring them home today. I support the mission. Let me take a few moments to explain why. I was very skeptical of the Bosnia mission before I was elected to the Senate. That is part of the reason why I made Bosnia one of the first places I visited on my first trip abroad as a U.S. Senator. On my journey in Bosnia, I had the opportunity to visit with our troops at Eagle Base and then at Camp Bedrock. I found them surprisingly cheerful and confident in their mission of peace-keeping in that war-weary countryside. I'm very proud of our forces. They are paying a personal price every day in risking their lives on our behalf. They are working in a tasking and demanding environment filled with diplomatic and military minefields. All of the men and women involved in this effort are a credit to the United States and the cause of human dignity and freedom in the Balkans. I am proud of them all. The effort in Bosnia involves the largest alliance of nations ever to coalesce against a common enemy on the continent of Europe. I applaud all the members of the alliance for their contributions to peace and stability in Bosnia, particularly the NATO members, and especially the Russians, for coming together in a unified effort to prevent further bloodshed, enhance stability and pave a pathway for peace. I hope it is a harbinger of good things to come in the next century in terms of enhanced cooperation and communications among our countries for the betterment of mankind. It was raining during the afternoon we were in Bosnia. By the time we were preparing to leave, the rain had ceased and the sun was coming out. As we boarded our airplane, I noticed a large rainbow forming in the sky. It was impossible to avoid the symbolism and be reminded of the covenant between God and mankind after the great flood. It was a symbol of hope, I think. Today we are in a new era. No one has quite coined the term for it. Some call it the ``New World Order,'' but I prefer to call it The Age of Democracy. What I find different and indeed magical about this new era is the fact that while it brings with it the spread of democracy and democratic principles around the world to places that have been burdened by tyranny, it is doing so not through the threat of force, but through the promise of peace. U.S. forces in Bosnia bring with them the promise of peace. A few days after I visited Camp Bedrock, I was in Brussels. An American businessman approached me and asked me if I had ``hope'' about Bosnia. I had to reply, ``Yes.'' I have hope because I believe Europe has learned some painful lessons over the last two centuries. One of those lessons is that alliances--whether against Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin--can win. Secondly, I have hope because Americans have learned some lessons about European history as well. Particularly, I think we've learned one of the lessons about American involvement on the European continent. The lesson is this: ``Pay me now, or pay me later.'' In other words, we as a nation are involved in Europe-- militarily, economically, culturally. Better to work through the European Alliance, in particular through NATO, to prevent a conflict than to risk that conflict turning into a greater confrontation or, even worse, war itself. I do not know whether the Bosnia mission will ultimately prove to be successful, but I do believe we should try. We should not tie the hands of our troops. In spite of my support for the Bosnia mission, however, I do not like the fact that it appears to be open-ended. I do not like the fact that it is placing a tremendous strain on our Armed Forces. I do not like the fact that we do not know when the mission will be completed. But we should have addressed these issues years ago before we ever sent our troops there. We have violated a fundamental principle about the deployment of military forces. Clauswitz stated that in military matters you should not take the first step unless you know what your last step is going to be. Four years ago, we had no idea what our last step would be. That has led us to where we are today. Today we are deciding by amendment what our policy in Bosnia should be. You can't manage a military deployment that way. It seems to me that we are in for a dime, in for a dollar. The question is should we stay in Bosnia, or should we leave? Once we decide to go in, we need to give our military commanders the resources and support they need to get the job done. We cannot change our mind every year with new amendments and new resolutions and new laws. The Senate Armed Services Committee has debated this matter numerous times. We could not arrive at a consensus on the matter. The more we debated the issue, the more I became convinced that we should not do anything that would undermine the mission in Bosnia. I fear that all of the amendments that have been offered sent the wrong message to both our troops and our allies. I was inclined to support a proposal by Senator Levin which would have established expedited voting procedures on the question of whether to continue authorization of funds for the Bosnia mission. I believe of all of the amendments, his is one of the better approaches. Many members of the Senate want to have a straight up or down vote on the Bosnia mission--in or out. Senator Levin's amendment would have provided a mechanism for that. However, I would point that over the past 4 years, the Congress has given its consent and approval for the Bosnia mission dozens of times. The Congress has appropriated over $9.4 billion for this mission. The bottom line is that we have had the opportunity to weigh in on this matter. Enough is enough. Now is the time to focus on ensuring that we do not allow a situation like the current situation with Bosnia to occur again. Before we get to the point of committing our service men and women, we must certainly determine if we have an appropriate military mission which can only be accomplished by military means. Once such a determination is made, we must provide our forces with sufficient resources, and clear and concise rules of engagement to get the job done. In this day and age we must pick and choose our battles carefully. As we have learned so painfully in Vietnam, Somalia and now Bosnia, American troops cannot stay there forever. We have learned valuable lessons from these engagements and now realize that before approving funding for such missions, Congress must have a defined game plan and exit strategy. Senator Snowe and I have offered an amendment to the defense authorization bill which would require the President to submit, along with a request for appropriations to support a military contingency involving 500 or more personnel, a strategic plan regarding the goals and objectives of the contingency and the conditions that define the success of that contingency. We needed this amendment 4 years ago when we first sent American troops into Bosnia, but we have learned from these important lessons. Congress, by approving such a plan would be in on the takeoff, as well as the landing. Frankly, I think this is the most important amendment related to the deployment of forces in the entire bill. I am pleased that the Senate has approved it. I would only urge that we think twice before doing anything that would undermine U.S. forces after they have already been committed. Madam President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I have remarks I would like to make in general on the subject of the amendments to the defense authorization bill regarding Bosnia. It will take about 5 minutes. I ask the tolerance of the distinguished chairman, if that is permissible.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished Senator from Maine. For those who are entering into this discussion, Mr. President, nowhere, as far as I can tell as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in recruit training, in any service, do male and female recruits live in the same room or in the same squad bay. These conditions do not exist now and they did not exist when the incidents in Aberdeen took place. Male and female recruits do live in the same buildings. In some cases male and female recruits live in separate wings or on separate floors, and in some cases they live on the same floors but are separated by fire-safe barrier walls. In every case, the male and female recruits have controlled entrances and exits to their sleeping areas and have segregated toilet and shower facilities. The services are in the process of alarming all doors, exits and walls. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that in every case, in every service, although they might not live in separate buildings, male and female recruits live in physically safe, physically secure, and physically segregated living conditions. But, Mr. President, in the wake of the terrible incidents of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment that took place in Advanced Training at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the National Defense Authorization Act of the last year established a congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues to review the requirements regarding cross-gender relationships of members of the Armed Forces and to review the basic training programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and to make improvements on the programs. The idea for the commission came from the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who noted at the time: * * * there must be ways to thoroughly examine, review, and evaluate the reasons for the recent spate of scandals regarding sexual relations in training commands. Such a study should be made by an independent blue-ribbon body with unquestioned credentials-- with no social agenda, but geared solely to the effect of gender integration at all levels of the military. Earlier this year, the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee appointed five distinguished Americans to that commission. Their counterparts on the House National Security Committee also appointed five outstanding individuals. The commissioners include two retired Marine Corps lieutenant generals, a retired Army command sergeant major, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, three distinguished academics, a military historian/national security analyst, and an expert on legal issues concerning women in the military. I have personally met with these commissioners and am convinced they understand the magnitude of the awesome task we have laid before them, and that they are eminently qualified and motivated to do the job. Because of our commitment to doing the right thing--as opposed to doing something quickly--the Armed Services Committee in the Senate included in its markup a provision to provide for a moratorium on changes to policies or practices regarding segregation on the basis of gender. The second-degree amendment Senator Snowe and I have offered retains the moratorium on changes to policies or practices regarding segregation on the basis of gender. I believe this is a very reasonable approach. It does not seek to prejudge the outcome of the commission's work. Additionally, it permits the commission to retain its independence. I believe this is an unwise course of action if we preempt the work of the commission. I know how I would feel if I responded to the call to serve on such a commission and was willing to dedicate my time for, say, a year of my life to study these complicated issues, only to find the same people--in this case, the Congress--who asked me to take on the issue, told me before I ever really got started in my work how they felt already. I would wonder if they really wanted a thoughtful, professional analysis or if they only wanted the appearance of a study to support preconceived ideas and predetermined agendas. I do not believe this was the Senate's intention when it supported the bill authorizing the Defense Act last year. We have established a process to review gender-related matters in their entirety. It does not make sense, to me, for us to separate out one or two aspects of this incredibly complex issue and to provide some piecemeal solution with little or no thought of the consequences our actions could have on the rest of the military--recruiting as well as training and retention. I am aware that the recommendation for separate barracks for male and female recruits came from the Kassebaum committee appointed by the Secretary of Defense. I am also aware that the Secretary of Defense has decided not to implement that recommendation. And the uniformed leadership--the most senior officers and enlisted members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force--also oppose the recommendation. For example, Mr. President, our committee received a letter from General Reimer, Chief of Staff of the Army, who said: Segregating their units into gender unique platoons for training and billeting the solders by gender in separate buildings will degrade the commander's ability to command and control his or her unit. Admiral Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations: Sailors should learn to live and work together from the first day of training. Admiral Pilling, Vice Chief of Naval Operations: Learning about security, privacy, dignity and personal responsibility should not be a lesson left for the fleet to teach. General Ryan, Chief of Staff of the Air Force: The saying ``train as we operate'' is more than a catch phrase, it is an absolute necessity to ensure that team building begins on the first day our recruits report to basic training. Senior enlisted members also commented on this issue as well. Any attempt [they said] to make a training policy that applies across all Services is not in the best interest of the nation and will impact the readiness of the total force. Mr. President, in terms of the readiness of the force, I was recently in Bosnia a few weeks ago. And I did see on a fire base there women actively engaged in work on the fire base. But I noticed that their living quarters were separate, safe, and secure. It was an incredible demonstration to me that women and men can serve in this Nation's interests in foreign lands and do so extremely well. I would also like to note that the Kassebaum report itself has actually been criticized by the GAO because of flawed methodology. According to GAO, the value of the Kassebaum committee's methodology is limited for making conclusions and recommendations, and the extent to which the committee's work supports its conclusions and recommendations cannot be determined. When the Secretary of Defense, a former Member of this body, and the uniformed leadership of the military, officers and enlisted, oppose something, I certainly take time to listen. Today, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to listen to the leadership of the military and give the Senate a chance to listen to the commission which we actually created and appointed to help us make decisions to guide us in these complex matters. Therefore, Mr. President, I support the Snowe amendment and urge my colleagues to adopt it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Ford's amendment to strike title XV of the Lugar-McConnell tobacco farming provision and to express my support for the Long-term Economic Assistance for Farmers Act, or LEAF Act. First, I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues, the chairman, Senator McCain, and ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their superb leadership of this bill, the principal aim of which is the vitally important objective of curbing youth smoking. Also, I would like to extend my sincerest appreciation to Senator Ford for his time and energy in crafting a bill that effectively looks out for the interests of the tobacco farmers and their communities' interests, which were all ignored until he spoke out so forcefully and effectively. Senator Ford's integrity and honesty and courage will be sorely missed when he leaves this Chamber, and I, like many of my Senate colleagues, will deeply miss the opportunity to seek his counsel on the important issues about which the Senator has tremendous knowledge and passion. Certainly there has been no finer, more consistent friend of family tobacco farmers than the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky. I ask my colleagues to remember this fact as we debate on this matter. In my personal review of the tobacco settlement legislation, I have had two main objectives--to prevent our children from smoking and to ensure that tobacco farmers and their communities are taken care of. Now, I am sure that all of my colleagues are committed to this first objective, but I want to make sure that the second objective of promoting and protecting tobacco farmers is actually provided for in this bill. I fully support the LEAF Act and, indeed, was an original cosponsor, and I want to state my reasons for favoring the LEAF approach over the proposal offered by the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar. First, I do not support Senator Lugar's proposal, because I think it provides for quick termination of the Federal tobacco program. I have a concern about who the actual beneficiaries of this action will be. Is it tobacco farmers, is it the taxpayer, or is it the tobacco industry? According to an Agriculture Department analysis, if the tobacco price support program ends, as it would under the Lugar plan, the price of flue-cured tobacco would drop from $1.72 per pound to $1.15 while burley tobacco would drop from $1.89 to $1.15. Accordingly, if these estimates prove to be accurate, this would save cigarette companies approximately $1 billion every year; that is, $1 billion annually, Mr. President. Considering the fact that the tobacco program is a no-net-cost program to taxpayers and tobacco farmers will be receiving a 35 percent reduction in farm income, I think it is pretty obvious who will be benefiting under Senator Lugar's proposal--the tobacco industry, period. Then where are we? What have we accomplished? What good will be our efforts to eliminate underage smoking by raising the price of cigarettes if the tobacco companies receive a $1 billion windfall every year at the expense of tobacco farmers? This is a crucial question that I believe must be answered before the Senate contemplates letting the Lugar proposal remain in the legislation. Second, while it provides more in buyout payments over a shorter timeframe, the Lugar proposal provides for substantially less in assistance for farm families and community assistance than the LEAF bill. Senator Lugar's proposal eliminates nearly $10 billion in funds for this type of transitional aid. It eliminates funding earmarked to provide higher education opportunities for tobacco farmers and their families, for transition payments to tobacco industry workers who lose jobs, as well as billions of dollars in funds to provide grants to communities for agricultural and economic development in tobacco- producing counties. I can understand the appeal that a quick buyout for tobacco quota might have for a tobacco farmer, but I am extremely concerned that the buyout proposal included in the Lugar bill is actually nonattainable. The funding level contemplated in Senator Lugar's bill is $18 billion over 3 years. At this level, it would require Congress to provide $6 billion a year for this one purpose, which is three times--three times--the amount available under this bill during this period. So what happens if this money is not fully delivered? I will tell you, Mr. President, what I think could happen. We will have left the tobacco farmer and their communities with an unfulfilled promise. In my home State of Georgia, farmers, including those who grow tobacco, have experienced extremely hard times over the last few years and are anxious to hear any good news. Then they hear about something called a buyout with large payments over 3 years, and understandably some get excited. But in order to deliver this amount of funds in this timeframe, we would have to cut the amount of funds available for public health programs and research by almost 75 percent. Now, I ask you, Mr. President, is this likely? Can we legitimately expect that we are going to eliminate 75 percent of the funding for counteradvertising, child care, NIH research, and cancer clinical trials? Can we honestly believe that these buyout funds will be available? In this Senator's opinion, the answer is clearly no. Let us not make false promises to tobacco farmers and their communities. Let us be honest. I implore my colleagues to carefully review the impact of each of these proposals as well as our ability to achieve them. I urge you to oppose the proposal offered by Senator Lugar and support the LEAF Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge a great American, a wonderful patriot and fellow Georgian, Major General James C. Pennington, United States Army, Retired, and President of the National Association for Uniformed Services. General Pennington died June 5th at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, where he had a speaking engagement addressing the veterans and military health care systems. General Pennington was born in Rocky Ford, Georgia, and spent most of his life soldiering--first in the military and then in a military association. Entering the armed forces during World War II, he worked his way up through the ranks from private to major general. During his distinguished 37-year military career, he always made taking care of the troops his top priority. He was very proud to defend this great Nation. General Pennington's fight for soldiers did not cease with his retirement from the military. In fact, it just allowed him to expand the effort on behalf of the National Association for Uniformed Services. He passionately and tirelessly pursued benefits for veterans and the health care promises made to military retirees. Shortly after I was elected to the United States Senate, General Pennington came to my office to enlist my support on this critical health care issue. This past year, I made military health care my number one legislative priority. In the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1999, I cosponsored a military health care initiative which seeks to improve the quality and accessibility of health care for our veterans and military retirees. It is because of men like General Pennington that this issue has been brought to the forefront of our attention as legislators. All veterans owe a debt of gratitude to him. General Pennington's life is testimony to the fact that we still have American heroes. Let us remember him and continue his crusade in fulfilling our commitment to our soldiers.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, for his work on behalf of small businesses. We are both members of the Small Business Committee here in the Senate. Mr. President, I speak this morning to introduce legislation with my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, and fellow cosponsors, including Senators Daschle, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Abraham, D'Amato, Breaux, Dodd, Bingaman, Kohl, Landrieu, Torricelli, Leahy, Grassley, Snowe, Harkin, Bumpers, and Feinstein. That is an impressive bipartisan list of Senators. This legislation, simply stated, recognizes the outstanding contributions that women's business centers have made to women entrepreneurs across the Nation. In light of this outstanding achievement in the President's budget request, I am proud to offer this measure expressing the findings of Congress that funding for these centers, these women's business centers, should be increased. I note that the centers are the only organization, nationally, that focus exclusively on entrepreneurial training for women. Increased funding would allow for new centers and subcenters to be established and for continued funding for existing centers, including the on-line women's business center. Increased funding would achieve the goal of expanding centers to all 50 States. Our legislation would increase funding for women's business centers under the SBA in steps, from the current level of $8 million to $9 million for fiscal year 1999, $10.5 million for fiscal year 2000, and $12 million for fiscal year 2001. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk about four focal points of women's business centers. The first and most important focus is the customer. These centers have responded to women's needs by offering training, and during accessible hours at nights and on weekends. In addition to regular training courses, special instructions on starting at-home child care businesses have also been offered. As the SBA Administrator Aida Alvarez points out, the number of clients served in the second year of the program increased by 40 percent. Approximately 44 percent of clients served were actually socially disadvantaged. More than 33 percent of the clients were economically disadvantaged, nearly 40 percent were minorities, and 18 percent were actually on public assistance at the time. Then there is the community focus. Women's business centers are a network of more than 60 community-based women's business centers operating in 36 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Each center offers long-term training, networking, and mentoring to potential and existing entrepreneurs, most of whom could not or would not start businesses without substantial help, and each center tailors its programs to the needs of the individual community it serves. Next is the economic focus. In terms of job growth, significantly high numbers of full- and part-time jobs were created at average hourly wages at least double the minimum wage. In the area of loan growth, the number of small loans received by clients has more than doubled since the first year of the program. In terms of small business growth, 78 percent of all center clients were startup businessowners or aspiring entrepreneurs. The centers taught them business basics and provided practical support and realistic encouragement. The last focus is that of technology. The on-line women's business center, at www.onlinewbc.org, is an interactive state-of-the-art web site that offers virtually everything an entrepreneur needs to start and build a successful business, including on-line training, mentoring, individual counseling, topic forums and news groups, market research, a comprehensive State-by-State resource and information guide, and information on all of the SBA's programs and services, plus links to countless other resources. This site was developed by the North Texas Women's Business Development Center in cooperation with more than 60 women's business centers and several corporate sponsors. This summer, information will be available in nine different languages. Mr. President, I want to conclude my statement by thanking the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. I think this legislation offers small businesses and entrepreneurs in America hope, particularly women businessowners and potential women businessowners. It is the hope of a better life for oneself, one's family and community, which actually drives entrepreneurs and also drives the economic engine in this country, which is so vital to our well-being as a Nation. Women's business centers are a distributor of that hope. We in Congress need to recognize that this program works. It makes a positive difference in the lives of so many women and the countless citizens they employ. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring our bipartisan legislation. I look forward to its future and timely consideration in the Senate Committee on Small Business. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to be here this morning to present this legislation, which I think will serve the needs of so many.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, for his work on behalf of small businesses. We are both members of the Small Business Committee here in the Senate. Mr. President, I speak this morning to introduce legislation with my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, and fellow cosponsors, including Senators Daschle, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Abraham, D'Amato, Breaux, Dodd, Bingaman, Kohl, Landrieu, Torricelli, Leahy, Grassley, Snowe, Harkin, Bumpers, and Feinstein. That is an impressive bipartisan list of Senators. This legislation, simply stated, recognizes the outstanding contributions that women's business centers have made to women entrepreneurs across the Nation. In light of this outstanding achievement in the President's budget request, I am proud to offer this measure expressing the findings of Congress that funding for these centers, these women's business centers, should be increased. I note that the centers are the only organization, nationally, that focus exclusively on entrepreneurial training for women. Increased funding would allow for new centers and subcenters to be established and for continued funding for existing centers, including the on-line women's business center. Increased funding would achieve the goal of expanding centers to all 50 States. Our legislation would increase funding for women's business centers under the SBA in steps, from the current level of $8 million to $9 million for fiscal year 1999, $10.5 million for fiscal year 2000, and $12 million for fiscal year 2001. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk about four focal points of women's business centers. The first and most important focus is the customer. These centers have responded to women's needs by offering training, and during accessible hours at nights and on weekends. In addition to regular training courses, special instructions on starting at-home child care businesses have also been offered. As the SBA Administrator Aida Alvarez points out, the number of clients served in the second year of the program increased by 40 percent. Approximately 44 percent of clients served were actually socially disadvantaged. More than 33 percent of the clients were economically disadvantaged, nearly 40 percent were minorities, and 18 percent were actually on public assistance at the time. Then there is the community focus. Women's business centers are a network of more than 60 community-based women's business centers operating in 36 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Each center offers long-term training, networking, and mentoring to potential and existing entrepreneurs, most of whom could not or would not start businesses without substantial help, and each center tailors its programs to the needs of the individual community it serves. Next is the economic focus. In terms of job growth, significantly high numbers of full- and part-time jobs were created at average hourly wages at least double the minimum wage. In the area of loan growth, the number of small loans received by clients has more than doubled since the first year of the program. In terms of small business growth, 78 percent of all center clients were startup businessowners or aspiring entrepreneurs. The centers taught them business basics and provided practical support and realistic encouragement. The last focus is that of technology. The on-line women's business center, at www.onlinewbc.org, is an interactive state-of-the-art web site that offers virtually everything an entrepreneur needs to start and build a successful business, including on-line training, mentoring, individual counseling, topic forums and news groups, market research, a comprehensive State-by-State resource and information guide, and information on all of the SBA's programs and services, plus links to countless other resources. This site was developed by the North Texas Women's Business Development Center in cooperation with more than 60 women's business centers and several corporate sponsors. This summer, information will be available in nine different languages. Mr. President, I want to conclude my statement by thanking the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. I think this legislation offers small businesses and entrepreneurs in America hope, particularly women businessowners and potential women businessowners. It is the hope of a better life for oneself, one's family and community, which actually drives entrepreneurs and also drives the economic engine in this country, which is so vital to our well-being as a Nation. Women's business centers are a distributor of that hope. We in Congress need to recognize that this program works. It makes a positive difference in the lives of so many women and the countless citizens they employ. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring our bipartisan legislation. I look forward to its future and timely consideration in the Senate Committee on Small Business. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to be here this morning to present this legislation, which I think will serve the needs of so many.

Mr. CLELAND

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

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Ossabaw Island Foundation and the Georgia Commissioner of Natural Resources for their efforts to preserve Ossabaw Island, Georgia's first Heritage Preserve. Georgia's high rate of population and economic growth have created statewide expansion into previously uninhabited areas. Efforts to preserve and protect endangered natural areas is vital to the well being of Georgia's environment. Ossabaw Island is one of the few remaining barrier islands on the Atlantic Coast. The fragile ecosystems of the island should be preserved so that natural areas along the coast will work to protect estuaries, wildlife, marshes, and coastal shorelines. If Ossabaw Island remains in its natural state, it will provide needed protection for the mainland from Atlantic storms, permit the functioning of marshes which provide water and air purification essential to habitation of Georgia's mainland, and provide conditions not tainted by human intervention for environmental research. I would like to commend the Ossabaw Island Foundation, a public/ private partner with the State of Georgia's Department of Natural Resources, for diligently serving as a voice for the preservation of the island. The Foundation has worked to incorporate educational and cultural programs in the island's historical buildings and to provide appropriate access and utilization of the Ossabaw Heritage Preserve. Through the efforts of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation, Ossabaw Island was included on the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Eleven Most Endangered Properties List of 1995. The island was also listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the United States Department of the Interior in 1996. The importance of preserving natural habitats is a common belief among the members of the Senate. We must not allow the natural beauty and resourcefulness of our nation to be sacrificed for lesser purposes. The benefits of protecting and preserving areas of natural habitat range from aesthetic to practical and must not be ignored. Mr. President, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in recognizing the partnership and hard work of the Georgia Commissioner of Natural Resources and the Board of Trustees of the Ossabaw Island Foundation. Their combined efforts have protected and will continue to protect and ensure a beautiful environment on Georgia's Ossabaw Island for many years to come.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire has spoken eloquently about young people and the lives of young people and how we ought to be concerned on their behalf. I would like to spend a moment of the Senate's time speaking about a young boy in my State, James Adams, of Fairburn, GA, who is now 5 years old. Because of the rules of his parents' HMO, what happened to him in March of 1993, when he was only 6 months old, has changed his life forever. The Senator from New Hampshire was speaking of right and wrong about young people. What happened to James Adams of Fairburn, GA, was not right. James was suffering from a fever of over 100 degrees. Like 160 million other Americans, his parents were enrolled in a managed health care plan. James' mother took him to his HMO plan pediatrician, who diagnosed only a respiratory ailment and post-nasal drip. He prescribed only saline drops, vaporizer use, and Tylenol every four hours. James' mother was told not to worry, that high fevers in young children do not necessarily mean serious illness. Later that night, his temperature was still rising and he was in great discomfort. James' worried mother called her HMO directly. The nurse on duty recommended bathing James in cold water. A pediatrician then placed a follow-up call, advising the parents to bring James to an HMO-participating hospital--42 miles away. On the way to the hospital, as his parents' car sped past multiple other hospitals in Atlanta not covered by the Adams' HMO, James suffered full cardiac and respiratory arrest, and lost consciousness. His parents decided they simply couldn't wait to get him to the HMO hospital--James needed care immediately. His parents pulled into the closest hospital they could find--still 6 miles from their target destination. Upon his arrival at that hospital, doctors were able to restore his pulse and breathing. But the circulation to his hands and feet was cut off, and never returned. James suffered irreparable damage to his extremities. Both his hands and feet had to be amputated. The delay of care caused by driving almost an hour to an affiliated hospital had taken its toll. Today, James is doing really well. He was able to get to a hospital just in time enough to save his life, and has worked hard ever since to rehabilitate himself. I am confident he will be able to lead a full and productive life. But could things have turned out better for James? Probably so. The question I have is, if S. 1890, the Patients Bill of Rights had been in effect, could it have helped James Adams and his family? The answer: probably so. First, the Patients Bill of Rights would have covered access to and payment for emergency services. That is, regardless of what the outcome looked like at the time, since James' parents reasonably believed that emergency care was needed, they would have been able to get it, accessibly, in time. I believe that an individual should be assured that if they have an emergency, those services will be covered by their plan. This bill states that individuals must have access to emergency care, without prior authorization, in any situation that a ``prudent lay person'' would regard as an emergency. Second, the Adams family's HMO could not have restricted their choice in service provider. They would have been able to have their own doctor--a regular doctor--convenient to where they live, and covered by their HMO plan. Third, the Adams' HMO would have been more clearly liable. Luckily, the lawsuit against the HMO that James' family went through was successful, but under current law such an outcome is far from guaranteed. The Patients Bill of Rights includes a provision for health plans that make medical decisions which result in harm to the patient, just as doctors and hospitals are held accountable today. In addition, the Patients Bill of Rights would mandate a fair and timely appeal process both within the plan and to an independent external body when health plans deny care. It would also provide for access to medical specialists, continued care when a plan or provider is terminated and protection for providers who advocate on behalf of their patients. Most important, the Patients Bill of Rights would help restore some of the confidence consumers have lost in their health care plans. It would ensure that Americans receive the care they were promised when they enrolled in their plan, and that they paid for with their monthly premiums. I believe it is imperative that as lawmakers, we work with health professionals, insurance providers and the American people, to create the most efficient, accessible and responsive health care system possible. To that end I am cosponsoring S. 1890, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1998, which would reform the delivery of managed care. We have a responsibility to ensure that the best health care system in the world remains accessible and affordable to all Americans. Though managed care has changed the nature of the health care industry by providing a more coordinated approach to medical care which reduces costs and waste, many beneficiaries believe, with cause, that their quality of care has been diminished. As the debate over health care reform continues, I will continue to fight to refocus our health care system on patients--like James Adams-- and away from the bottom line. The ultimate goal of any health care provider, including managed care providers, should be to provide the best possible care for the patient. Anything less is unacceptable. Although the financial aspects are important, we cannot let patient care be sacrificed just because of a bottom line issue. I believe that Congress must take swift action to address the issue of managed care reform and I believe that the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1998 is a significant step in that direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize The University of Georgia School of Law's many years of accomplishments and achievements, and to honor former Governor of Georgia Carl Sanders, who graduated from UGA's Law School 50 years ago. I would like to applaud the commitment and hard work of the entire law school community: the faculty, staff, students, and alumni. The reputation of the school continues to grow and prosper each year. Over the years UGA has produced thousands of successful lawyers, including many leaders and policy makers. Since opening its doors in 1785, the law school has graduated five U.S. Senators, 30 Members of Congress, nine governors, including Gov. Carl Sanders, eight Speakers of the Georgia House of Representatives and 54 Appellate Judges. I recently had the opportunity to deliver the commencement speech to the 1998 graduating class of The University of Georgia School of Law and was reminded of the impact and value of the law. In order for the law to be respected, and for us to be respected as authorities on the law--whether as lawyers, law enforcement or lawmakers--there must be a sense of morality behind the law. It is a basic historical fact that people will not obey unjust law. As I look around Washington I see many reminders of the importance of the law. The inscription on the Supreme Court building is: ``Equal justice under law.'' There is an inscription over the 10th Street entrance of the U.S. Department of Justice Building in Washington which reads: ``Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of its citizens.'' Justice comes before the law. All of us who touch the law are bound by this justice and honor. With justice and morality behind the law, we strengthen it. Without it, the law is weakened. If all of us who touch the law do not abide by these terms, the law loses its credibility. Ultimately, those of us who touch the law have a responsibility to lead others to respect it. The men and women who have graduated from The University of Georgia with law degrees over the past two hundred years have and will continue to strengthen and uphold the law of this nation. I ask my colleagues in the Senate today to join me in saluting and congratulating The University of Georgia School of Law for instructing and graduating men and women who have shaped our nation's history during the last two centuries, including Gov. Carl Sanders and other Georgia lawmakers.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the following students from Dunwoody High School in Dunwoody, Georgia and their teacher for their excellent performance in the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution. I would like to congratulate the students who competed in this year's competition: Bakari Brock, Jennifer Campbell, Richard Cartwright, Michael Cayes, Carol Chandler, Melissa Chastney, Zack Cullens, Melissa Derrick, Kevin Franklin, Erin Green, Judy Hudgins, Rebecca Lamb, Dwayne O'Mard, Sandra Park, Andrea Pierce, Jennifer Price, Scot Prudhomme, Carlyn Sibler, Geren Stone, Dannon Taylor, David Weiner, David Yoo, and teacher Celeste Boemker. I would also like to recognize the efforts of the State Coordinator, Michele Collins and District Coordinator, John Carr, who helped these students make it to the finals. This bright group of young students competed against 49 other classes from around the nation, testing their knowledge of the United States Constitution and our government. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the program is the most extensive of its kind, reaching more than 26 million students in elementary, middle and high schools. The students spent hours in role playing and testing to prepare themselves for this competition. The three-day program simulates a Congressional hearing in which students' presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I offer my congratulations to these students from Dunwoody High School for their outstanding performance at the We the People competition, and wish them continuing success with their future studies.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate former President Jimmy Carter on the naming of the Navy's third and final Seawolf-class submarine, the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter. After graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1946, President Carter fulfilled a dream from his childhood in southwest Georgia by serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. As a submariner, he was selected by the late Adm. Hyman Rickover to help in the development of the fledgling U.S. nuclear submarine program, a program which has realized its full potential in the Seawolf-class attack submarines. I had the privilege of attending the naming ceremony at the Pentagon on April 27 with President and Mrs. Rosalynn Carter. Navy Secretary John H. Dalton praised the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter as a bridge to the next generation of attack submarines. The newest Seawolf vessel, named after the only President to serve on a submarine, is currently being built and is due to join the U.S. fleet in December 2001. I ask my colleagues in the Senate today to join me in saluting and congratulating President Carter on his years of service in this Nation's Navy, and later as Governor of my home State of Georgia and President of the United States. President Carter is respected by all Americans for his efforts on behalf of our country both during and after he held office. The naming of the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is a wonderful tribute to honor a great American in a manner befitting his outstanding service to this nation.