J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, just a short time ago, the Senate was prepared to consider, and likely to adopt, a resolution granting the President largely unlimited authority ``to take all necessary and appropriate actions'' to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. After some of us raised concerns about the echoes of Tonkin Gulf in that original wording, we were then prepared to endorse a measure which constrained that authority by requiring that it be ``in consultation with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws.'' Some of us were prepared to stand behind this language, and its endorsement of the President's policy determinations which we generally believed would culminate in air strikes by American forces against Iraq, though no one, including the President, believed that such strikes would necessarily accomplish our principle objective of removing Saddam Hussein's arsenal of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. We then were presented with a diplomatic solution of the crisis negotiated by U.N. Secretary-General Annan that offered the prospect of achieving our principle goal in a way which strikes from the air could not possibly have done. It empowered UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq to more fully investigate and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The President has, in my view, taken the correct approach. He welcomes the agreement as representing a solution to the current problem, while immediately seeking to test and verify Iraqi compliance. He reserves our ability to take such other action as may be necessary if the agreement proves inadequate. Let me say clearly that this outcome is a good deal for the United States, the people of Iraq, the entire region and for international security. It is especially a good deal for the thousands of American families who have loved ones on guard right now for us in the Persian Gulf. There is no more awesome responsibility facing us as members of the United States Senate than the decision to authorize the use of American military power. Such action puts America's finest, its servicemen and women, in harm's way. This basic fact was driven home to me as I reviewed the following press reports from my home state of Georgia over the past few weeks: From the February 12 Valdosta Daily Times: Troops from south Georgia's Moody Air Force Base departed for the Persian Gulf today. Up to 3,000 soldiers from Ft. Stewart are expected to follow soon. About 80 Air Force rescue personnel from the base near Valdosta departed just after 7 AM along with two HC-130s, which refuel rescue helicopters, drop para-rescue jumpers to assist in operations and deploy equipment for rescue operations. . . From the February 12 Augusta Chronicle: As tensions mount in Iraq, some Fort Gordon troops are preparing for possible deployment in the Middle East, and the 513th Military Intelligence Brigade is poised to provide intelligence support for military operations there. . . From the February 13 Macon Telegraph: Base workers loaded a C-5 cargo plane with communications equipment Thursday afternoon as 30 members of the 5th Combat Communications Group prepared to fly to the Persian Gulf area about 6 a.m. today. The communications group, commonly known as the 5th MOB, primarily is responsible for establishing communications and air-traffic-control systems for military operations. . . From the February 18 Savannah Morning News: 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) soldiers like Spc. Shane Rollins of the 3rd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, had little time to relax as they prepared for a deployment to the Middle East. In less than a week, Rollins and nearly 3,000 other Fort Stewart soldiers will be in Kuwait. And from the February 22 Columbus Ledger-Enquirer: As about 200 Fort Benning troops left Saturday for a possible confrontation with Iraq, Acting Army Secretary Robert Walker said the decision to send more troops from the post hinges on what Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein does next. Such scenes have been repeated all over America in recent weeks, and underscore the human consequences of our policy deliberations in this chamber. Before discussing those important questions with which this body must grapple in fulfilling its Constitutional role, we must always be mindful of the young men and women who will risk more than their reputations in carrying out the policies we approve. A little history Karl Von Clausewitz, the great German theoretician on war, once wrote, War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carrying out of the same by other means. In August of 1990, Saddam Hussein tried to accomplish by war what he could not achieve by other means. Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. This came just two years after the conclusion of the eight-year Iran-Iraq War, a terrible conflict in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons. The war left 600,000 Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis dead. After months of fruitless negotiations and after a huge U.S. and allied military build-up in the region, in January of 1991 President Bush was granted authority by Congress to use force to compel Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The resulting Persian Gulf War lasted 44 days, and the U.S.-lead forces achieved the primary mission of evicting Iraqi forces from Kuwait. In the process, the United States crippled Iraqi defense forces, and in the words of Lt. General Tom Kelly, ``Iraq went from the fourth-largest army in the world to the second-largest army in Iraq.'' All along, the U.S. goal was to compel Iraqi compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. Destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and in particular its nuclear weapons program, was only a secondary goal. It was only discoveries made during and after the Gulf War of greater than anticipated Iraqi capability for deploying chemical and biological weapons, in addition to nuclear weapons, which elevated the destruction of these capabilities to a key aim of American policy. After the cease fire which ended the 1991 war, the U.N. Security Council established the U.N. Special Commission, or UNSCOM, to investigate, monitor and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability, including its delivery systems. Over the past 6 years, UNSCOM has been doing yeoman's work in fulfilling this task by destroying more Iraqi chemical weaponry than was accomplished in the Gulf War itself. Late last year, Saddam Hussein began denying UNSCOM the ability to inspect key Iraqi facilities where production and processing of weapons of mass destruction materials was suspected to be taking place. Since then, the United States, our allies and the U.N., have been working around the clock to win access to Iraqi sites in compliance with U.N. Resolution 687, which calls for the dismantling of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability. Permission Creep A few weeks ago, I raised concerns regarding the original version of the Senate resolution which, though not sought by President Clinton, would have given the President largely unlimited authority to use whatever force he deemed necessary to accomplish this objective. I was concerned that the original resolution was overly broad. I did not think it was appropriate to grant such authority on the monumental issue of war and peace without the Congress being thoroughly consulted about the President's plans and justifications. I was concerned about ``Permission Creep.'' Permission Creep is when Congress grants the President broad powers in the glow of victory without thinking about the long term consequences of granting such authority. Of course, the reverse is also true. Whenever the United States suffers a defeat, the Congress is swift to limit presidential authority. Prior to the Vietnam War, President Johnson reported that as a result of military tensions in the Gulf of Tonkin he had ordered a strike against certain North Vietnamese naval targets and oil reserves. In the glow of the victory of this air strike, the Congress passed the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that approved the President's taking ``all necessary measures'' to repulse an armed attack against U.S. forces and to assist South Vietnam in the defense of its freedom. It is reported that President Johnson compared the resolution to ``grandma's nightshirt--it covered everything.'' Of course, we all know the history of Vietnam--a history we are so carefully trying to avoid repeating. We gave the U.S. military extremely difficult and complex missions. We asked it to prosecute a war against a seasoned and highly motivated opponent while simultaneously engaging in ``nation building'' in South Vietnam. At the same time, we did not give the military the latitude to win. Political leaders micro-managed the Vietnam War, and we did not use decisive force. Of course, in the aftermath, the Congress saw fit to reign in the President's authority to commit U.S. troops in harms way when it passed the War Powers Resolution in the early 1970s. A more immediate example of ``Permission Creep'' is the 1991 Defense Authorization Act. Again, in the glow of victory in the Gulf War, the Congress expressed its approval for the ``use of all necessary means'' to achieve the goals of U.N. Resolution 687. That is where we stand today. This authority exists as a result of the initial joint resolution passed by Congress in January 1991 authorizing the use of force to compel Iraqi compliance with the relevant U.N. resolutions of the time, particularly with respect to the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. This authority was later extended to cover U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 which established the U.N. Special Commission whose function is to uncover and dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992 states specifically that it was the sense of Congress that: ``The Congress supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1).'' I appreciate the fact that some interpret this as being non-binding, even though it was passed by both houses of Congress and presented to the President as part of the Defense Authorization Act. And, though some contend that these expressions of Congressional will are no longer in effect, in the absence of formal action to rescind or terminate these non-time limited authorizations, I am led to the conclusion that the President continues to have all the authority he needs to use military force against Iraq pursuant to our laws and relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. The real question is whether or not he should! I for one am glad that President Clinton showed restraint in the most recent confrontation with Iraq. I see signs that some are already viewing the President's acceptance of the diplomatic agreement as somehow a defeat. I do not share that view! In the words of UN Secretary-General Annan, I think America showed, ``resolve on substance and flexibility on form.'' To paraphrase President Teddy Roosevelt, in the recent Iraq crisis this nation, ``walked softly and carried a big stick.'' The Senate Debate Whatever happens from this point, I am pleased that our deliberations on the details of the Senate resolution led to closer consultation between the Administration and the Congress, and to a more informed and thoughtful consideration of the policy choices before us. The current diplomatic solution offers us a great opportunity to debate our policy in the Persian Gulf. I welcome that opportunity. I know some are concerned about whether this debate sends the wrong message to the world about American resolve. If I were able to address Saddam Hussein today, I would say the following words: ``The future is up to you. If there is to be light at the end of the tunnel for you and the Iraqi people, it is your decision. Because America walked softly during this crisis, consulted with our allies, and chose a diplomatic solution does not mean the willingness of the President and the Congress to use the big stick has gone away.'' As for the U.S. troops stationed abroad listening to this debate, as I listened thirty years ago when the U.S. Senate debated the Tet Offensive, the Siege of Khe Sahn, and the future of the Viet Nam War, I say this: ``Your country is the oldest constitutional democracy in the world. As such, we all have a right to express our views openly and honestly about the most important act of that democracy--sending you into harm's way. You are America's finest. We are all proud of your service. If called upon to conduct military action, I know you will do your duty. We are with you all the way. You will be in our thoughts and prayers until you return safely home.'' What is the National Interest? My first question in the debate on Persian Gulf policy is: ``What vital national interests do we have at stake?'' In answering this question, the President and the Congress together must determine what responsibilities should be shared by other nations which also have vital interests involved. In some cases those interests are more vital than our own! I believe that we do have a number of vital national interests in the Persian Gulf region, including: Fighting the spread of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons around the world; Promoting stability in an area where Iraq shares borders with: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Syria, all potential flashpoints on the world scene; Turkey, an important U.S. ally; and Jordan, historically a key moderating force in the region; Securing access to the region's oil supplies, which account for 26 percent of world oil stocks, and 65 percent of global oil reserves; and Building regional support for the Middle East peace process between Israel and its neighbors. I would stress that these interests will remain regardless of whether or not Saddam Hussein is still in power. For example, Saddam is not the only problem with respect to weapons of mass destruction even in the Persian Gulf region itself. With respect to stability, it is very possible that if Saddam suddenly vanishes from the scene, the situation, at least in the short run, will worsen, with particular instability along the Turkey-Iraq and Iran-Iraq borders. Along these same lines, I believe we must take a hard look at how containment of Iraq is related to the achievement of our vital national interests, which, as just noted, are basically regional in nature. On weapons of mass destruction, for example, the nation of Iran poses a similar challenge. In terms of access to oil supplies, while Saudi Arabia supplies over half of all Persian Gulf oil exports (and 85 percent of U.S. oil imports from the region), even before the Gulf War Iraq accounted for a much smaller portion of Persian Gulf oil production. With sanctions now in place, Iraq's contribution to global oil supplies is minimal. The point is, while we must not underestimate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and especially by his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, we must be careful to not overestimate the role of Iraq and thereby get preoccupied with that nation to the detriment of focusing on our vital regional and global interests. Another matter which begs an answer is the question of sustainability, of our capacity to maintain our policies, not only now but also well into the future. For example, on the military front, are we going to require deployments for months and years rather than just days and weeks? There is also the question of consistency--the extent to which our policy choices in pursuit of one national interest objective do not hamper the achievement of other vital objectives. For example, we need to take into account what impact each of the diplomatic and military options designed to contain Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs are likely to have on other vital American interests such as our encouragement of Russia to continue forward with ratification and implementation of START II, and other arms control agreements. On a more specific matter of military policy, I feel we need to take a long, hard look at our current force deployment strategy. Before we get to the point of committing our servicemen 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. The distinguished Senator from Kansas, Senator Roberts, made a very fine and thoughtful address to the Senate the other day. He cited the following quotation from one of my personal heroes, Senator Richard B. Russell, from thirty years ago during the War in Viet Nam. At that time I was serving in that war. Senator Russell said: While it is a sound policy to have limited objectives, we should not expose our men to unnecessary hazards to 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. As part of our effort to produce an effective long-term policy for dealing with Iraq and Saddam Hussein we must also ask the question about appropriate burden-sharing among all of the nations, including the United States, which have vital interests in the area. It should be the long-term aim of our policies that the American people should not be asked to alone shoulder the costs, whether in terms of financial expenses, potential military casualties or diplomatic fallout, of pursuing objectives whose benefits will not be realized exclusively, or in some cases, even primarily, by the United States. To cite but one example of the kind of calculations I have in mind here, while the Persian Gulf accounts for 19% of U.S. oil imports, that region provides 44% of Western Europe's oil imports and fully 70% of Japan's. In posing these questions regarding our long-term policy toward Iraq, and arriving at my own answers to them, I am led to make the following conclusions. First, the best, and perhaps the only, way to secure our vital interests of curbing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and preventing Saddam Hussein from developing the capacity to threaten neighboring countries is through a continuation of people on the ground. In this case right now, the people on the ground are the UNSCOM inspections. It is these inspections, and not any conceivable military option, short of an all out invasion and occupation of Iraq, which can locate, identify, and destroy, or at least impede Iraq's development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Second, in order to secure our national interests, we should place a priority on international coalition building for peace and security in the Persian Gulf. Not only is such an exercise called for in order to insure that American soldiers and American taxpayers are not asked to bear a disproportionate share of the burden in confronting the mainly regional threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but also it is essential to achieving our policy goals--anti-proliferation and regional stability. Third, in order to aid both weapons inspection and coalition- building, we should be prepared to re-examine our approach to sanctions policy. We should not follow an approach which isolates us from our allies in the region or elsewhere, nor which makes us the villain in the minds of the Iraqi people and its future leaders. In other words, just as I don't want us to pay a disproportionate economic cost, neither should we have to alone bear the diplomatic costs of containing Saddam Hussein. While I certainly do not call for an end to economic sanctions against Iraq, and indeed I believe the international community will need to find a mechanism to secure long-term leverage to maintain adequate surveillance of Iraq's weapons-building programs, I believe that we should work with our allies to develop a comprehensive, long-term approach with respect to sanctions, with graduated modifications geared to concrete Iraqi actions. Finally, consistent with my view that we are currently paying more than our share of the financial and political costs of dealing with Saddam Hussein, I believe that, in the long run, we should phase-down our military presence in the Persian Gulf. While we do have important national interests in the region, these interests are neither our's alone nor are they our only national interests. The over-extension of American troop and naval deployments in the Persian Gulf compromises our ability to sustain commitments in the Mediterranean, on the Korean Peninsula, in the Balkans and elsewhere. In short, I don't want the United States to pursue policies which might win the battle against Saddam Hussein but lose the larger war of securing our vital interests throughout the Persian Gulf and around the globe, now and into the future. We should continue to carry the big stick, but build our coalition stronger to do it and not fail to walk softly as the situation requires. Mr. President, I look forward to continuing this debate on these and related matters in the weeks and months ahead. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to an article which appeared in the Washington Post on January 27, 1998 entitled ``Web Venture Links Lobbies, Legislation.'' The article discusses INCONGRESS (www.incongress.com), an exciting new Web site that promises to open up our legislative process and make it possible for our constituents to have access to the same documents that we receive from lobbyists. INCONGRESS enables interest groups that lobby the Congress to put their policy statements and press releases--on issues and legislation before the Congress--on one single Web site in an organized and targeted manner. This information is maintained in the INCONGRESS data base so that it can be retrieved at any time by our staffs or any other user of the site, including our constituents. Personal subscriptions to INCONGRESS are free for Members of Congress and their staffs, as well as for all other government employees, the media and members of the general public. The INCONGRESS Web site is supported entirely by the private sector lobbyists who pay an annual fee to transmit their data from personal computers in their offices right into the site. INCONGRESS enables all of us, both here in Washington as well as our constituents back home, to see the position papers of lobbyists and interest groups at the same time. The information is retrievable seven days a week, 24 hours a day to any subscriber. This is a major step toward our goal of making the legislative process a more open and informed one. My reasons for calling this matter to the attention of my colleagues are twofold. First, INCONGRESS promises to make a great contribution in our access to information and differing viewpoints of pending legislation. It will enable all of us to see the same information at the same time--assuming the interest groups use it, and as the article mentions, several of them have apparently already begun to do so. Secondly, I am proud to point out to my colleagues something which the Washington Post article did not mention. The INCONGRESS Web site was designed and constructed in my home state of Georgia by IBM Interactive Media in Atlanta. As many of you know, IBM is quickly emerging as the leader in electronic business--or e-business as some refer to it--and I am proud that the men and women at IBM Interactive Media in Atlanta are playing such a major role in this effort. In addition, I want to observe that two great Georgia companies, AFLAC, Inc. of Columbus and Bell South of Atlanta, were among the first companies to sign up as INCONGRESS Advocates and agree to put their public policy positions on this Web site for all to see. I commend both of these fine companies for being good corporate citizens and for setting an example which I hope all interest groups--including corporations, trade associations, and unions--will soon follow. The text of the article follows: [From the Washington Post, Jan. 27, 1998] Web Venture Links Lobbies, Legislation (By Bill McAllister) Some of Washington's biggest lobbyists are betting that the future of lobbying may lie on the Internet. They have invested in InCongress, a new Web site that its creators say may presage the electronic way to lobbying Capitol Hill. The new site www.incongress.com has been under development for two years, but it will be getting its first full-scale test this week as Congress reconvenes. The site brings together the texts of proposed legislation and the policy positions that various interests have issued on the proposals, as well as links to congressional and governmental sites. Although Congress and other groups have their own Web sites with some of the same information, InCongress developers say their operation is the only one that brings all the information together at a single site. ``Congress couldn't have created this site and turned it over to Gucci Gulch lobbyists,'' said developer DeLancy W. Davis, a vice president of the lobby shop Jolly/Rissler Inc. Davis and lobbyist Thomas R. Jolly, who started InCongress as a separate venture from Jolly/Rissler, said they have gotten a highly favorable response from hundreds of congressional aides who want a quick way to tell the boss where all the players stand on legislation. A number of other online information services provide updated copies of pending legislation, and other groups are attempting to cash in on the move toward feeding Washington's booming special interest business electronically. Jolly and Davis's InForum Group, which owns the site, already has signed up several interest groups eager to post their policy papers on the site and pay the reduced introductory fee of $6,000 to be among InCongress's charter ``advocates.'' Those charter advocates include lobbyists and other officials from Arco, AFLAC, BellSouth, IBM Corp., the Interstate Natural Gas Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Career Colleges Association and the Reinsurance Association. But perhaps as impressive as the first clients are the lobbyists who are financially backing the venture: William H. Cable, chairman of Timmons & Co.; Nicholas E. Calio of O'Brien Calio; Thomas J. Corcoran of O'Connor and Hannan; Patricia F. Rissler, president of Jolly/Rissler Inc.; Thomas M. Ryan of Oldaker, Ryan, Philips & Utrecht; and Craig G. Veith, managing director of American Strategies. The public can get free access to the site by filling out a sign-up form, but lobbyists who wish to post their position papers have to pay. Jolly and Davis are betting that there are enough of them to make their site profitable, although perhaps not in the first year. The site is run by a contractor based in Schaumburg, Ill. InCongress's meat and potatoes, such as new legislation, is pulled down from government-operated sites. Lobbyists can post their views using a simple transfer mechanism. ``It's a great way to level the playing field,'' said Jolly, previously an aide to former Rep. Bill Ford (D-Mich.), who predicts the site could have strong appeal to small groups who often feel undermanned on Capitol Hill. The online venture, along with others, is another step toward moving many aspects of lobbying and government onto the Internet to meet the changing nature of the process of government, Jolly and Davis said. ``Our profession is fundamentally changing. We're moving toward a much more antiseptic, more fact-based type of lobbying,'' Davis said. ``The days of going to a chairman and cutting a deal are over.''

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to address a Senate action which took place yesterday on March 11, 1998, specifically the passage of my amendment number 1977 to the bill S.1173 which involves the addition of Elbert and Hart Counties, Georgia to the Appalachian Regional Commission. First, I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues, the Chairman Senator Chaffee and Ranking Member Senator Baucus for their superb leadership on this bill as well as Senators Warner and Byrd for their input and guidance to insure that my efforts on behalf of Elbert and Hart Counties in Georgia were able to come to fruition. I also wish to commend Georgia Governor Zell Miller for his role in bringing this matter to my attention. As you know, my amendment will allow Elbert and Hart counties to gain membership in the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). I am extremely proud to be able to help the fine Georgians who reside in Elbert and Hart Counties to join the region served by the ARC. Back when the Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965, these two counties were geographically eligible to be included, but the local leadership at the time declined to do so. Well, here we are, over 30 years later, and the people of Elbert and Hart Counties have been given what we all need in life, ``a second chance.'' The economic and educational assistance provided by the valuable programs of the Appalachian Regional Commission will be extremely valuable for the fourty-thousand or so people who reside in Elbert and Hart Counties in their efforts to better their economies and their communities. I, along with those Georgians of Elbert and Hart Counties, would like to thank my Senate colleagues for their wisdom and generosity in providing for successful passage of this amendment. alameda corridor-east project in the san gabriel valley of california

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I would like to explain this briefly. Two counties in northeast Georgia are in Appalachia, Elbert County and Hart County. They opted out of the original act creating the Appalachia Regional Development Corridor in 1965. They now desire to enter on behalf of their counties. This amendment directs itself to two counties in Georgia that qualify in every respect and meet the standards of the law. I urge the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Hugh Thompson, Lawrence Colburn, and Glenn Andreotta, who helped save the lives of 11 Vietnamese civilians during the My Lai massacre in Vietnam thirty years ago. Hugh Thompson and Lawrence Colburn received the Soldier's Medal for bravery on March 6, 1998 for their gallant efforts during the My Lai massacre. Their comrade Glenn Andreotta, who passed away three weeks after the My Lai massacre, was honored as well, and his family will receive his medal at a later date. The Soldier's Medal is presented by the Army to those who show ``the highest standards of personal courage and ethical conduct.'' After their helicopter landed amongst firing U.S. troops and fleeing Vietnamese civilians, Thompson, protected by Colburn and Andreotta, went to confront U.S. forces. The efforts of these three men led to the eventual cease-fire at My Lai and an end to the killing. Hugh Thompson and Lawrence Colburn are both natives of Georgia. Hugh Thompson, a veterans counselor, hails from Stone Mountain, Georgia, and currently resides in Lafayette, Louisiana. Lawrence Colburn, now a salesman, lives in Woodstock, Georgia. Mr. President, I would like to honor Hugh Thompson, Lawrence Colburn and Glenn Andreotta for their heroic efforts during the My Lai massacre, and for their outstanding commitment to American values. These three men are true examples of American patriotism at its finest.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, as we near the end of Black History Month, I wanted to take this opportunity to recognize the bravery, patriotism and service of one of Georgia's Revolutionary war heroes. Austin Dabney served in the Revolutionary War and was wounded in 1779, in the Battle of Kettle Creek, one of the most difficult and bloodiest battles fought in Georgia. Austin Dabney was a slave brought to Wilkes County, Georgia by a man named Richard Aycock. Dabney was granted freedom in order to serve in the war in his master's place, as an artilleryman in Colonel Elijah Clark's corps. In the Battle of Kettle Creek, Dabney was seriously wounded by a shot through his thigh. His life was saved by a white soldier named Giles Harris, who took the soldier to his home and nursed him back to health. To show his gratitude to the Harris family, Dabney worked for them for the rest of his life, living with them in Madison, Newton and Pike Counties. Dabney's devotion to the Harris family didn't stop there. Dabney used money from his own pocket to send Harris's son through college, and even made arrangements for the son's legal training. In 1786, the Georgia Legislature emancipated Dabney to prevent his former master from seizing him as a slave to benefit from the soldier's fame. Despite Dabney's veteran status with pension, because he was black, he was denied the opportunity to enter the land lottery for Revolutionary veterans in 1819. The Georgia legislature voted in 1821 to grant 112 acres of land for Dabney's ``bravery and fortitude,'' but that grant was bitterly contested with law suits. A land lot was finally granted to Dabney in 1824. Austin Dabney and Giles Harris both illustrate an important lesson in American History. Divided racially but brought together as soldiers, neighbors and devoted friends, they are examples of the great patriotic and democratic spirit that is the foundation our society. They are fitting examples of why it is important to learn and remember our complete American History.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I recently had the privilege of attending worship services at the Riverside Baptist Church here in Washington, D.C. I was inspired by the warmth and spirit of the congregation, but I was especially touched by the message of inter- racial understanding in the sermon by Riverside's minister, the Reverend Michael Bledsoe. Reverend Bledsoe's message was particularly compelling in light of the fact that Riverside Church is a church where they ``practice what they preach''--a church in which all groups of people and races are represented and welcomed with open arms. As was stated in Reverend Bledsoe's sermon, Black History Month is a celebration of all of this nation's African American men and women and their contributions and accomplishments that have informed us, educated us, inspired us, challenged us and have made us all proud. This sermon reminded me of these men and women who have had such a profound impact on American culture. I commend this sermon to the attention of the U.S. Senate and ask that it be printed in the Record. The sermon follows: Sermon by Michael Bledsoe, Pastor, Riverside Baptist Church, Washington, D.C. Several years ago there was a slogan being thrown around and worn on tee-shirts. It was a somewhat popular slogan. I recall seeing it in huge letters on a tee-shirt and being offended. Why was I offended? Because I knew the statement to be inaccurate. The slogan boldly proclaimed: It's a Black Thing, You Wouldn't Understand. Now some might quickly conclude that I was offended as a white person. But I can tell you honestly, this is not why I was offended by that statement. On the contrary, I was offended by its inaccuracy. If it were true, then how could I account for how the truth of Martin Luther King had transformed me? how could I account for the fact that our nation has only produced two great theological movements, one the Social Gospel and the other the Black Church? How could I account for the power of the poetic words of Langston Hughes upon my soul? How account for African-American music like the spirituals, the blues and jazz which leave me at times trembling? How account for the veracity of James Cone's ``Black Theology'' which angrily and righteously exclaimed, ``[Black Theology] refuses to embrace any concept of God which makes black suffering the will of God?'' How account for the truth of Albert Murray's assertion in the late 1960's that ``It is the non-conforming Negro who now acts like the true descendent of the Founding Fathers--who cries, `Give me liberty or give me death,' and who regards taxation without representation as tyranny.'' How account for my sense of awe and reverence when entering the sacred halls of Howard University School of Divinity and feeling like I'm in the right place, surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses? How account for being able to look into the eyes of my church members who are African-American and sharing joy and sadness, laughter and tears? The truth of African-American experience is a universal truth. That is, its truth is not confined to a neighborhood, but it penetrates the entire world. And I have not only embraced that truth, but have been embraced by it, for Truth makes no distinctions as regards our race, our gender our circumstances of birth, but if it is truth, it has everything to do with us. Its speech is a primary speech, a speech which speaks at the most basic levels of our humanity and is understood by all who possess the heart of human longing: the heart which yearns to be understood, loved and received as worthy. I can tell you very clearly what contribution Black Theology--African-American experience--has made in my life. There is no blur as regards this; it is absolutely clear what I have gained from having encountered the truth contained in the religion, theology and arts of African-Americans. And it is this: I have met Jesus. Now mind you, I was raised in the church and I give thanks to God for having parents who taught me to love God and to follow Jesus. But here's the point, friends . . . no one church, no one group of people can fully comprehend Jesus. Jesus is far greater than our limited and finite abilities to understand him. We need our own knowledge and experience complimented by that of others. So when I went to college in 1972 and began to encounter the thought and life of Martin Luther King; when I began to have the gaps in history filled in and was introduced to the rest of the story, then I had a revolution in my spirit. For I was introduced to Jesus Christ the Suffering Servant. I was introduced to the God of liberation who hears the cry of the oppressed and who stands with the marginalized. That is, Black theology offered me a more comprehensive understanding of the Jesus I love and serve. Hence, the slogan ``It's a Black Thing, You Wouldn't Understand,'' should be changed in my opinion to, ``It's a Black Thing, Expand Your Understanding.'' For in my experience, that is in fact what happened. Black theology led me to the cross and tomb of our Lord in a way I'd never experienced and in the words of the spiritual it caused me to tremble. I want to speak further now about the primary speech with which African-American experience has spoken. James Melvin Washington refers to this ``primary speech'' in his wonderful collection of prayers entitled, ``Conversations With God: Two Centuries of Prayers by African Americans.'' Washington says that prayer is primary speech. It is first, or basic speech. But there is also a sense of primary speech being God's speech. What is it that God speaks first? What is God's basic speech? Since prayer involves our response, I want to deal with that last. Let's think a moment about God's speech. What is it that God speaks first? The Black Church has been adamant about that question, at least since the eruption of the Civil Rights Movement, if not from the days of slavery. That speech is rooted in the human quest for freedom. The essential text for comprehending that truth is found in Exodus where God calls Moses and tells him to go to Pharaoh and say, ``Let my people go!'' When we consider this text, we immediately discover that this God hears and speaks. God hears! Despite all your swirling circumstances; despite the doubts which dim the sun; the scriptures are clear: God does hear. And God is concerned when people are oppressed. This is what he says to Moses, ``I have seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters; I know their sufferings, and I have come to deliver them.'' What is it that God speaks first; what is God's primary speech? Within Exodus, God speaks first about human liberation and hope. And this is one of the contributions Black Theology has made in my life: God is not just concerned for me as an individual, though that is true enough. But God is concerned with how I treat my neighbor. And I cannot pretend to love God on Sunday and oppress someone on Monday. God's primary speech is about freedom and responsibility. The freedom to be and the responsibility to allow others the same freedom. Revealed in this passage is a God who is just and who listens when we cry. But not only that. Revealed as well is a God who sends prophets to look into the face of a tyrant and demand liberation for their people. As I began to get in touch with the history of slavery in this country and the history of its racism whipped onto the back of this nation, leaving its scarring wounds for generations and generations; as I began to hear and listen to friends tell me what it is like to be, in the words of W. E. B. Du Bois, ``a seventh son born with a veil;'' as I stand in the chapel at the Howard University School of Divinity, as I did last week, and worship with the students there, many of whom have become my students and friends, and I watch them worship with fervency and with pride and dedication receive the Tradition from their ancestors and thus secure it for another generation and the future; as I did those things, I began to touch another mystery, a theological one. And it is this: how is it that those who have suffered continue to believe in God? This is a mystery of faith shared with the Jewish people. How is it that a people who have been bloodied and run barefoot and naked into rivers to find freedom, how is it that they believe in God, while the educated and the affluent have determined that such belief is untenable? I'll tell you why I think this people have kept kindled the fire of faith and trust in God: it is because of that primary speech called prayer. The Exodus passage reveals a hearing, speaking God who speaks in the syllables of freedom and liberation. But you'll notice once again from that passage that God said, ``I have heard their cry.'' Those Hebrew slaves were praying. That primal speech was being uttered amongst the mud and straw as they made bricks for Pharaoh. They cried from the hut of being to God and believed that this world could not have come into being without such a God and nor could their liberation occur except he send a liberator. The African-American experience knows this God; knows this contest of slavery. Daniel Coker in his ``Prayers from a Pilgrim's Journal'', wrote in 1820. ``When will Jehovah hear our cries? When will the sun of freedom rise? When will for us a Moses stand, And bring us out from Pharaoh's hand? Perhaps then the question is not how an African-American could still believe in God. The question is, given the utter depravity of slavery and the history of racism, upon whom else would he depend for his liberation and freedom? No one but God. James Washington has stated his own struggle with this question of how to love and trust God who has the power to free but his people are still enslaved. And he admits that he has doubted. Well, who wouldn't? But he also says he inherited the burden of believing in God. He told the story of how as a young child, in the early morning hours, he was awake looking out his bedroom window in East Tennessee. He lay there counting stars when he heard a voice. He strained to hear. It was his mother's voice. ``She was,'' he wrote, ``speaking in a piteous hush. I yearn to recapture her exact words. I cannot. I do know that the drama of the moment demanded that I should stop counting stars. I could not resist the temptation to eavesdrop on a most unusual conversation. Mama said a few words about her burdens, anxieties, children. Then an awesome silence would punctuate her lamentation to ...God? Who was her conversation partner? Daddy was working on the night shift. `Please, Jesus!' she cried. I felt she was hurt, maybe even dying. I ran to be with her. I rubbed her back while she sobbed. ``In many ways,'' Washington writes, ``I have been in spiritual solidarity with my mother since that moment. She taught me to pray. Her silence and her action taught me that I must pray.'' I know. I know in a cynical age; in an age when entire sets of encyclopedias thirty and forty in number can be put on one CD; I know that in an age where we can launch people into space and gaze into the deep, black sea of space; I know that in an age which is utterly materialistic and can conceive of nothing so majestic as a spirit; that in such an age, prayer seems idle and worthless. But we better remember that few great things have been done without it and those events which matter most were most certainly the result of prayer. Think of Gandhi in India. That myriad number of persons who marched and whose names we will never see printed on a page or dramatized in film who prayed in churches and sang their way to freedom in the Civil Rights Movement. Think of those Christians in Eastern Europe who were scheduled by Marx and the children of Marx for destruction but who lived to see the Iron Curtain collapse. Think of those brave souls in South Africa who prayed and didn't give up and have seen apartheid ended and Mandela made the father of a nation. Think of Sojourner Truth who said, ``Let others say what they will of the efficacy of Prayer, I believe in it, and I shall pray. Thank God! Yes, I shall always pray.'' Today we begin our remembrance of those who preceded us in faith; those whose feet passed over the stony road, who felt the bitter chast'ning rod, those who somehow tread a path through the blood of the slaughtered--we remember them and we lift our voices in thanksgiving for their lives. We pray sorrowfully for those millions lost to the savage ways of this brutal world. Nameless in death, we commend them nonetheless to God who knows them by name. Today we remember and we celebrate their victory, for beloved, the God to whom they prayed for deliverance does deliver and we will march on until victory is won and we will remain true to God and our native land. We shall not be moved from the glorious vision of a table set in the presence of our enemies where all God's children can sit down together and eat at the table of brother and sister hood. Too many have paid the ultimate price; we have come too far to abandon that vision now. Here within the primal speech of God addressing us as his own; here in the primal speech of prayer and devotion, may we offer ourselves to God and to each other. Amen.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it was my pleasure recently to attend worship services at the Riverside Baptist Church here in Washington, D.C. It was a blessing to me that I attended services on the Sunday in which the sermon and lay message related to the church's observance of Black History Month. I was particularly impressed by the lay message of Ms. Juanita Yates, a Riverside parishioner who is the sister of the Reverend Ronald Yates of Marietta, Georgia. Ms. Yates is a distinguished civil servant with the Food and Drug Administration. This sermon reminded us all of the African American men and women who have had such a profound impact on American culture. Black History Month is a celebration of their contributions and accomplishments that have informed us, educated us, inspired us, challenged us and have made us all proud. As we honor the contributions of African Americans during Black History Month, we should all celebrate America's rich diversity and many accomplishments. I believe Ms. Yates has a message that is important for all Americans, and I ask that her remarks from that Sunday morning be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Black History Month (By Juanita Yates) As we begin our celebration of Black History Month, it's wonderful to have our young people actively participate in this morning's service. We certainly pay tribute to our leaders of the past: Thurgood Marshall, who argued the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas case before the Supreme Court. The Court proclaimed that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional; Rosa Parks, whose defiance led to the year- long Montgomery Bus Boycott; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who became the leader of the Civil Rights Movement and whose birthday we celebrated last month with a national holiday; and the countless others whose actions have led to a better life for African Americans. But we must also recognize the contributions of young people. More than any other social movement in American history, the Civil Rights Crusade of the 1960's was driven by young people who marched, demonstrated, and walked through white mobs to attend newly desegregated schools. Young people sat-in, road buses, were jailed and were even killed. A few weeks ago, the story of Ruby Bridges was shown on television. She was the 6-year-old who walked pass a white mob for a year to successfully integrate the New Orleans public schools. A few months ago, Spike Lee released a documentary of the ``4 Little Girls,'' who were killed in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, AL. That documentary first aired in theaters around the country. It will be shown on HBO this month. I believe that it was the television sights and sounds of America's children being beaten with batons, hosed down, attacked by dogs, jailed and killed that ultimately caught the attention and sparked the outrage of the American people. So, it is altogether fitting and proper that our young people are taking part in this celebration. During the month we will hear great music--beautiful spirituals and gospels--music unique to the African American experience. And I'm looking forward to enjoying it. We can also expect to see film clips, documentaries, and photography that chronicle the plight of African Americans in this country. The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History currently has a very moving exhibit entitled, ``We Shall Overcome: Photographs From the American Civil Rights Era.'' It runs through February 8 and is well worth seeing. The music, film clips and photographs are all wonderful treasures. But it is through the literature--the prose and verse--that I believe we are most able to see the pain and suffering, problems, fears, struggles, faith, hopes and dreams of our ancestors. The writers of yesterday poured out their innermost thoughts and left us an extraordinary body of work. The writers of today articulate our frustrations and pride as a people. Of the wonderful writers of by-gone years, Langston Hughes was unique. He wrote 9 full-length plays, 10 books of poetry, 9 books of fiction, 9 juvenile books, and 2 autobiographies. My favorite Hughes poem, ``I Too, Sing America,'' shows determination not to stay in the corner that an individual or country want to put you in. But you must prepare yourself to move forward. I, Too, Sing America I was the darker brother, They send me to eat in the kitchen when company comes. But I laugh and eat well and grow strong. Tomorrow I will eat at the table when company comes. Nobody will dare say to me, eat in the kitchen then. For they will see how beautiful I am and be ashamed. I, too, am America. All America is enriched by the tremendous body of work from African American writers like: W.E.B. Dubois: ``The Souls of Black Folks''; Lorraine Hansberry: ``A Raisen In the Sun''; James Baldwin: ``The Fire Next Time,'' and ``Notes From A Native Son''; Shirley Chrisholm: ``Unbought and Unbossed''; Price Cobbs: ``Black Rage''; Angela Davis: ``Autobiography''; Samuel Yette: ``The Choice: The Issue of Black Survival In America''; Alex Haley: ``Roots'' and ``The Autobiography of Malcolm X''; Toni Morrison: ``Beloved''; Maya Angelou: ``I know Why the Caged Bird Sings''; Bell Hooks: ``Killing Rage: Ending Racism In America.'' And one of the most eloquent writers of them all, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In his ``Letter From the Birmingham Jail,'' King wrote: ``For years now, I have heard the word, Wait. It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This wait has almost always meant, Never. We must come to see with one of our distinguished jurist that, ``Justice too long delayed is justice denied.'' African Americans have taken part in building this country and have often gone unnoticed. But yet, we have come a long way in making unforgettable marks in history. We pay tribute this month to our brothers and sisters who have had such a profound impact on American culture. We thank God for them and for their body of work which informs us, educates us, inspires us, challenges us and makes us proud. Their writings should awaken in all of us the very best qualities of the American spirit. In his State of the Union address last week, President Clinton discussed his National Initiative on Race designed to help us recognize our common humanity and interests. As we come together during February to recognize and honor the contributions of African Americans, we should all celebrate America's rich diversity. ``We are many, we must be one.''

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 12 minutes.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the year 1996 witnessed both a record high in the amount of money spent in pursuit of federal office--a staggering $1 billion, an increase of 73 percent just since 1992--and the second worst turnout in American history. In 1996, some $220 million was spent on Senate races alone--an average of $4.5 million per campaign. Members of Congress combined currently raise an average of about $1 million a day. It has been estimated that if these trends continue, by the year 2025 it will take $145 million to finance an average Senate campaign. This is truly a ridiculous situation. When I came to the Senate last year, I volunteered to serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee. Sitting in the Committee's hearings on campaign finance abuses and listening to the sordid tale of the 1996 money chase was a most unsettling experience. What I witnessed, heard and read made me even more convinced that we must strengthen our campaign financing laws, now, and provide strong enforcement through the Federal Election Commission of these laws, now, or risk seeing our election process be swept away in a tidal wave of money. At the conclusion of the Governmental Affairs hearings, I wrote to the Committee Chairman to make four basic recommendations as appropriate follow-ons to the investigation: (1) That we refer all evidence in the Committee's possession of alleged illegal acts to the Justice Department; (2) That we hold additional hearings on both FEC enforcement and ``gray areas'' in current law, such as the Pendleton Act and the definition of campaign coordination; (3) That we mutually work for passage of McCain-Feingold as the best first step in curing our system-wide campaign finance problem; and (4) That, to the maximum extent feasible, the Majority and Minority work to produce a joint final report, with bipartisan conclusions and recommendations. While the jury is still out on my first three suggestions, clearly the final one--concerning a bipartisan committee report--will, unfortunately, not be adopted. The separate, partisan reports which are apparently to be released this week represent a lost opportunity to present a strong, united case for reform. Regardless of what action the Senate takes, or fails to take, on McCain-Feingold, we need to turn to additional reforms in order to further improve our electoral process. I am pleased today to introduce the Federal Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act which is aimed at dealing with two of the biggest problems confronting our current federal campaign system: the inability of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), as currently constituted and funded, to adequately enforce election laws; and the significant gaps in existing campaign finance disclosure requirements. Let me be very clear that I continue to believe that enactment of McCain-Feingold, even in its reduced form, 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. Nonetheless, I recognize that the issues raised by McCain-Feingold, in all of its forms, have become highly politicized and polarized, and continue to face a filibuster which threatens the Senate's ability to act on this legislation. Consequently, in addition to continuing to urge Senate adoption of McCain-Feingold, I want to broaden the scope of debate, and to begin the process of seeking common ground on important reforms which are, by and large, outside of the purview of McCain- Feingold. 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 a 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 last year's 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. In developing this legislation, I have been pleased to have the input and advice from a variety of individuals and organizations interested in the subject of campaign finance reform. In particular, while none of them bear any responsibility for the finished product, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Reform Party and its founder Ross Perot, and chairman Russ Verney, Common Cause, and its president Ann McBride and vice president Meredith McGehee, and the Federal Election Commission and its assistant general counsel Susan Propper for their insights. It is easy to be pessimistic when considering campaign finance reform efforts. The public and the media are certainly expecting this 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 public 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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the year 1996 witnessed both a record high in the amount of money spent in pursuit of federal office--a staggering $1 billion, an increase of 73 percent just since 1992--and the second worst turnout in American history. In 1996, some $220 million was spent on Senate races alone--an average of $4.5 million per campaign. Members of Congress combined currently raise an average of about $1 million a day. It has been estimated that if these trends continue, by the year 2025 it will take $145 million to finance an average Senate campaign. This is truly a ridiculous situation. When I came to the Senate last year, I volunteered to serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee. Sitting in the Committee's hearings on campaign finance abuses and listening to the sordid tale of the 1996 money chase was a most unsettling experience. What I witnessed, heard and read made me even more convinced that we must strengthen our campaign financing laws, now, and provide strong enforcement through the Federal Election Commission of these laws, now, or risk seeing our election process be swept away in a tidal wave of money. At the conclusion of the Governmental Affairs hearings, I wrote to the Committee Chairman to make four basic recommendations as appropriate follow-ons to the investigation: (1) That we refer all evidence in the Committee's possession of alleged illegal acts to the Justice Department; (2) That we hold additional hearings on both FEC enforcement and ``gray areas'' in current law, such as the Pendleton Act and the definition of campaign coordination; (3) That we mutually work for passage of McCain-Feingold as the best first step in curing our system-wide campaign finance problem; and (4) That, to the maximum extent feasible, the Majority and Minority work to produce a joint final report, with bipartisan conclusions and recommendations. While the jury is still out on my first three suggestions, clearly the final one--concerning a bipartisan committee report--will, unfortunately, not be adopted. The separate, partisan reports which are apparently to be released this week represent a lost opportunity to present a strong, united case for reform. Regardless of what action the Senate takes, or fails to take, on McCain-Feingold, we need to turn to additional reforms in order to further improve our electoral process. I am pleased today to introduce the Federal Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act which is aimed at dealing with two of the biggest problems confronting our current federal campaign system: the inability of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), as currently constituted and funded, to adequately enforce election laws; and the significant gaps in existing campaign finance disclosure requirements. Let me be very clear that I continue to believe that enactment of McCain-Feingold, even in its reduced form, 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. Nonetheless, I recognize that the issues raised by McCain-Feingold, in all of its forms, have become highly politicized and polarized, and continue to face a filibuster which threatens the Senate's ability to act on this legislation. Consequently, in addition to continuing to urge Senate adoption of McCain-Feingold, I want to broaden the scope of debate, and to begin the process of seeking common ground on important reforms which are, by and large, outside of the purview of McCain- Feingold. 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 a 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 last year's 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. In developing this legislation, I have been pleased to have the input and advice from a variety of individuals and organizations interested in the subject of campaign finance reform. In particular, while none of them bear any responsibility for the finished product, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Reform Party and its founder Ross Perot, and chairman Russ Verney, Common Cause, and its president Ann McBride and vice president Meredith McGehee, and the Federal Election Commission and its assistant general counsel Susan Propper for their insights. It is easy to be pessimistic when considering campaign finance reform efforts. The public and the media are certainly expecting this 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 public 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 thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, my personal friend and dear colleague, for his character and especially his courage in putting forward this resolution and in taking the leadership in making sure that this resolution is enacted. I am honored to be a cosponsor of the National Character Council Week resolution. Mr. President, the stories and statistics are painfully familiar; we have all heard them--children having children, young boys joining gangs out of a need to belong, children as young as 9 years old smoking marijuana or shooting up heroin or inhaling freon from the living room air conditioner just to find a high. Now the latest figures are in from the Department of Justice: 25,000 juveniles murdered between 1985 and 1995. Half of all high school students who carry a weapon take that weapon to school. Juvenile arrestees are now more likely, according to the Department of Justice, than adult arrestees to have used a gun in committing a crime. James Agee once said, ``In every child who is born, under no matter what circumstances * * * the potentiality of the human race is born again.'' Mr. President, how many times have we heard that our children are the future of our country? I believe that our highest obligation is, and our biggest challenge is, with the children of America. We can work together to help ensure that all children will start school ready to learn. We can pool our efforts--parents, teachers, community leaders, and elected officials--to enable our students to be first in the world of scientific and academic achievement. But I believe the greatest gift and most effective tool we can give to our children is to instill in them, from the beginning, the values and beliefs which mold their character. Character is the essential building block in each youngster's journey to become a responsible, moral adult. George Matthew Adams once said: There is no such thing as a ``self-made'' man. We are made up of thousands of others. Everyone who has ever done a kind deed for us, or spoken one word of encouragement to us, has entered into the makeup of our character, and of our thoughts, as well as our success. Robert Kennedy credited his father with shaping his beliefs about what the definition of true character is. He said: He has called on the best that was in us. There was no such thing as half-trying. Whether it was running a race or catching a football, or competing in school, we were to try. We might not be the best, and none of us were, but we were to make the best effort to be the best. For Ronald Reagan, it was his mother, Nelle, who was his source of inspiration. He said about his mother: My mother, God rest her soul, had an unshakable faith in God's goodness. And while I may not have realized it in my youth, I know now that she planted that faith very deeply in me. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It calls on our citizens and communities to teach and promote the core elements of character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship. Decades ago, during the war in Korea, one of our generals was captured by the Communists. He was taken to an isolated prison camp and told that he had but a few minutes to write a letter to his family. The implication was that he was to be executed shortly. The general's letter was brief and to the point: ``Tell Bill,'' he wrote, ``the word is integrity.'' The word is indeed integrity, Mr. President. As our resolution states, ``the character of a nation is only as strong as the character of its individual citizens.'' If this is so, Mr. President--and I hope it is and I think it will be--the future of this country will be in very good hands.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to speak today in support of the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, better known as ISTEA. More importantly, I am here today to add my voice to that of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, who has made an eloquent and persuasive case for bringing this legislation to the floor for consideration at the earliest possible opportunity. That I believe was the commitment the Senate made to the American people prior to our early adjournment last year. In the last several days, I paid close attention to that said by my colleagues, many of whom in the Senate have commented on this matter. I would like to make just a few observations. One of the most striking aspects of the debate which is apparently delaying the Senate's consideration of ISTEA is that it is taking place at all. It is not all that uncommon, I suppose, based on my limited time here, that we argue how to utilize supposedly dedicated trust fund moneys. I am here today to say that these trust fund dollars, whether for Social Security or transportation, are not ours to allocate as we see fit. They are collected from the American people based on specific usage, and we have been entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that in the case of transportation the taxpayers' gas tax dollars are used for our great country's critical infrastructure needs. Unlike the Senator from West Virginia, I am not an expert on the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, but I am a student of history, and I believe that ancient Rome was one the world's earliest and most successful civilizations. Some scholars would say it was good government that allowed the empire to survive as long as it did. Others believe that it was the strength of the Roman army. In my opinion, one of the most enduring legacies of the Empire, carried on in our American civilization today, is the practice of building roads to facilitate commerce and defense. America's transportation system is the envy of the world and so is the commerce it facilitates. I'll add that the Roman Empire was once the envy of the world too. Where is it now? With apologies to Gibbon, maybe their government failed to pass its transportation funding in a timely fashion. By delaying the reauthorization of this multibillion-dollar ISTEA funding we put at jeopardy not only commerce and defense but the very lives and livelihoods of those who send us here. Recently I was contacted by a Georgia hospital on a different matter, but it did concern a road project in Georgia. They made the case for the need for a particular transportation corridor and stressed the difficulty their emergency service vehicles were having in this area. When we put off, day after day, action on this legislation, we impede, and sometimes, stop action on projects which may be critical to an area's economy, or vital for highway safety. Many Senators, Democrat and Republican, North and South, East and West, have all made the case that we need to take up ISTEA legislation, and I respectfully join those colleagues in urging prompt action. We must take up this legislation now. That was the promise that was made to the American people. When we make commitments, Mr. President, we must stick to them. We simply cannot be a body of continuing resolutions. That is not good government and it does not serve the people well. I know the leadership has heard about this a great deal the last 2 weeks, but I must respectfully request that we take up this legislation now; let's bring this matter to the floor now. Mr. President, ISTEA legislation is important to our largest cities and our smallest communities alike. It's about jobs, safety, commerce, defense, and it's about the future. It's too important to put off until an uncertain future date. We have a responsibility to act now. Let us do the work required of us. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I yield any remaining time to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the President, and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding to me time to speak. Mr. President, I am here today to convey my enthusiastic support for the nomination of Dr. David Satcher for the positions of U.S. Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of Health. The job of Surgeon General is to serve as a defender of public health and safety and bring important health issues to the forefront of public awareness. I regret the long vacancy that has existed in the position of U.S. Surgeon General and I implore the Senate to support the nomination of Dr. David Satcher and fill this long vacated seat as expeditiously as possible. Dr. Satcher's background reflects a strong emphasis on preventive medicine and an intense care for our nation's youth and underserved communities. His expertise covers a wide range of medical fields, and I believe Dr. Satcher will certainly be a strong voice for public health and medical education. For the past four years, Dr. Satcher has directed the world renowned Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency located in my home state of Georgia, which has 11 major branches and worldwide responsibility. While at the CDC Dr. Satcher has championed stepped-up immunization drives, spearheading initiatives that have increased childhood immunization rates from 55% in 1992 to 78% in 1996 while simultaneously reducing vaccine-preventable disease to the lowest rates in U.S. history. In addition, Dr. Satcher has boosted programs to screen for cancer, upgraded the nation's capability to respond to emerging infectious diseases and laid the groundwork for a new Early Warning System to detect and prevent food-borne illnesses. Throughout his career Dr. Satcher has worked in patient care, health care policy development and planning, education, research, health professions education, and family medicine. He is a physician, scholar and a public health leader of national stature and has received broad support from the medical community. In 1986, Dr. Satcher was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in recognition of his leadership skills. In 1996, he received the prestigious Dr. Nathan B. Davis Award from the American Medical Association for outstanding service to advance the public health. Dr. Satcher has also received the American College of Physicians' James D. Bruce Memorial Award for distinguished contributions in preventive medicine, the New York Academy of Medicine's John Stearns Award for Lifetime Achievement in Medicine, and the National Conference of Christians and Jews' Human Relations Award. These are awards given by Dr. Satcher's colleagues, experts in the fields of medicine and health, who have decided among themselves to praise Dr. Satcher and acknowledge his outstanding service and significant contributions to the health field. As Americans we look toward the Supreme Court justices as a strong national voice for the cause of justice. We look toward our priests, rabbis and ministers for spiritual guidance. The people of this great nation deserve a strong and respected voice on the issue of health, an issue that affects every single American without exception. I believe that Dr. David Satcher's strong background in public health matters, his dedication and unquestionable commitment to the practice of medicine, and his strong and sensible opinions on health issues make him the ideal choice for the positions of Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of Health. Dr. Satcher will be a strong and forceful voice of the highest quality whom every American can look to with respect and admiration. I ask of my colleagues, what attributes could we possibly look for in a Surgeon General that Dr. Satcher does not possess? He has dedicated himself to bettering the human condition and has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of people throughout this country and the world. Through his work, Dr. Satcher has touched millions of people, and has made their lives better. We would be doing every American a great disservice by denying the nation Dr. Satcher's service as Surgeon General. To quote an editorial from the Atlanta Constitution, Dr. Satcher ``is the right man at the right time for these two positions, and the Senate, which must confirm him, should recognize that.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. I applaud his stalwart leadership on this important matter. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag. Like many Americans, I was troubled when the Supreme Court ruled in two cases, Texas v. Johnson, and United States v. Eichman, that statutes protecting the United States flag were unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment right to free speech. I respected 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 such distinguished past and present Supreme Court Justices as 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. Nonetheless, the current Supreme Court view stands. That is what brings us here today. The flag is not a mere symbol. It is not just a symbol of America. It IS America. It is what we stand for. It is what we believe in. It is sacred. I do not have to tell the Senate what the flag means. Just ask the soldier who proudly marches behind the flag what it means to salute the flag of the United States. Ask the newly sworn citizen what it means to claim the flag of the United States for his or her own. Ask the grieving widow or mother of a slain soldier who is presented with the flag that draped the soldier's casket. Being from the South and being a history major in college, it was only natural that I become a student of the Civil War. For those who do not believe in the flag, I would point to the literally hundreds of citations given to men in battle during the Civil War for acts of valor associated with the flag. Soldiers were routinely awarded the Medal of Honor, America's highest military award, for defending the United States flag and carrying it forward into battle. Many of these awards were awarded posthumously. These brave men knew the meaning of the flag. The flag unites Americans as no symbol can. Only God and the United States Constitution itself stand above the flag. Everywhere history has been made in this country, the flag has been present. It was the United States flag that inspired our National Anthem. It was an American flag that was raised when Jesse Owens stunned Nazi Germany. It was a United States flag that was hoisted in Iwo Jima. It was the United States flag that was planted on the Moon. Those who would desecrate the flag would desecrate America. I cannot stand by that. Therefore, I stand for a Constitutional amendment. This amendment is simple. It vests only 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. According to opinion surveys, 3 out of every 4 Americans support protecting the flag from desecration. Forty-nine states have enacted resolutions to calling on Congress to pass a flag protection amendment. I believe we ought to let the American people decide this important matter. Therefore, I lend my support to efforts to send this initiative to the American people for ratification. Unfortunately, it has been the Senate that has blocked these efforts. The House has twice passed resolutions that would begin the formal process of amending the Constitution to protect the flag. The Senate has failed to respond to the overwhelming majority view of the American people. I believe now is an especially important time to reinforce our support for the American flag. The United States is unquestionably the world's only remaining superpower. Our leadership around the world is unrivaled. The principles of democracy and freedom that guided our forefathers in establishing our great nation are seen as shining examples for the world. Everywhere that communism has failed, where dictators have been overthrown, where tyranny has been rooted out, people look to America. And it is an American flag that leads our ambassadors, our troops, our citizens, and our hope as we lend our support and leadership to those nations struggling to overcome their past. People who seek asylum from religious, political, and ethnic persecution look for an American flag flying over our embassies abroad to guide them to the place where their human rights will be respected and protected. Let us now send a strong signal to the world that we truly cherish this great symbol. Let us now use this opportunity to show the world that we reaffirm our commitment to the ideals the flag stands for. Indeed, as Supreme Court Justice Stevens said in his dissent from Texas v. Johnson: The freedom 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, 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. These are powerful, wise words. Words we should all heed. Let us now stand in support of the Flag of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this resolution.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. I applaud his stalwart leadership on this important matter. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag. Like many Americans, I was troubled when the Supreme Court ruled in two cases, Texas v. Johnson, and United States v. Eichman, that statutes protecting the United States flag were unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment right to free speech. I respected 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 such distinguished past and present Supreme Court Justices as 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. Nonetheless, the current Supreme Court view stands. That is what brings us here today. The flag is not a mere symbol. It is not just a symbol of America. It IS America. It is what we stand for. It is what we believe in. It is sacred. I do not have to tell the Senate what the flag means. Just ask the soldier who proudly marches behind the flag what it means to salute the flag of the United States. Ask the newly sworn citizen what it means to claim the flag of the United States for his or her own. Ask the grieving widow or mother of a slain soldier who is presented with the flag that draped the soldier's casket. Being from the South and being a history major in college, it was only natural that I become a student of the Civil War. For those who do not believe in the flag, I would point to the literally hundreds of citations given to men in battle during the Civil War for acts of valor associated with the flag. Soldiers were routinely awarded the Medal of Honor, America's highest military award, for defending the United States flag and carrying it forward into battle. Many of these awards were awarded posthumously. These brave men knew the meaning of the flag. The flag unites Americans as no symbol can. Only God and the United States Constitution itself stand above the flag. Everywhere history has been made in this country, the flag has been present. It was the United States flag that inspired our National Anthem. It was an American flag that was raised when Jesse Owens stunned Nazi Germany. It was a United States flag that was hoisted in Iwo Jima. It was the United States flag that was planted on the Moon. Those who would desecrate the flag would desecrate America. I cannot stand by that. Therefore, I stand for a Constitutional amendment. This amendment is simple. It vests only 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. According to opinion surveys, 3 out of every 4 Americans support protecting the flag from desecration. Forty-nine states have enacted resolutions to calling on Congress to pass a flag protection amendment. I believe we ought to let the American people decide this important matter. Therefore, I lend my support to efforts to send this initiative to the American people for ratification. Unfortunately, it has been the Senate that has blocked these efforts. The House has twice passed resolutions that would begin the formal process of amending the Constitution to protect the flag. The Senate has failed to respond to the overwhelming majority view of the American people. I believe now is an especially important time to reinforce our support for the American flag. The United States is unquestionably the world's only remaining superpower. Our leadership around the world is unrivaled. The principles of democracy and freedom that guided our forefathers in establishing our great nation are seen as shining examples for the world. Everywhere that communism has failed, where dictators have been overthrown, where tyranny has been rooted out, people look to America. And it is an American flag that leads our ambassadors, our troops, our citizens, and our hope as we lend our support and leadership to those nations struggling to overcome their past. People who seek asylum from religious, political, and ethnic persecution look for an American flag flying over our embassies abroad to guide them to the place where their human rights will be respected and protected. Let us now send a strong signal to the world that we truly cherish this great symbol. Let us now use this opportunity to show the world that we reaffirm our commitment to the ideals the flag stands for. Indeed, as Supreme Court Justice Stevens said in his dissent from Texas v. Johnson: The freedom 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, 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. These are powerful, wise words. Words we should all heed. Let us now stand in support of the Flag of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this resolution.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr President, I rise today to honor Herschel Creasman, who after more than four decades of dedicated service to spreading the gospel to various organizations and in performing community services retired on Sunday, January 18, 1998. He is an outstanding example to his family and friends, and has been an asset to the many communities that he has touched over the years including Coral Springs, Florida, where he currently resides; Athens, Tennessee where he was born; and numerous others across the South and abroad. Herschel chose to follow in his father's footsteps by becoming a minister. He first graduated from Carson Newman College and then went on to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which marked the onset of more than 45 years of faithful leadership in Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida and even five years in Brazil. Herschel has preached in more than 20 countries and has served as an instructor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He fostered an environment within his churches that welcomed many new faces, from differing religions and communities, who come to hear his wonderfully inspiring sermons. Many would think that with this busy schedule and his devotion to his wife Joanne, their two daughters and one son, and four grandchildren, Herschel would not have time for much more, but this is definitely not the case with this extraordinary individual. Over the years he has received several honorary doctorates, including a Doctorate of Theology and Doctorate of Philosophy from the Great Commission Seminary in Kentucky and a Doctorate of Divinity from Freedom Seminary in Jacksonville, Florida. He has also represented his community by serving on the Ethics Board and Community Relations Committee for the Coral Springs Medical Center and on the District Review Board for the North Broward Hospital District. As many people who know him well are aware, he is an avid golfer, and as he enters this next stage in his life, I wish him the best of luck on the greens, which I'm sure he'll finally have the time to truly enjoy and perhaps master! Mr. President, I would like to honor and commend Herschel Creasman for his outstanding and innumerable contributions over the years to the many communities and churches that he has dedicated his life to inspiring and improving, and ask my colleagues to join me in saluting and congratulating Herschel Creasman on his retirement.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a very, dear friend of mine, Mort Silberman. He has recently been elected into the National Academies of Practitioners as a Distinguished Practitioner for his contributions to the cattle industry and laboratory animal medicine. It is one of the greatest professional honors, and I am delighted that he was awarded in such a way. Mort's achievements are endless. In the academic field, Mort currently serves as an adjunct professor at several universities including the University of Georgia and Auburn University. He is the assistant director and the university veterinarian of the Robert W. Woodfuff Health Sciences Center at Emory University. He is also consulting veterinarian at the New York Zoological Park, and the White Oak Plantation in Yulee, Florida. For over 20 years, Mort has hosted a variety of seminars, lectures and workshops. He is the author of numerous published medical writings. In addition, he has been directly involved with the design and construction of many animal facilities in Georgia and elsewhere in the country--from the animal facilities of the Atlanta Humane Society to the clinical space and animal holding areas at Georgia's Stone Mountain Park. Mort Silberman is not only a leader in the veterinary field, but also an active community member and dedicated husband and father. Mr. President, I ask that you and all of my colleagues join in paying tribute to my dear friend. Mort Solberman, for his recent honor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my favorite heroes, Clayton Moore, better known to most as the Long Ranger. Clayton Moore, the world's most popular masked man, has inspired and entertained millions of Americans during the span of his career. Before assuming the role of the Lone Ranger, Clayton began his performing career as a trapeze artist. Unsatisfied with this career choice he moved to Los Angeles to fulfill his dream of becoming a cowboy actor. This year marks the 65th anniversary of the first time the Lone Ranger rode into our homes over our airwaves. ``The Lone Ranger'' was created for radio in 1933, and in 1949 Clayton was chosen to be the first Lone Ranger for the new television series which began airing that year. He continued to be the man behind the mask through 1952 and then again in 1954, until the series ended in 1957. Over the years, Clayton has appeared in over 45 films and 10 major serials. He also starred in two feature films, ``The Lone Ranger'' and ``The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold,'' and is the author of ``I Was That Masked Man,'' his autobiography which was published in 1996. The 169 television episodes showed faithful fans that characters and plots in the world of the Lone Ranger were simple--good guys vs. bad guys. We all eagerly watched as the exclaimed the four simple words of ``Hi Yo Silver, Away,'' and role off into the sunset with Tonto, his faithful Indian companion. In every thought, word and deed, the Lone Ranger provided a practical guide to living in a difficult and challenging world. He embodied a code that has served as a standard of moral development--combining honesty, fairness, caring, respect, loyalty, tolerance, duty, and moral courage. Born on September 14, 1914, in Chicago, IL, Clayton has lived a fine and exciting life, filled with adventure, glamour, danger and hard work. He was an athlete, a trapeze artist with the Flying Behrs Trapeze Act at the 1934 Chicago Worlds Fair, a model while living in Chicago and New York, and a soldier in the Air Force during World War II. In whatever venture he has pursued, Clayton has served as a wonderful and positive example to us all. He has entertained us throughout his acting career, has exemplified courage and patriotism as he fought for this Nation during World War II, and has been a wonderful husband to his wife, Clarita, and father to his daughter, Dawn. It is with great admiration and respect that I congratulate and applaud this fellow veteran, Clayton Moore, on an outstanding career and prosperous life. I thank Clayton for teaching us that the good guys do win.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the chairman very much. Mr. President, I would also like to commend the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, for being our leader on national defense issues, and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin. They have made a great team. In terms of great teams, I think one of the greatest captains of a team I have ever come across is Senator Kempthorne, our distinguished Senator from Idaho. He and I have worked together on personnel matters and personnel issues. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support the defense authorization bill for several reasons. One of the reasons is, as the Senator from Idaho has indicated, as my colleagues have read in the newspapers, the Air Force and Navy are experiencing real difficulties encouraging experienced pilots to stay in the service. Our Nation has invested, in some cases, up to some $6 million apiece to train these pilots, and the airlines are now benefiting from that. They are hiring scores of pilots away from the military services every month. As part of our effort to retain these highly skilled pilots, the pending bill increases the pilot bonus from the current $12,000 to $25,000, which is paid out over a 5-year period of time. This is a modest increase. It comes from existing Air Force and Navy funds and was requested by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Chief of Naval Operations. Without the legislative authority to increase the aviation officer retention bonus, we will fail to give the services the tools they need to keep highly skilled pilots in the cockpit.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it has taken 9 long months to get to where we are today. Yet one issue remains controversial. In spite of numerous profound concessions made by the Depot Caucus, this bill faces the threat of a veto. I do not understand this. Much has been said on this topic, so I will be very brief. There were at least two significant concessions. First, we agreed to the Department of Defense request to continue free and open public-private competitions for the workloads at Kelly Air Force Base, TX, and McClellan Air Force Base, CA, rather than directing the Department to transfer this workload to the remaining depots, which we believe was the intent of the BRAC. I would urge those who do not believe this is a major concession to consider that this measure would essentially ratify a mechanism that overides a major BRAC recommendation. Second, we agreed to the Department of Defense request to lower the 60-40 rule to 50-50. The administration requested 50-50. The Congress responded with 50-50, over the objection of many in the Depot Caucus. What I find ironic is that on the two most significant priorities the administration had, we conceded to the administration position. Yet there is still talk of a veto here. I do not understand that, especially when I have to explain to people why we agreed to give up so much in return for so little. I am not completely satisfied with the depot provision in the conference report, but it is a provision I can live with. The Department of Defense shares this view, and I would note that the provision has the unanimous support of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The provision does not include everything that either side really wanted, but it is undoubtedly a fair and unbiased bill that places bidders on an equal footing. When Robins Air Force Base won the contract to perform maintenance on the C-5, it had to go the extra mile to prove to the Air Force that it could do the job. It had to endure additional audits, above what is normally expected in such cases. Robins' bid was adjusted after it was submitted to account for factors which the private bidder was not subjected to. In spite of this unlevel playing field, Robins was able to win the award because of its outstanding record and the quality of its people. I support fair competition, and I agree it can result in lower costs to the Federal Government. This bill provides for fair competition. I urge my colleagues to adopt it, and I urge the President to sign it into law.

Mr. CLELAND. Let me say I appreciate Senator Kempthorne's remarks regarding the Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who were belatedly recognized. Recognition on this issue is much appreciated for those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in the services of this country. Mr. President, in terms of going above and beyond the call of duty that is exactly what the distinguished chairman of this Personnel Subcommittee from the great State of Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, has done in regard to bringing me on board as a freshman Senator in making me feel welcome, keeping me posted and informed, and including me in all of the legislative hearings and in all legislative debates and all legislative matters before our committee. It has made me feel very much welcome and very much a part of things. This was my first year on the committee and I couldn't have been more fortunate to have gotten a better chairman than Senator Dirk Kempthorne. I understand he intends to return to the great State of Idaho after completing his term in the Senate. He will be missed as a dear friend, as a colleague, and as a great leader. He has one more year to serve and I look forward to working with him next year to make it a very productive year for us both. I also extend my gratitude to the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senators Thurmond and Levin welcomed me as a brother and a colleague into the committee, following in the footsteps of Senator Russell and Nunn in this Senate seat. It has been fun to try to tackle the chores that we tackled this year. It wouldn't have been possible without the help that I received from both of them. I also thank both the majority and minority staff of the committee under the leadership of Les Brownlee and David Lyles. They have all been of great assistance to me as I have served on the committee. I certainly appreciate the courtesies and hospitalities that their staffs have given me. Mr. President, this is a very important bill for all of the reasons Senator Kempthorne and I have discussed. It sets forth the priorities for our national defense in the next year. The very title of the bill suggests its importance--National Defense Authorization Act. It has taken 9 long months to get to where we are today, yet one issue remains controversial. In spite of numerous concessions made by the Depot Caucus, this bill faces the threat of a veto. I do not understand this. Much has been said on this topic so I will be brief. There are at least two significant concessions. First, we agree to the Department of Defense request to continue free and open public- private competitions for the workloads at Kelly Air Force Base, TX, and McClellan in California, rather than directing the departments to transfer this workload to the main depot which we believe is the intent of BRAC. To those who do not believe this is a major concession, this would ratify the mechanism that overrides the BRAC recommendation. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Regina Jackson be permitted privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate.