J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, is the senator from Nevada aware of an entity called the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, a national consortium of industries, universities and federal laboratories that together support research and technology transfers?

Mr. CLELAND. I understand that the committee was unable to include it in the Solar Renewable Account during its consideration of the energy and water development appropriations bill.

Mr. CLELAND. As the energy and water development bill moves into conference, I hope the Senate can identify additional funds in the Solar and Renewable Account or another appropriate research account for the consortium so that it can continue its important work.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Miller from Georgia, for his eloquent words. As he describes our dear friend Paul Coverdell, I am reminded that Paul Coverdell was a kinder, gentler politician and person before ``kinder, gentler'' was in vogue. Proverbs tells us, ``Good men must die, but death cannot kill their names.'' In the year since Paul Coverdell has passed, I continue to see the evidence of his hard work everywhere. I see it in the success of the Georgia Project in Dalton, GA, an immigrant education project in the north Georgia mountains that we worked closely together on. I see him in the education savings account amendment that passed as part of the President's tax package, something so close to his heart throughout his career in the Senate. And most of all, I see it in my colleagues faces as they continue to honor him through their work on issues that were important to him. Paul and I were sworn into the Georgia State Senate on the same day in 1971. We were elected in the election of 1970. He sat just in front of me. In Georgia, we sit by numbers of senatorial districts. We did not sit across the aisle, party to party. So, in effect, we were all together in that State senate. So Paul sat right in front of me; and what an appropriate position for him to be in, because I followed his lead in so many ways, just as I have tried to do in the years in the Senate. He worked quietly; he worked tirelessly. But he had a single- mindedness of purpose that belied his mild manner. He would toil away on a project for months, even years, then submit his results, and leave the judgment and praise for others. When I came to the U.S. Senate, I felt as if I was following behind Paul Coverdell again. Paul was with me as I was sworn in right here in this Chamber. After that day, he helped me, he guided me, and he tutored me in the ways and rhythms of the Senate, this body he loved so dearly. We were on different sides of the aisle, but we were still great personal friends. He helped me learn because he was a good man and a good friend, and because he knew it was good for our country and for Georgia. He always fought for our State, our farmers, our businesspeople, and the average citizen. From his time in the Georgia Legislature to his post as head of the Peace Corps under President Bush, to his quiet and demonstrative leadership in the Senate, Paul had a peaceful and resolute efficiency about his work that I hope we can all emulate. Alphonse de Lamartine once said, ``Sometimes, when one person is absent, the whole world seems less.'' That is the way I feel today. I share this feeling with my colleagues. That is certainly the case as we remember Paul and absorb the magnitude of this loss in this Senate and the people he served. Paul was, indeed, a leader, a legislator, and a dear personal friend. I miss him terribly. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Rockefeller, Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, VA, for his leadership on the measure we are introducing today, the Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2001. I also want to commend Senator Rockefeller for conducting his first hearing as newly appointed Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on the looming nursing shortage. The Federal health sector, employing approximately 45,000 nurses and the VA as the single largest employer of nurses may be the hardest hit in the near future with an estimated 47 percent of its nursing workforce eligible for retirement in the year 2004. Current and anticipated nursing vacancies in Federal health care agencies are particularly alarming with the increased nursing care needs of an aging America. The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study last year which found the average age of the nursing workforce rose by 4.5 years between 1983 and 1998, mostly because fewer younger people are joining the profession. It is imperative that the VA have the ability to recruit and retain nurses. Expert witnesses, like Nurses' Organization of Veterans Affairs, NOVA, President Sarah Meyers R.N., Ph.D. of Atlanta, GA, testified at the June 14 hearing. These witnesses identified critical issues ranging from those impacting VA nurses' ability to continue to safely care for veterans to nursing burn-out. Senator Rockefeller and I have developed a comprehensive proposal to address both recruitment and retention of VA nurses. The Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2001 includes provisions for the nurse scholarship program and education debt reduction. The bill's other needed measures to enhance retention of nurses are: Saturday premium pay for nurses and other identified health professionals, inclusion of unused sick leave in retirement computation for nurses enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System, FERS, and full-time service credit in annuity computation for part-time service prior to April 7, 1986. Also proposed are reports to Congress on: (1) the use of mandatory overtime with recommendations for alternative staffing strategies and (2) the encouraged use of waivers of pay reduction for reemployed annuitants to fill needed nurse positions to enhance recruitment. The Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2001 is needed now in order for VA nurses to continue to care for this country's veterans.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in the summer of 1990, President George Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, into law saying, ``Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.'' With intercity buses playing an important role in transporting millions of passengers throughout the country, we must ensure the means are available for all Americans to access this transportation mode. That is why I am introducing, along with Senators Snowe, Hollings, and Schumer, a bill to provide tax credits to intercity bus companies which purchase coaches in compliance with the ADA. Our bill expands a current tax credit to give bus owners a 50 percent tax credit of the cost of purchasing and installing hydraulic wheelchair lifts and other devices to improve accessibility. As my colleagues know, I have long been a proponent of ensuring accessibility. In fact, while I was a member of the Georgia State Senate in the early 1970s, I sponsored a bill to make public facilities accessible to the disabled, and this bill became law. Georgia was a national leader at that time, and I have been pleased to see the changes throughout the country with regard to accessibility over the past three decades. However, there is more that can and should be done. With their reliability, safety and low cost, over the road buses are the preferred mode of transportation for millions of Americans, and with the 2012 deadline to have all over the road buses be wheelchair accessible approaching, it is time for Congress to aid in meeting this mandate. The Transportation Research Board estimates that the annual coast of upgrading and replacing the over the road bus fleet could average $25-$27 million, not to mention the extra training and maintenance costs. At the heart of the intercity bus industry are small businesses, on which this deadline would impose a significant toll. If these small businesses can not meet this deadline, the rural communities that have no other means of transportation will suffer, or large portions of the upgrade costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fares, that is, unless Congress provides some assistance. Our legislation would do exactly that. I believe that bus service is destined to play an ever important role in transportation planning. In my home State of Georgia, many of the metropolitan counties have been declared as out of attainment with the Clean Air Act. As a result, Georgia is re-evaluating its transportation priorities, which includes moving people between intercity destinations. Personally, I envision a Georgia, and a United States, where buses play an important role in transporting people to hub cities for work or to transfer to another mode of transportation. The cost to us if we lose bus services is incalculable. All segments of the community will obviously be affected and not for the better. However, by working together, legislators, the disabled, the elderly, and the bus industry can and must strengthen bus service for all communities and the millions of Americans who use the service of over the road buses. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in the summer of 1990, President George Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, into law saying, ``Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.'' With intercity buses playing an important role in transporting millions of passengers throughout the country, we must ensure the means are available for all Americans to access this transportation mode. That is why I am introducing, along with Senators Snowe, Hollings, and Schumer, a bill to provide tax credits to intercity bus companies which purchase coaches in compliance with the ADA. Our bill expands a current tax credit to give bus owners a 50 percent tax credit of the cost of purchasing and installing hydraulic wheelchair lifts and other devices to improve accessibility. As my colleagues know, I have long been a proponent of ensuring accessibility. In fact, while I was a member of the Georgia State Senate in the early 1970s, I sponsored a bill to make public facilities accessible to the disabled, and this bill became law. Georgia was a national leader at that time, and I have been pleased to see the changes throughout the country with regard to accessibility over the past three decades. However, there is more that can and should be done. With their reliability, safety and low cost, over the road buses are the preferred mode of transportation for millions of Americans, and with the 2012 deadline to have all over the road buses be wheelchair accessible approaching, it is time for Congress to aid in meeting this mandate. The Transportation Research Board estimates that the annual coast of upgrading and replacing the over the road bus fleet could average $25-$27 million, not to mention the extra training and maintenance costs. At the heart of the intercity bus industry are small businesses, on which this deadline would impose a significant toll. If these small businesses can not meet this deadline, the rural communities that have no other means of transportation will suffer, or large portions of the upgrade costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fares, that is, unless Congress provides some assistance. Our legislation would do exactly that. I believe that bus service is destined to play an ever important role in transportation planning. In my home State of Georgia, many of the metropolitan counties have been declared as out of attainment with the Clean Air Act. As a result, Georgia is re-evaluating its transportation priorities, which includes moving people between intercity destinations. Personally, I envision a Georgia, and a United States, where buses play an important role in transporting people to hub cities for work or to transfer to another mode of transportation. The cost to us if we lose bus services is incalculable. All segments of the community will obviously be affected and not for the better. However, by working together, legislators, the disabled, the elderly, and the bus industry can and must strengthen bus service for all communities and the millions of Americans who use the service of over the road buses. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. Earl Shinhoster for his distinguished career of service to the public and the cause of civil and human rights. In tribute to Mr. Shinhoster I hereby introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2853 Candler Road in Decatur, Georgia, as the ``Earl T. Shinhoster Post Office.'' Before his tragic death on June 12, 2000, he had been an active member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, for more than 30 years as both a volunteer and staff member, most recently as Acting Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of its National Board of Directors in 1996, and Southeast Regional Director from 1978-1994. In May 1998, Mr. Shinhoster was Chairman of the Georgia Delegation to the National Summit on Africa and he was the Field Director for the National Democratic Institute in Accra, Ghana from 1996 to 1997 where he observed and monitored the 1996 Presidential and Parliamentary elections. He also monitored and observed the electoral process in South Africa and Nigeria. He was active on both the State and local level serving in the administration of Georgia Governor George Busbee from 1975 to 1978 as Director of the Governor's Office of Human Affairs. In 1998, Mr. Shinhoster served as Coordinator of Voter Education for the State's Election Division. Earl Shinhoster earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA in 1972 before pursuing legal studies at Cleveland State University College of Law in Cleveland, OH. The particular Post Office to be named after him is the same Post Office in South DeKalb where he retrieved his mail and is located in the same community where his family and friends still reside today. I, along with Senator Miller, urge my colleagues to support this legislation and recognize Mr. Shinhoster's long and distinguished career as a public servant promoting civil and human rights in Georgia, the United States, and around the world. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I first thank my distinguished colleagues for their leadership and superb management of this bill. I want to take a moment to express my support for a matter of great importance to the people of my State, specifically obtaining funding for land acquisition in the Chattahoochee National Forest. I understand that the $2,320,000 included in the Appropriations Interior Subcommittee report for that purpose will be used to purchase available tracts of land in, or bordering, the Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia. I inquire of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and chairman of the committee, am I correct in understanding that $1,300,000 of that total is intended to purchase property at Mount Yonah near Helen, GA, with the remainder being used to purchase property at Jack's River near the Cohutta Wilderness and the Etowah River near Dahlonega, GA?

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator for his inclusion of these worthwhile projects in the Interior appropriations bill. Technical Assistance for the New River Gorge National River Parkway

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President. Statistics from the National League of Nursing and the American Nurses' Association demonstrate the nursing workforce is shrinking. The Federal health sector, employing approximately 45,000 nurses, may be the hardest hit in the near future with an estimated 47 percent of its nursing workforce eligible for retirement in the year 2004. Current and anticipated nursing vacancies in Federal health care agencies are particularly alarming with the increased nursing care needs of an aging America. The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study last year which found the average age of the nursing workforce rose by 4.5 years between 1983 and 1998, mostly because fewer younger people are joining the profession. It is imperative that the Federal Health Care System recruit and retain nurses in such crucial areas as the Veterans Affairs Health Administration, Department of Defense, Public Health Service, Indian Health Service, and Federal Bureau of Prisons. Nursing shortages will result in major changes in the quality and type of care these agencies can provide to their beneficiaries. There are no quick fixes to recruiting and retaining registered nurses, but Congress must act now on identified problem areas. One identified measure which would help recruit and retain Federal nurses is to address employee benefits. Title 38 currently excludes nurses employed by the Federal health care system after 1983 from including unused sick leave in computation of retirement. Approximately 68 percent of the Federal nurses are enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). My proposal would allow registered nurses under FERS to include unused sick leave in the same manner as nurses enrolled in the Civilian Retirement System, (CRS), for computation of retirement benefits. Under CRS regulations, unused sick leave time is added after all of the required retirement criteria are met. With my proposal, registered nurses who have accrued the needed increments of sick leave will retain their hard earned benefit as part of their retirement package. Nurses played a crucial role in my recovery from injuries incurred in Vietnam. I can not imagine how much more difficult that recovery would have been without the skill and compassion of nurses. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this measure as we continue to look at strategies to prevent the looming Federal nurse shortage. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President. Statistics from the National League of Nursing and the American Nurses' Association demonstrate the nursing workforce is shrinking. The Federal health sector, employing approximately 45,000 nurses, may be the hardest hit in the near future with an estimated 47 percent of its nursing workforce eligible for retirement in the year 2004. Current and anticipated nursing vacancies in Federal health care agencies are particularly alarming with the increased nursing care needs of an aging America. The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study last year which found the average age of the nursing workforce rose by 4.5 years between 1983 and 1998, mostly because fewer younger people are joining the profession. It is imperative that the Federal Health Care System recruit and retain nurses in such crucial areas as the Veterans Affairs Health Administration, Department of Defense, Public Health Service, Indian Health Service, and Federal Bureau of Prisons. Nursing shortages will result in major changes in the quality and type of care these agencies can provide to their beneficiaries. There are no quick fixes to recruiting and retaining registered nurses, but Congress must act now on identified problem areas. One identified measure which would help recruit and retain Federal nurses is to address employee benefits. Title 38 currently excludes nurses employed by the Federal health care system after 1983 from including unused sick leave in computation of retirement. Approximately 68 percent of the Federal nurses are enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). My proposal would allow registered nurses under FERS to include unused sick leave in the same manner as nurses enrolled in the Civilian Retirement System, (CRS), for computation of retirement benefits. Under CRS regulations, unused sick leave time is added after all of the required retirement criteria are met. With my proposal, registered nurses who have accrued the needed increments of sick leave will retain their hard earned benefit as part of their retirement package. Nurses played a crucial role in my recovery from injuries incurred in Vietnam. I can not imagine how much more difficult that recovery would have been without the skill and compassion of nurses. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this measure as we continue to look at strategies to prevent the looming Federal nurse shortage. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding soldier who has dedicated his life to the service of our Nation. Colonel William J. Graham will take off his uniform for the last time this month as he retires from the U.S. Army following 21 years of active duty commissioned service. Colonel Graham began his military career with an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He completed the rigorous course of study at the academy and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree, having focused his studies in the areas of general engineering and national security. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1980. During Colonel Graham's career as an Army aviator, he was selected to command at every level from platoon through brigade. He reorganized, built, and fine-tuned several record-setting organizations, and enjoyed making things happen. His leadership, management, problem-solving and team-building skills have been proven during combat, peacekeeping operations, and peacetime, and he is a proven expert in crisis management, organizational planning, and training. Colonel Graham's aviation units were among the most frequently deployed to challenging international security environments. During his career he served in and deployed to many of the world's ``hotspots,'' including Korea, Germany, Bosnia, Macedonia, Hungary, Croatia, Panama, Honduras, and Grenada. Colonel's Graham's career culminated with duty as the Deputy Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff where he served as liaison between the Nation's most senior military officer and the U.S. Senate. Colonel Graham's retirement represents a loss to both the Joint Forces and the U.S. Army. Throughout a career of distinguished service, he has made innumerable long-term and positive contributions to both the military and our Nation. As Colonel Graham transitions to tackle new challenges in the business community, we will certainly miss him and wish continued success for both him and his family.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to once again join Senator Jeffords as a cosponsor of the Younger Americans Act. The Senator from Vermont has done yeoman's work on this legislation, which seeks to offer the same kind of comprehensive and coordinated support to America's young people that the landmark 1965 Older Americans Act provides to our nation's seniors. By creating an Office of National Youth Policy in the White House, by authorizing over $5 billion over the next five years to help local community organizations provide needed services and supports to their youth, the Younger Americans Act forges a national youth policy which prioritizes the needs of our young people and helps to provide them with the critical resources they need to achieve their full potential and become contributing members of their communities. The recently released 2001 KIDS COUNT Data Book, a State-by-State report on the conditions facing America's children, found that the well-being of our youth improved over the past decade on seven of ten key KIDS COUNT measures. The national rate of teen deaths by accident, homicide and suicide fell by a substantial 24 percent. The number of teens ages 16-19 who dropped out of high school declined from 10 percent in 1990 to 9 percent in 1998. And there has been a steady decline in the rate of teenage births, which fell by a significant 19 percent between 1990 and 1998. On the other hand, the 2001 KIDS COUNT Data Book also reports that more than 16 million children have parents who, despite being employed full time, struggle from paycheck to paycheck. In addition, the report finds that the number of single parent households in this country is on the rise. In 1998, 27 percent of families with children were headed by a single parent, up from 24 percent in 1990--and every State but three experienced an increase. According to the 2000 Census, there was a 14 percent increase in the number of children in America in the last decade--the largest increase in the number of children living in this country since the decade of the 1950s. This significant increase in the under-18 population will undoubtedly mean new challenges and new demands on ``our already struggling public education, child care, and family support systems,'' as Douglas Nelson, president of the Annie E. Casey Foundation which publishes the KIDS COUNT report, points out. The Younger Americans Act will help this nation meet these new demands by providing a framework which fosters the positive development of all our nation's youth. This is a strategy in marked contrast to previous government policies which respond to youngsters only after they have gotten into trouble. It is a significant fact that more than 200 young people took part in drafting the original legislation. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, these youngsters were telling us that it is time to redirect our focus on what is right with our young people, not what is wrong. The Younger Americans Act will support community-based efforts that provide young people access to five core resources: ongoing relationships with caring adults; safe places with structured activities; services that promote healthy lifestyles; opportunities to acquire marketable skills; and opportunities for community service and civic participation. Such a positive support system ideally comes from strong families, but communities and government can play a part. The successful Head Start and 21st Century Community Leaning Centers programs have provided support systems for parents of America's younger children. The Younger Americans Act will provide support structure for our adolescents during the vulnerable years between ages 10 and 19. It stresses the pivotal role of the family and emphasizes the critical importance of parental involvement. James Agee once said: ``As in every child who is born, under no matter what circumstances and of no matter what parents, the potentiality of the human race is born again.'' The Younger Americans Act recognizes and affirms that an investment in our children is an investment in America's future.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to once again join Senator Jeffords as a cosponsor of the Younger Americans Act. The Senator from Vermont has done yeoman's work on this legislation, which seeks to offer the same kind of comprehensive and coordinated support to America's young people that the landmark 1965 Older Americans Act provides to our nation's seniors. By creating an Office of National Youth Policy in the White House, by authorizing over $5 billion over the next five years to help local community organizations provide needed services and supports to their youth, the Younger Americans Act forges a national youth policy which prioritizes the needs of our young people and helps to provide them with the critical resources they need to achieve their full potential and become contributing members of their communities. The recently released 2001 KIDS COUNT Data Book, a State-by-State report on the conditions facing America's children, found that the well-being of our youth improved over the past decade on seven of ten key KIDS COUNT measures. The national rate of teen deaths by accident, homicide and suicide fell by a substantial 24 percent. The number of teens ages 16-19 who dropped out of high school declined from 10 percent in 1990 to 9 percent in 1998. And there has been a steady decline in the rate of teenage births, which fell by a significant 19 percent between 1990 and 1998. On the other hand, the 2001 KIDS COUNT Data Book also reports that more than 16 million children have parents who, despite being employed full time, struggle from paycheck to paycheck. In addition, the report finds that the number of single parent households in this country is on the rise. In 1998, 27 percent of families with children were headed by a single parent, up from 24 percent in 1990--and every State but three experienced an increase. According to the 2000 Census, there was a 14 percent increase in the number of children in America in the last decade--the largest increase in the number of children living in this country since the decade of the 1950s. This significant increase in the under-18 population will undoubtedly mean new challenges and new demands on ``our already struggling public education, child care, and family support systems,'' as Douglas Nelson, president of the Annie E. Casey Foundation which publishes the KIDS COUNT report, points out. The Younger Americans Act will help this nation meet these new demands by providing a framework which fosters the positive development of all our nation's youth. This is a strategy in marked contrast to previous government policies which respond to youngsters only after they have gotten into trouble. It is a significant fact that more than 200 young people took part in drafting the original legislation. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, these youngsters were telling us that it is time to redirect our focus on what is right with our young people, not what is wrong. The Younger Americans Act will support community-based efforts that provide young people access to five core resources: ongoing relationships with caring adults; safe places with structured activities; services that promote healthy lifestyles; opportunities to acquire marketable skills; and opportunities for community service and civic participation. Such a positive support system ideally comes from strong families, but communities and government can play a part. The successful Head Start and 21st Century Community Leaning Centers programs have provided support systems for parents of America's younger children. The Younger Americans Act will provide support structure for our adolescents during the vulnerable years between ages 10 and 19. It stresses the pivotal role of the family and emphasizes the critical importance of parental involvement. James Agee once said: ``As in every child who is born, under no matter what circumstances and of no matter what parents, the potentiality of the human race is born again.'' The Younger Americans Act recognizes and affirms that an investment in our children is an investment in America's future.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise before you on this day to recognize the outstanding achievements, hard work, and dedication of Dr. Stephen R. Portch, the ninth Chancellor of the University System of Georgia. This day should be both celebrated and lamented, for it is a delight to honor my good friend, Chancellor Portch, yet saddening to bid the Chancellor farewell. John Stuart Mill, a revered philosopher, political scientist, and educator, left an indelible mark on his students at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, where he once said, ``There is nothing which spreads more contagiously from teacher to pupil than elevation of sentiment: Often and often have students caught from the living influence of a professor a noble ambition to leave the world better than they found it;'' This is just what Chancellor Portch has done; he has helped make the world a better place. As a professor of English Literature Dr. Portch has enriched and inspired the lives of many individuals. He has awakened students' dormant interest in literature and the world around them. Together with the Georgia Board of Regents, the governing body of the University System, Dr. Portch has continued to promote education and has made tremendous improvements to the Georgia University System. Chancellor Portch, a native of Somerset, England, earned his Bachelor's Degree in English from the University of Reading in England, and a Master's and Ph.D in English from Penn State. Richmond University in England granted Dr. Portch an honorary doctorate, and he was named by Change, The Magazine of Higher Learning as one of its ``21 Most Influential Voices.'' Georgia Trend magazine has repeatedly identified Dr. Portch as one of the most powerful and influential citizens in our State, and the Atlanta Business Chronicle placed Dr. Portch on its list of the ``100 Most Influential Atlantans.'' Dr. Portch served on former U.S. Education Secretary Richard Riley's National Commission on the High School Senior Year. Stephen R. Portch has been a familiar and lauded name in the literary world and has become a very well recognized and respected name in Georgia. The University System and the Georgia Board of Regents are committed to improving higher education, and in 1994, under Dr. Portch's leadership, the Board adopted the program, ``Access to Academic Excellence for the New Millennium.'' In 1995, Chancellor Portch introduced another new policy directed at the need for reform in an effort to recognize that all sectors of education are vitally linked and that improvement in one sector requires a reciprocal effort in all other sectors. Dr. Portch implemented a new admissions policy, raising the bar for admissions in all 34 public institutions in Georgia. The work of Chancellor Portch has helped elevate the average SAT score in Georgia public institutions, increase member school salaries by over 35 percent, and has raised overall quality of education throughout the state. Henry Brooks Adams once said, ``A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.'' Although Dr. Portch is stepping down as Chancellor of the University System, I assure you that we will continue to feel his presence and benefit from his service well into the future.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the latest round of violence in the Middle East has dealt more pain and suffering to the people of that region, as well as another blow to the peace process. And though I remain firmly convinced that a final status agreement--which provides firm and enforceable security guarantees for Israel--remains not only the most desirable way out of the cycle of violence but indeed the only way to achieve lasting peace and security for all of the people in the region, the fundamental problem at present is whether or not Yasir Arafat is capable of ever becoming a reliable partner in the peace process. The answer, as unfortunate for future generations of Palestinians as for Israelis and for all of those who crave peace in the Middle East, would seem to be an emphatic NO, as indicated by his dismissal of the historic compromise offered by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak late last year. Unless and until Chairman Arafat, or a successor, can demonstrate the capacity to make peace as well as war, the outlook for the Middle East peace process will remain bleak. Thomas Friedman makes this case effectively and forcefully in a May 22 editorial in the New York Times, entitled ``It Only Gets Worse.'' I ask unanimous consent that the Friedman editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I appreciate the magnificent discussion on energy policy and environmental concerns led by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Illinois. I would like to change the subject for a moment as we approach Memorial Day weekend.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, on next Monday, May 28, and acting pursuant to a joint resolution actually approved by the Congress back in 1950, the President of the United States will issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a day of prayer for permanent peace in remembrance of all of those brave Americans who have died in our Nation's service. In many ways, this is part of our history and heritage, Memorial Day. In 1866, citizens from both the North and the South, after the Civil War, decided to form the first Memorial Day effort and place a flag on the grave sites of those brave Americans who had died in the Civil War. That is actually how Memorial Day got started. Whenever Memorial Day comes around, I am reminded of what may well have been the first, and is still one of the finest, memorials to fallen soldiers. Thousands of years ago: the Funeral Oration of the great Athenian leader Pericles, as recorded by the historian Thucydides, during the Peloponnesian War in the 5th century BC: For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulcher, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart. There are many thoughts as we approach Memorial Day weekend. In that spirit, I am pleased that both the House and the Senate have now passed legislation that will expedite a monument commemorating the sacrifice of those who served in World War II. My father served in World War II after the attack at Pearl Harbor. This weekend I will be visiting some of my fellow veterans, and we will see the premiere of the new movie ``Pearl Harbor.'' I introduced a resolution on Tuesday calling upon all Americans to especially dedicate Memorial Day of 2001 to those brave American men and women who have given their lives in service to their country especially since the end of the war in Viet Nam. As a Vietnam veteran, I appreciate the monument in this great city, sometimes called ``The Wall,'' the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. But no grand edifices or other public monuments commemorate the deeds of those who have died after the Vietnam war, but their service to their country was just as strong, their sacrifice just as great, their families' and communities' loss just as keen as that of their predecessors in the two world wars of the 20th century, Korea and Viet Nam. Honoring our fallen heroes is altogether fitting and proper, as President Lincoln said at Gettysburg. At this point, I thank my many colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, who joined me in cosponsoring this resolution: Senators McCain, Levin, Hutchison, Miller, Biden, Jeffords, Landrieu, Bennett, Murray, Johnson, Carnahan, Dayton, Conrad, Kennedy, Durbin, Hatch, Sessions, Clinton, and Allen. I also thank the entire Senate for adopting this measure by unanimous consent last evening. I am reminded of the line from one of Wellington's troops that: ``In time of war, and not before, God and the soldier men adore. And in time of peace, with all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted.'' Mr. President, I am honored to live in a country that forgets not God and does not slight the soldier. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, on next Monday, May 28, and acting pursuant to a joint resolution approved by the Congress back in 1950, the President of the United States will issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a day of prayer for permanent peace in remembrance of all of those brace Americans who have died in our Nation's service. That is how Memorial Day got started and is what this special day is supposed to be all about. Whenever Memorial Day comes around, I am reminded of what may well have been the first, and is still one of the finest, memorials to fallen soldiers, the Funeral Oration of the great Athenian leader Pericles, as recorded by the historian Thucydides, during the Peloponnesian War in the 5th Century BC. For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulcher, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart. In that spirit, today I have introduced a resolution calling upon all Americans to especially dedicate Memorial Day of 2001 to those brave American men and women who have given their lives in service to their country since the end of the war in Vietnam. No grand edifices or other public monuments commemorate their deeds, but their service to their country was just as strong, their sacrifice just as great, their families' and communities' loss just as keen as their predecessors in the two World Wars of the 20th Century, Korea and Vietnam. As the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, I have been heavily involved in trying to improve the quality of life for our servicemen and women through such steps as increasing pay and enhancing health and education benefits. It is my deeply held view that not only do we need to take such action to address some disturbing trends in armed forces recruitment and retention, but we owe these individuals nothing less in recognition of their service. Indeed, tomorrow, I will be re-introducing my legislation to update the Montgomery GI Bill, and to continue its relevance for the married, family-oriented Armed Forces we have today by making its education benefits transferrable to the spouse or children of the service member. The Senate has passed this measure twice, and with the continued leadership and support of Senators Warner and Levin, I am hopeful that this will be the year we provide this valuable recruiting and retention tool. As recent events have shown perhaps too clearly, Americans have still not fully come to grips with the reality of warfare, especially the Vietnam Conflict. Shortly after World War II--which of all wars in recent history is most widely regarded as necessary and unavoidable-- General Dwight D. Eisenhower said, ``I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, and its stupidity.'' Last year, to focus on the reality of war and on other questions related to the global role of the United States in the post-cold-war world, I had the great honor of being joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Roberts of Kansas, in conducting six dialogues on the Senate floor on these and related questions. At the end, we came up with seven general principles, three of which have particular relevance to this occasion: First, the President and the Congress need to: Find more and better ways to increase communications with the American people on the realities of our international interests and the costs of securing them; Find more and better ways to increase the exchange of experiences and ideas between the government and the military to avoid the broadening lack of military experience among the political elite; and Find more and better ways of ensuring that both the executive and legislative branches fulfill their constitutional responsibilities in national security policy, especially concerning military operations other than declared wars. Second, as the only global superpower, and in order to avoid stimulating the creation of a hostile coalition of other nations, the United States should, and can afford to, forego unilateralist actions, except where our vital interests are involved. Finally, in the post-cold-war world, the United States should adopt a policy of realistic restraint with respect to use of U.S. military forces in situations other than those involving the defense of vital national interests. In all other situations, we must: Insist on well-defined political objectives; Determine whether non-military means will be effective, and if so, try them prior to any recourse to military force; Ascertain whether military means can achieve the political objectives; Determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs--political, financial, military--and that we are prepared to bear those costs; Determine the ``last step'' we are prepared to take if necessary to achieve the objectives; Insist that we have a clear, concise exit strategy, including sufficient consideration of the subsequent roles of the United States, regional parties, international organizations and other entities in securing the long-term success of the mission; and Insist on congressional approval of all deployments other than those involving responses to emergency situations. Since I came to the Senate, I have been deeply disturbed by the tenor of many of the debates which have occurred in the Congress and with both the Clinton and Bush administrations on a host of important national security issues. Last session, the Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty after little meaningful debate and no Senate hearings. This was one of the most consequential treaties of the decade, and it was sadly reduced to sound-bite politics and partisan rancor. In addition to the CTBT, the Senate has made monumental decisions on our policies in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf, and the future of NATO and the United Nations, all without a comprehensive set for American goals and policies. And though it is too early to arrive at a firm judgment on this point, and though there is no individual in the national security arena that I have more confidence in or respect more than Secretary of State Colin Powell, I am dismayed by the apparent surge of unilateralism, without meaningful consultation with Congress, displayed by the new administration on subjects ranging from Korean security, to defense of Taiwan, to National Missile Defense, to the Kyoto Accords, to the OECD efforts to fight tax evasion, all once again occurring without clearly articulated goals and policies. In my opinion, we--all of us on both ends Pennsylvania Avenue--have to do better. Simply put, I do not believe we can afford to continue on a path of partisanship and division of purpose without serious damage to our national interests. I spoke earlier about some key quality of life concerns of today's military, especially education and the GI bill. However, as important as these other factors are, the ultimate quality of life issue for our servicemen and women centers in policy decisions made by national security decision-makers here in Washington relating to the deployment of our forces abroad. It is these deployments which separate families, disrupt lives, and in those cases which involve hostilities, endanger the service member's life itself. This is not to say that I believe our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are not fully prepared to do whatever we ask of them. Quite the contrary, they most assuredly are, as my visits to the front lines in the Balkans and Korea have clearly demonstrated to me. But we on this end owe them nothing less than a full and thorough consideration each and every time we put them into harm's way. There are 13 military installations in Georgia, and I visit the troops there whenever I can. When I go to these bases, I see weary and beleaguered families who are doing their best to make it through the weeks and months without their husbands or wives. This is a heavy toll for our military personnel. It is a price they are ready to pay, but one I want the Senate to understand and appreciate as we continue in our commitment of troops abroad. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided. Article I, section 8, gives Congress the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces, while Article II, Section 2 declares the President to be Commander in Chief. With this division of authority there has also been constant disagreement, not only between the executive and legislative branches, but between individual Members of Congress as well, as we have seen in our debates on authorizing the intervention in Kosovo and on the Byrd-Warner amendment concerning funding of that operation. Judging by the text of the Constitution and the debate that went into its drafting, however, Members of Congress have a right, and I would say an obligation, to play a key role in the making of war and in determination of the proper use of our armed forces. It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President full authority to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces. During the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, however, this country found itself involved for many years in undeclared wars. Many Members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or in situations that might lead to war. On November 7, 1973, the Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over the veto of President Nixon. The War Powers Resolution has two key requirements. Section 4(a) requires the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours whenever troops are introduced into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. Section 5(b) then stipulates that if U.S. armed forces have been sent into situations of actual or imminent hostilities the President must remove the troops within sixty days--ninety days if he requests a delay--unless Congress declares war or otherwise authorizes the use of force. The resolution also provides that Congress can compel the President to withdraw the troops at any time by passing a joint resolution. It is important to note, however, that since the adoption of the War Powers Resolution, every President has taken the position that it is an unconstitutional infringement by the Congress on the President's authority as Commander in Chief, and the courts have not directly addressed this vital question. I would submit that although the Congress tried to reassert itself after the Vietnam war with the enactment of the War Powers Resolution, we have continued to be a timid, sometimes nonexistent player in the government that Clausewitz emphasized must play a vital role in creating the balance necessary for an effective war-making effort. Since I came to the Senate, it has been my observation that the current system by which the executive and legislative branches discharge their respective constitutional duties in committing American service men and women into harm's way has become inadequate. Congress continually lacks sufficient and timely information as to policy objectives and means prior to the commitment of American forces. And then, in my opinion, Congress largely abdicates its responsibilities for declaring war and controlling the purse with inadequate and ill-timed consideration of operations. Reasons for the failure of the War Powers Resolution and for our current difficulties abound. I believe that part of our problem stems from the disputed and uncertain role of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in governing the conduct of the President, as well as the Congress, with respect to the introduction of American forces into hostile situations. Once again, these disputes continue to resound between both the branches and individual members of the legislative branch. In all honesty, however, the realities of our government highlight the fact that while the legislature can urge, request, and demand that the President consult with members of Congress on decisions to use force, it cannot compel him to follow any of the advice that it might care to offer. With that in mind, as an institution, Congress can do no more than give or withhold its permission to use force. And while this ``use it or lose it'' quality of congressional authorizations may make many members leery about acting on a crisis too soon, delays will virtually guarantee, as Senator Arthur Vandenberg once stated, that crises will ``never reach Congress until they have developed to a point where congressional discretion is pathetically restricted.'' I believe that in view of our obligations to the national interest, to the Constitution and to the young American servicemen and women whose very lives are at stake whether it be a ``contingency operation'' or a full-scale war, neither the executive or legislative branches should be satisfied with the current situation which results in uncertain signals to the American people, to overseas friends and foes, and to our armed forces personnel. In making our decision to authorize military action, Congress should work to elicit all advice and information from the President on down to the battlefield commanders, make a sound decision based on this information, and then leave battlefield management in the hands of those competent and qualified to carry out such a task. In response to such concerns, last year I introduced S. 2851, a bill which seeks to find a more workable system for Presidential and congressional interaction on the commitment of American forces into combat situations. Today, I am re-introducing this measure. It is a bill derived from the current system for Presidential approval and reporting to Congress on covert operations, a system which was established by Public Law 102-88 in 1991. By most accounts, this system has been accepted by both branches and has worked very well with respect to covert operations, producing both better decision-making in the executive branch and improved congressional input and oversight with respect to these operations. Since overt troop deployments into hostilities almost certainly constitute a greater risk to American interests and to American lives, I believe such a system represents the very least we should do to improve the approval and oversight process with respect to overt military operations. It does not bind or limit the executive branch or military, but offers greater reassurance to those serving us in the Armed Forces that their service in harm's way will have the full backing of not only the President, but the Congress and the American public as well. Honoring our fallen heroes on Memorial Day is altogether fitting and proper, as President Lincoln said at Gettysburg. However, it is not sufficient. We must also honor them by our words and deeds while they still wear their Nation's military uniforms. I ask unanimous consent that the list of all American service men and women killed in hostile action since the end of the Vietnam war be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before you today to introduce legislation that addresses the educational needs of our men and women in uniform and their families. I appreciate the support of my colleagues who have supported my provisions to enhance the GI bill, Senators Levin, Kennedy, Bingaman, Reed, Dayton, Landrieu, and Carnahan. I also like to recognize the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, who himself went to school on the GI bill. I want to thank him for his cosponsorship, support and encouragement in improving the GI bill for military personnel and their families. I call this measure the HOPE, Help Our Professionals Educationally, Act. In 1999, Time magazine named the American GI as the Person of the Century. That alone is a statement about the value of our military personnel. They are recognized around the world for their dedication and commitment to fight for our country and for peace in the world. This past century has been filled with strife and conflict. During this period, the American GI has fought in the trenches during the first World War, the beaches at Normandy, in the jungles of Vietnam, in the deserts of the Persian Gulf, and most recently in the Balkans and Kosovo. The face of our military and the people who fight our wars has changed. The traditional image of the single, mostly male, drafted, and disposable soldier is gone. Today we are fielding the force for the 21st century. This new force is a volunteer force, filled with men and women who are highly skilled, married, and definitely not disposable. Gone are the days when quality of life for a GI included a beer in the barracks and a three-day pass. Now, we know we have to recruit a soldier and retain a family. We have won the cold war, this victory has changed the world and our military. The new world order has given us a new world disorder. The United States is responding to crises around the globe, whether it be strategic bombing or humanitarian assistance, and our military is the our most effective response. In order to meet these challenges, we are retooling our forces to be lighter, leaner and meaner. This is a positive move. Along with this lighter force, our military professionals must be highly educated and highly trained. Our Nation has recently experienced the longest running peacetime economic growth in history. This economic expansion has been a boom for our Nation. However, there is a negative impact of this growing economy. With the enticement of quick prosperity in the civilian sector it is more difficult than ever to recruit and retain our highly skilled force. The services have increased their budgets for advertising and refocused attention on recruiting. However, we still face problems in retaining some of the key skills that our service men and women possess--skills that our new economy is demanding. The highly trained technical skilled personnel are leaving the military to seek a better quality of life for their family outside of our military. As I have heard so often, the decision to stay in the military is made at the dinner table. It was the wisdom of a young enlisted soldier at Schofield Barracks who noted, when the choice is `stay in the military or stay married,' the soldier opts to stay married. In my travels across Georgia, around the country, and abroad, I have found that our men and women in uniform want to do what is right, for themselves and the country. However, our benefits systems have not kept pace and forcing our personnel to choose between family and service. In talking with our military personnel, we know that money alone is not enough. Education is the number one reason service members come into the military and the number one reason its members are leaving. In recent years the Senate began to address this issue by supporting improved education benefits for military members and their families. My amendment will improve and enhance the current educational benefits and create the GI bill for the 21st century and beyond. One of the most important provisions of my amendment would give the Service Secretaries the authority to authorize a service member to transfer half of his or her basic MGIB benefits to family members. Many service members tell us that they really want to stay in the service, but do not feel that they can stay and provide an education for their families. This will give them, in affect, an educational savings account, so that they can stay in the service and still provide an education for their spouses and children. This will give the Secretaries a very powerful retention tool. The measure would allow the Services to authorize transfer of unused basic GI bill benefits of a servicemember who has been in the military for 6 years. The spouse would be able to use these benefits immediately upon authorization by the services. This provision is designed to assist the spouse of a military member in pursuing their own education or assist them in gaining the necessary skills to prepare for an occupation in the new economy. The measure also includes language that permits a servicemember with ten years of service to transfer GI bill benefits to a dependent child. This provision is designed to help a servicemember with the expected costs of a child's education. It could be used to help with secondary expenses as well as with college costs. I believe that the Services can use this much like a reenlistment bonus to keep valuable service members in the service. It can be creatively combined with reenlistment bonuses to create a very powerful and cost effective incentive for highly skilled military personnel to stay in the Service. In talking with service members upon their departure from the military, we have found that the family plays a crucial role in the decision of a member to continue their military career. Reality dictates that we must address the needs of the family in order to retain our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Another enhancement to the current MGIB would extend the period in which the members of Reserve components can use this benefit. Currently they lose this benefit when they leave the service or after 10 years of service. They have no benefit when they leave service. My amendment will permit them to use the benefit up to 5 years after their separation. This will encourage them to stay in the Reserves for a full career. I believe that this is a necessary next step for improving our education benefits for our military members and their families. We must offer them credible choices. If we offer them choices, and treat the members and their families properly, we will show them our respect for their service and dedication. Maybe then we can turn around our current retention statistics. This GI bill is an important retention tool for the services. I believe that education begets education. We must continue to focus our resources in retaining our personnel based their needs.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before you today to introduce legislation that addresses the educational needs of our men and women in uniform and their families. I appreciate the support of my colleagues who have supported my provisions to enhance the GI bill, Senators Levin, Kennedy, Bingaman, Reed, Dayton, Landrieu, and Carnahan. I also like to recognize the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, who himself went to school on the GI bill. I want to thank him for his cosponsorship, support and encouragement in improving the GI bill for military personnel and their families. I call this measure the HOPE, Help Our Professionals Educationally, Act. In 1999, Time magazine named the American GI as the Person of the Century. That alone is a statement about the value of our military personnel. They are recognized around the world for their dedication and commitment to fight for our country and for peace in the world. This past century has been filled with strife and conflict. During this period, the American GI has fought in the trenches during the first World War, the beaches at Normandy, in the jungles of Vietnam, in the deserts of the Persian Gulf, and most recently in the Balkans and Kosovo. The face of our military and the people who fight our wars has changed. The traditional image of the single, mostly male, drafted, and disposable soldier is gone. Today we are fielding the force for the 21st century. This new force is a volunteer force, filled with men and women who are highly skilled, married, and definitely not disposable. Gone are the days when quality of life for a GI included a beer in the barracks and a three-day pass. Now, we know we have to recruit a soldier and retain a family. We have won the cold war, this victory has changed the world and our military. The new world order has given us a new world disorder. The United States is responding to crises around the globe, whether it be strategic bombing or humanitarian assistance, and our military is the our most effective response. In order to meet these challenges, we are retooling our forces to be lighter, leaner and meaner. This is a positive move. Along with this lighter force, our military professionals must be highly educated and highly trained. Our Nation has recently experienced the longest running peacetime economic growth in history. This economic expansion has been a boom for our Nation. However, there is a negative impact of this growing economy. With the enticement of quick prosperity in the civilian sector it is more difficult than ever to recruit and retain our highly skilled force. The services have increased their budgets for advertising and refocused attention on recruiting. However, we still face problems in retaining some of the key skills that our service men and women possess--skills that our new economy is demanding. The highly trained technical skilled personnel are leaving the military to seek a better quality of life for their family outside of our military. As I have heard so often, the decision to stay in the military is made at the dinner table. It was the wisdom of a young enlisted soldier at Schofield Barracks who noted, when the choice is `stay in the military or stay married,' the soldier opts to stay married. In my travels across Georgia, around the country, and abroad, I have found that our men and women in uniform want to do what is right, for themselves and the country. However, our benefits systems have not kept pace and forcing our personnel to choose between family and service. In talking with our military personnel, we know that money alone is not enough. Education is the number one reason service members come into the military and the number one reason its members are leaving. In recent years the Senate began to address this issue by supporting improved education benefits for military members and their families. My amendment will improve and enhance the current educational benefits and create the GI bill for the 21st century and beyond. One of the most important provisions of my amendment would give the Service Secretaries the authority to authorize a service member to transfer half of his or her basic MGIB benefits to family members. Many service members tell us that they really want to stay in the service, but do not feel that they can stay and provide an education for their families. This will give them, in affect, an educational savings account, so that they can stay in the service and still provide an education for their spouses and children. This will give the Secretaries a very powerful retention tool. The measure would allow the Services to authorize transfer of unused basic GI bill benefits of a servicemember who has been in the military for 6 years. The spouse would be able to use these benefits immediately upon authorization by the services. This provision is designed to assist the spouse of a military member in pursuing their own education or assist them in gaining the necessary skills to prepare for an occupation in the new economy. The measure also includes language that permits a servicemember with ten years of service to transfer GI bill benefits to a dependent child. This provision is designed to help a servicemember with the expected costs of a child's education. It could be used to help with secondary expenses as well as with college costs. I believe that the Services can use this much like a reenlistment bonus to keep valuable service members in the service. It can be creatively combined with reenlistment bonuses to create a very powerful and cost effective incentive for highly skilled military personnel to stay in the Service. In talking with service members upon their departure from the military, we have found that the family plays a crucial role in the decision of a member to continue their military career. Reality dictates that we must address the needs of the family in order to retain our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Another enhancement to the current MGIB would extend the period in which the members of Reserve components can use this benefit. Currently they lose this benefit when they leave the service or after 10 years of service. They have no benefit when they leave service. My amendment will permit them to use the benefit up to 5 years after their separation. This will encourage them to stay in the Reserves for a full career. I believe that this is a necessary next step for improving our education benefits for our military members and their families. We must offer them credible choices. If we offer them choices, and treat the members and their families properly, we will show them our respect for their service and dedication. Maybe then we can turn around our current retention statistics. This GI bill is an important retention tool for the services. I believe that education begets education. We must continue to focus our resources in retaining our personnel based their needs.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendments No. 377 and No. 429.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 430 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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