T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on the Tuesday before the recess, I voted against authorizing the air war in Yugoslavia. I did so because it seemed to me that the goal was a goal not worthy enough, not grave enough to begin what amounts to a war, even though under the President's leadership it has only been half a war. Our goals were to be permitted to send young American men and women into the midst of a 600-year-old civil strife in order to enforce an agreement that neither side wished. I also voted against that proposition, because it did not seem to me that the means were sufficient to gain even this questionable end. I voted against it, because it did not seem to me that the administration began to foresee the terrible consequences that would ensue if, and as President Milosevic has, accelerated his expulsion of Kosovars from their own homeland, or the refugee problem with which we would be faced. In other words, there were no contingency plans. At this point, almost 3 weeks later, all of those negative consequences have transpired. We are in the midst of an air war. The air war has not been successful. It is being fought apparently by a President who believes that one can have a war not only without casualties on our side but with few, if any, casualties on the other side. You should not begin a war for reasons that do not justify the use of force, and only the gravest national security reasons do so. And, if you get in one, you should not go into it halfheartedly or without a desire actually to win. Mr. President, what are the potential outcomes? If we are overwhelmingly successful, we may get sometime in the next week, or the next month, or the next year, exactly the privileges that we sought in the first place--the right to send our soldiers into a now devastated countryside in order to require people to live together who do not wish to live together, and perhaps to enforce an autonomy, which I have already said both sides oppose, or, alternatively, maybe we can get the Russians or someone else to help us reach a negotiated solution in which the Kosovars will be worse off than they were before, and in which the barbarism of Mr. Milosevic will at least have been partially rewarded. Or we may end up sending our own troops into that devilishly difficult part of the Balkans, whether from the south, or the west and the north--and we do not yet know--with an escalation of what will still be a halfhearted war with secondary goals, goals that will not include the removal of the present government in Belgrade and the establishment of a real peace. Or, I suppose it is possible--just remotely possible--that the President and NATO may decide that we want a full-scale war against Serbia until that regime is, in fact, destroyed. None of these is an appetizing outcome, by any stretch of the imagination. We are left with these alternatives only, I think, because this administration did not seriously consider what it was doing before it began doing it, or seriously consider both the cost and expense in men, material, money, and prestige of the United States for such a dubious goal. I wish that I had a firm, accurate, and a favorable outcome to look forward to. I wish I could come up with the appropriate means to reach such a goal. However, it seems to me that if we have learned anything in the last several years from other parts of the world, and in the last several weeks from this part of the world, it is that the armed services of the United States should only be used for a vitally important interest of the United States. If they are then to be used, they should be used with a clear and worthy goal, and with a degree of ruthlessness that assures we attain that goal. At this point we have done nothing but worsen our relationships with the Russians and with the neighbors of Kosovo itself at great expense to ourselves and at a horrendous expense to the victims in Kosovo who have been killed, driven from their homes, or driven out of their homeland entirely, without any significant prospect of returning at any time soon. We do need a serious national debate on the subject and we need a President of the United States who far more clearly articulates our goals and how we are to attain those goals. We have not had that kind of presentation. For that reason, support for the United States efforts is extremely shallow and is almost certain to disappear once the casualty lists begin to be published in this country. It is time for candor. It is time for clarity. It is time for a clear statement of our goals. In fact, we are well past time for both of those and we have not received them. I think we are faced with an extremely serious challenge with no clear way to that proper and appropriate goal.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that full floor privileges be granted to the following staff persons for the duration of the budget resolution debate: Mark Prater, Brig Pari, Tom Roesser, Bill Sweetnam, Jeff Kupfer, Ed McClellan, Alec Vachon, Kathy Means, DeDe Spitznagel, Monica Tencate, Marc Hahn, and Jennifer Baxendell.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe it is now in order to consider an amendment previously offered by the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is almost 35 years since Congress passed the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That marked a fundamental change in the relationship between the Federal Government and local school districts in the management of education policy. That act in 1965 was 30 pages long. Today the Elementary and Secondary Education Act takes up 400 pages of our statute books. The regulations passed pursuant to that act and other education acts literally occupy thousands of pages of the Federal regulations. For a third of a century, Washington, DC--often Congress but most particularly the people who work in the Department of Education--has been dominated by the thought that centralized decisions and centralized control exercised here in Washington, DC, was the best way to solve problems relating to the education of our young people. Mr. President, 35 years of that experience has been demonstrably shown not to work. Test scores have not improved anything like the degree that centralized control has been imposed from Washington, DC. In addition, of course, the Congress has not really kept its promise with respect to education. Only 7 or 8 percent of the money that our schools spend comes from appropriations from the Congress of the United States, but a good 50 percent of the rules and regulations do. A failed experiment should be abandoned, and we should try something else. To focus on a particular incident in my own State of Washington, a team of researchers at the University of Washington found that it wasn't more money that improved test scores in 26 elementary schools in Seattle. It was better people and more freedom. The schools that showed the greatest improvements had principals who motivated teachers to work together, parents who cared and were involved, and the flexibility to do things differently among these various schools. Those principals had more control over the moneys that their schools spent, and it allowed them to custom build programs tailored to their particular school's needs. The idea has caught on in my State to the point at which our Governor has proposed the creation of ``opportunity schools,'' school districts that would choose to send their funding directly to the schoolhouse and thus free themselves from many regulations at the State level. This amendment, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, suggests that we here in Washington, DC, abandon the failed pattern of more and more Federal rules and regulations and repose more trust in parents, in teachers, in principals, and in elected school board members all across the United States. My friend, the Senator from Missouri, dramatically illustrated how much more money goes into administration when you deal with Federal dollars than is the case with State dollars. He talked about the thousands of school employees throughout the United States who must occupy their time filling out Federal forms. We believe that we should provide more in the way of dollars to our students across the United States, and in fact, this budget resolution is far more generous than the budget proposed by the President of the United States, but we believe that we should impose far fewer controls with those dollars and impose more trust in those people who spend their full time caring about the education of our children. In the Presiding Officer's State of Ohio and in mine, Washington State, and the State represented by the Senator from Missouri, the electors who were wise enough to elect us to this position are certainly wise enough to elect school board members who care passionately about the kids in their school districts and about the success of their education. Later in this year, we will deal with the renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Then our voices and our votes will carry even more weight because we will be voting on real policies. In this budget resolution, however, we are making a promise of more resources for our schools and for our schoolchildren, and we should accompany that promise with the promise to trust our parents and teachers and principals and school board members to spend that money wisely. The Senator from Missouri was very complimentary with respect to my efforts in this regard. Twice in the last 2 years the Senate has voted to move in exactly that direction. We have not yet been successful. We have not gotten this all the way through Congress and past the President of the United States. In fact, the President's budget underfunds the programs that we have already established without removing the regulations that accompany those programs and establishes a whole new series of categorical programs in which we tell the schools what their priorities ought to be and how they ought to spend their money. What does that do in the real world? The Seattle Times recently reported remarks by the superintendent of the Snoqualmie Valley School District, Rich McCullough, who said: It's a little discouraging, but I think there is a lack of trust implicit in almost all Federal funding programs we deal with. They don't trust us to spend the money right, so they force us to do whatever they think is best. It's not always best for every school. I think that Mr. McCullough knows more about what the students in the Snoqualmie Valley School District in Washington need and how the money he has should be spent on their education than does any Member of Congress, myself included, or any bureaucrat in the Department of Education in downtown Washington, DC. Dwayne Slate, the executive director of the Washington State School Board, made a similar point in a recent letter that he wrote to me: At some point elected officials in Washington, DC simply must trust local education officials to do what's in the best interests of kids in their communities. We all have their best interests at heart. Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution will follow that advice and will allow these superintendents, these teachers, these parents, more in the way of decisionmaking authority as to the kids to whom they are devoting their lives and their careers. I have every hope that the Senate will accept this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Yes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina does have the virtue of consistency. He was one of three members of his party the night before last who voted against authorizing a war in Yugoslavia. And this budget resolution, among other things, does not raise the caps for national defense--a point that most Members feel is necessary after many years of shortchanging it. It does not permit any tax relief, it does not permit any change in priorities for education, as does the budget that is before us at the present time. In fact, it is based on the proposition that the country is unchanged from where it was when we voted on the budget a year ago. I believe the budget that we have here today is preferable to the one we had a year ago, partly because for the last year we have been very, very successful. But, clearly, we are going to need the flexibility to pay for something that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and the Presiding Officer and I voted against the other night which is going to have to be paid for at this point. And the only way to do so is to show the flexibility that this budget resolution does. So I oppose the amendment of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Carolina be given 5 minutes to speak on another subject.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the provision in this budget resolution that the distinguished Senator from Illinois seeks to strike is there for one quite simple reason, and that is that while we have created a discipline for ourselves through spending caps, and while within those spending caps we are able to determine appropriations on the basis of a simple majority vote, Members have discovered that all they need to do is declare an ``emergency,'' whether one exists or not, and they are free from the budget caps, from the very spending discipline that has been central to our economic success over the course of the last 3 or 4 years. As a consequence, the requirement that in order to declare an emergency, in order to spend money that is outside of the caps, in order, essentially, in this fiscal year to invade the Social Security surplus will require a modest supermajority. Now, under those circumstances, Mr. President, that seems to me to be eminently reasonable. If there is a true emergency, won't 60 votes be available? The Senator from Illinois refers to our members of our Armed Forces in Yugoslavia. Now, Mr. President, it beggars belief to feel that 60 votes will not be able to support our Armed Forces when they are engaged in conflict. The same thing is going to be true with respect to any other emergency. But to allow spending limitations that a majority of the Senate has put into effect, spending limitations that are so important to our success, to be frivolously overridden and ignored simply by a 51-vote majority is not responsible budgeting. This provision is there because of our experience in the last couple of years with the declaration of emergencies for emergency spending purposes. Mr. President, I am sure that, along with the chairman of the Budget Committee, we feel the provision in this budget resolution is extremely sound, highly responsible, and should be retained.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we have a magnificent contrast in approaches to the budget here this year, as we often have in the past. The budget resolution that the Senator from New Mexico has presented to us is, in fact, a true balanced budget. The budget resolution presented to us by the President of the United States, in fact, spends more than 20 percent of the Social Security surpluses over the next 5 years on programs that are totally unrelated to Social Security. The President has promised that all of the Social Security surpluses will go into the Social Security system. In fact, his budget does not keep that promise. The proposal before us from the Budget Committee and from the Senator from New Mexico does keep that promise and calls for the creation of a lockbox that prevents the spending of Social Security money for other purposes and for other programs. Secondly, we do face a crisis in Medicare. The Medicare Part A hospital insurance trust fund will, in fact, go bankrupt in the year 2008, postponed by actions taken by the Congress just a year ago. We have had as our creation a bipartisan Medicare Commission work on long-term solutions for Medicare over the course of the last year. A majority of the members of that Commission, but not a sufficient number, have voted for true reform in Medicare. That true reform has been blocked by the President who instead proposes simply a paper transfer, which will literally paper over the serious problems that Medicare faces until they are far more serious than they are today and provide a burden for our children and grandchildren that in all probability cannot be met. The current issue of Newsweek puts this dilemma in graphic terms, stating: Can the faltering Medicare system be saved? Probably not this year. The reason is politics. Democrats privately admit they do not want a Medicare deal because it would deprive them of a powerful campaign issue. What many Democrats want is a good issue, not good policy, and good policy is what is needed. Good policy will be available. The politics are reflected in the amendment on which we will vote shortly from the Senator from Illinois that simply papers over the problem itself. Third, tax relief. This budget resolution, sponsored by the senior Senator from New Mexico, calls for real tax relief for the American people to be taken out of the non-Social Security surplus over the course of the next decade. It gives that offer because it presumes the logical conclusion that if we have a surplus over and above a Social Security surplus, it means that the people of the United States have been overtaxed and that that money should stay in their pockets to be used in the way in which they wish. The President's proposal, which actually increases taxes over the next decade by almost $100 billion, feels that the worst thing we can possibly do is allow Americans to spend more of their own money. Amendment after amendment, which we will be facing today and tomorrow and Friday, attempt not only to prevent tax relief from taking place this year, but prevent tax relief from taking place for 10 years, for 12 years and, in the case of one amendment we expect, for 75 years. The worst thing that could possibly happen, according to many on the other side, would be to provide tax relief for the American people out of a genuine non-Social Security surplus. How do they do that? Partly by amendments such as the Durbin amendment, but primarily through the 70 or more new spending programs that the President has included in his budget, new spending programs that will spend money not only from the non-Social Security surplus but to the tune of more than $100 billion out of the Social Security surplus itself. Mr. President, that is the improper way in which to go. We should deal with the Medicare crisis in a straightforward Medicare reform--a difficult debate but a solution that is actually possible, as indicated by one of the leading Members of the Democratic Party in this body, Senator Breaux, in his chairmanship of that Medicare Reform Commission--through real Social Security reform. We must put the entire Social Security surplus aside in a lockbox so that it cannot be spent on all of the new and increased programs advocated by the President's budget. As a consequence, the Abraham amendment is a vitally important amendment and a key to the debate on this budget resolution. To summarize, the budget resolution before us proposed by the Budget Committee, under the leadership of my friend, the senior Senator from New Mexico, the chairman, truly protects Social Security, truly balances the budget of the United States, and pays down the debt, truly anticipates Medicare reform that is substantive and not inform only, truly limits spending on other programs and truly returns the surpluses that are appropriately returned to the people of the United States to the taxpayers who now are overtaxed in a good economy to pay for them. Mr. President, the Abraham amendment should be supported, the Durbin amendment should be rejected, and we should go forth and adopt this budget resolution, generally speaking, in the form in which it finds itself at the present time. It is only the first step. Many difficult steps remain. But if we do so, if, in fact, we limit our insatiable appetite for spending, I believe we can promise the American people a strong and growing economy for a considerable period of time in the future.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senate is about to be presented with a resolution authorizing the President of the United States to intervene in a civil war in the Republic of Yugoslavia--one of many civil wars taking place around the world, in which one dominant group is repressing, killing, and displacing a minority group within their borders. Mr. President, the cause of this civil war is Mr. Milosevic, the dictator of Serbia and of the Yugoslav Republic. But nowhere in any of the administration's stated goals justifying this intervention is included the removal of Mr. Milosevic from his position of power. The goal is neither a stated nor an unstated goal. Therefore, we are about to engage in a civil war in which we do not go after the cause of the war. Just a few years ago, the last occasion on which we debated authorizing the President of the United States to engage the Armed Forces of our country far from the borders of the United States, in Iraq, after its invasion of Kuwait, we made the determination, and after successfully removing the symptom, the invasion and occupation of Kuwait, that we would not remove the cause--Saddam Hussein. As a consequence of not going after the cause, we have been involved in either a cold or a hot war with Iraq ever since, at great cost in money to the United States, and at a considerable cost to our support for that cause around the world. Mr. President, once burned, twice shot. Why, having learned during the war and its aftermath with Iraq that if you are going to use your Armed Forces, you ought to go after the cause, are we failing to do that in this case? Here, as far as I can determine from what I hear from the administration, our goals are as follows: We hope by the use of our Armed Forces to be permitted to send ground troops to Kosovo for a period of a minimum of 3 years to enforce a peace that neither side in this civil war wishes. We will be there to enforce an autonomy for the Kosovars. That is not their ultimate goal, that ultimate goal being independence. Is there the slightest chance that this will be a peaceable, casualty-free, 3-year occupation, at the end of which, having settled all of the problems of the Kosovars, we will come home? That certainly has not happened in Bosnia, even after all sides were totally exhausted by a civil war. Those goals of being allowed to occupy Kosovo and enforce an autonomy that neither side wants are not goals justifying or warranting our American military involvement. They are not goals involving the vital security interests of the United States. In fact, if simply stopping a slaughter is a primary goal--and I believe that it is--there are far greater slaughters taking place in Sudan, in several countries in Africa, and in a number of other places around the world in which there has been no request on the part of the administration to intervene. No, Mr. President. This is an intervention that is highly unwise, highly unlikely to be successful, and not worth the investment of our money and lives, if it is successful, with the intermediate goals that the administration uses to justify it. Mr. President, this Senate Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, this Senate first step into getting into a situation, the consequences of which we simply cannot envisage, and getting into it perhaps with less justification than there was in Vietnam in the midst of a cold war, getting into it to involve ourselves in a civil war that for all practical purposes has already gone on for 600 years, is not--I repeat, not--going to be settled by the United States of America in its intervention in a period of 2 or 3 years antiseptically cost free and casualty free. With my colleague from Oklahoma, I believe it more than appropriate that we should be debating this resolution here tonight. I believe it more than appropriate that we should vote yes or no on whether or not we agree with the President. That President has finally grudgingly sent us a letter not asking for our authorization but for our support. This is an authorization. It is an authorization that the Senate of the United States, in its wisdom, should reject out of hand. This is not a matter for the use of the Armed Forces of the United States. This is not a matter demanded by our national security. This is not a way that we would even settle the civil war taking place in Kosovo today. I hope my colleagues will vote with me and will reject this resolution of authorization. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, technology is the driving force behind the U.S. economy, and investment in research and development is the driving force behind technology. Without research and development, the Internet would not exist. Without research and development, bone marrow transplants would not be saving lives. Without research and development, global satellite networks would not bring instantaneous news from around the world into our living rooms. Quite simply, Mr. President, research and development encourages economic growth, creates jobs, and gives U.S. businesses an edge in today's competitive world marketplace. That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of legislation introduced today by my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus. This bill to make permanent the R&D tax credit will enable private businesses large and small to spend more of their resources on research and development. I have long been a strong supporter of the R&D tax credit and am delighted to join the effort to make it permanent. As my colleagues know, the credit was first created in 1981 as a way to encourage the development of new and innovative commercial technologies and has been renewed nine times. Unfortunately, Congress has never made the tax credit permanent. Such a year to year uncertainty prohibits companies from making long-term R&D plans that take the tax credit into account. This lack of permanency leads inevitably to a lower rate of investment in research and development. That, Mr. President, slows U.S. innovation and economic growth, results in fewer jobs for Americans, and places U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies. Making the R&D tax credit permanent is one of the easiest and most effective measures we can take to boost the effectiveness and efficiency of the high tech industry. The credit spurs economic growth. A recent study by Coopers & Lybrand found that every dollar of tax benefit generates as much as one dollar of additional private R and D spending in the short term and as much as two dollars of long-term R and D investment. The study concluded that over the 1998-2010 period, U.S. companies would spend 41 billion dollars more on research and development if the credit were made permanent. Further, innovations from that additional R and D investment would add more than 13 billion dollars a year to the economy's productive capacity by the year 2010. The credit creates jobs. Because it is targeted primarily at salaries and wages of employees directly involved in research and experimentation, it is an incentive for companies to create and sustain high-skilled, high-paying jobs. The credit helps U.S. companies compete. The R and D Tax Credit Coalition, a group of over 1000 American companies and 52 trade associations dedicated to making the tax credit permanent, argues that the credit is an essential tool for U.S. companies competing against foreign firms. Foreign companies often benefit from research and development subsidies from their governments. Such incentives lower the cost of R and D in foreign countries and give companies receiving the subsidies a competitive advantage over U.S. firms. According to the Coalition, U.S. corporate research and development spending lags far behind Germany and Japan as a percentage of sales. Making the tax credit permanent will go a long way to eliminate this disadvantage. In my home state of Washington, hundreds of businesses, both large and small, use the R&D tax credit to develop new and innovative products and create jobs. In fact, Washington is making a name for itself as the home of a large and growing high technology industry. Last year, the American Electronics Association named Washington a ``cyber state'' and found that 45 out of every 1,000 private sector workers in the state are employed by high-tech firms. According to AEA, Washington leads the nation in high-tech wages with an average high- tech salary in the state of over 66 thousand dollars a year. Not surprisingly then, we in Washington view the R&D credit as a valued complement to our state's economic development policies. In fact, the Coopers and Lybrand study estimates that the credit will increase Washington's Gross State Product by $1.4 billion and the state's payroll by $1.6 billion over the next decade. The Hatch-Baucus legislation to make the R&D tax credit permanent will benefit Washington and every other state in the nation. It is a smart and effective piece of legislation. It spurs economic growth, creates jobs, and helps U.S. companies compete more effectively. I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting innovation in America.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, technology is the driving force behind the U.S. economy, and investment in research and development is the driving force behind technology. Without research and development, the Internet would not exist. Without research and development, bone marrow transplants would not be saving lives. Without research and development, global satellite networks would not bring instantaneous news from around the world into our living rooms. Quite simply, Mr. President, research and development encourages economic growth, creates jobs, and gives U.S. businesses an edge in today's competitive world marketplace. That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of legislation introduced today by my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus. This bill to make permanent the R&D tax credit will enable private businesses large and small to spend more of their resources on research and development. I have long been a strong supporter of the R&D tax credit and am delighted to join the effort to make it permanent. As my colleagues know, the credit was first created in 1981 as a way to encourage the development of new and innovative commercial technologies and has been renewed nine times. Unfortunately, Congress has never made the tax credit permanent. Such a year to year uncertainty prohibits companies from making long-term R&D plans that take the tax credit into account. This lack of permanency leads inevitably to a lower rate of investment in research and development. That, Mr. President, slows U.S. innovation and economic growth, results in fewer jobs for Americans, and places U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies. Making the R&D tax credit permanent is one of the easiest and most effective measures we can take to boost the effectiveness and efficiency of the high tech industry. The credit spurs economic growth. A recent study by Coopers & Lybrand found that every dollar of tax benefit generates as much as one dollar of additional private R and D spending in the short term and as much as two dollars of long-term R and D investment. The study concluded that over the 1998-2010 period, U.S. companies would spend 41 billion dollars more on research and development if the credit were made permanent. Further, innovations from that additional R and D investment would add more than 13 billion dollars a year to the economy's productive capacity by the year 2010. The credit creates jobs. Because it is targeted primarily at salaries and wages of employees directly involved in research and experimentation, it is an incentive for companies to create and sustain high-skilled, high-paying jobs. The credit helps U.S. companies compete. The R and D Tax Credit Coalition, a group of over 1000 American companies and 52 trade associations dedicated to making the tax credit permanent, argues that the credit is an essential tool for U.S. companies competing against foreign firms. Foreign companies often benefit from research and development subsidies from their governments. Such incentives lower the cost of R and D in foreign countries and give companies receiving the subsidies a competitive advantage over U.S. firms. According to the Coalition, U.S. corporate research and development spending lags far behind Germany and Japan as a percentage of sales. Making the tax credit permanent will go a long way to eliminate this disadvantage. In my home state of Washington, hundreds of businesses, both large and small, use the R&D tax credit to develop new and innovative products and create jobs. In fact, Washington is making a name for itself as the home of a large and growing high technology industry. Last year, the American Electronics Association named Washington a ``cyber state'' and found that 45 out of every 1,000 private sector workers in the state are employed by high-tech firms. According to AEA, Washington leads the nation in high-tech wages with an average high- tech salary in the state of over 66 thousand dollars a year. Not surprisingly then, we in Washington view the R&D credit as a valued complement to our state's economic development policies. In fact, the Coopers and Lybrand study estimates that the credit will increase Washington's Gross State Product by $1.4 billion and the state's payroll by $1.6 billion over the next decade. The Hatch-Baucus legislation to make the R&D tax credit permanent will benefit Washington and every other state in the nation. It is a smart and effective piece of legislation. It spurs economic growth, creates jobs, and helps U.S. companies compete more effectively. I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting innovation in America.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 12 noon, Monday, March 22. I further ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin a period for morning business until 4 p.m., under the following guidelines: Senator Nickles or his designee in control of the time between 12 noon and 1 p.m., Senator Durbin or his designee in control of the time between 1 and 2 p.m., the remaining time between 2 and 4 p.m. to be equally divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees.

Mr. GORTON. I further ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of morning business the Senate resume consideration of S. 544, the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene on Monday at 12 noon and begin a period of morning business until 4 p.m. The first 2 hours of morning business time have been reserved for general statements, with the second 2 hours reserved for the two leaders, with the understanding that statements during that time will be in relation to Kosovo. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill. The leader has announced there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session; however, it is hoped that Members who still have amendments to the supplemental bill will come to the floor on Monday to offer and debate those amendments. Any votes ordered with respect to the supplemental bill will be postponed to occur on Tuesday, at a time to be determined by the two leaders. A cloture motion was filed today on the Lott second-degree amendment relating to Kosovo. That vote will occur on Tuesday at 2:15 p.m. The cooperation of all Senators will be necessary next week in order to finish the supplemental bill and the budget resolution prior to the Easter recess.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I object to further consideration of the measure at this time.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand there is no further business to come before the Senate today. Therefore, I would like to say that I also understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar: No. 16. I ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nomination appear in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for a short while today and on Monday and on Tuesday, we will debating a very short, clear, and concise proposal by the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, relating to the use of American Armed Forces in combat in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Mr. President, I want to state as forcefully as I possibly can my support for that amendment. Senator Smith states, I think with total accuracy, that the U.S. national security interests in Kosovo do not rise to a level that warrants military operations by the United States. It goes on to point out that any intervention on our part would be to engage the Armed Forces of the United States in a civil war inside the truncated but still nation of Yugoslavia. Mr. President, there was an op-ed column in the Washington Post just 3 days ago in which the author set out three principles that struck me as totally sound and logical. Rule 1 is, don't involve yourself in a civil war; rule 2, if you do involve yourself in a civil war, take a side; rule 3, if you do involve yourself in a civil war and take a side, make certain that your side wins. Mr. President, the proposed intervention in Kosovo on the part of the United States essentially violates all three of those rules. Clearly, it will involve us in a civil war. To a large extent, we will not have picked a side because we will not be promoting what those who are revolting against the Serbian authorities wish; that is to say, their independence. And we clearly aren't going in with the intention of winning in the sense of settling that conflict. So we will follow the sorry example of this administration's military adventures so far: The billions of dollars we have spent in Haiti with troops still in that country now simply defending themselves, without having any discernible positive impact on that society; the low caliber war in which we have been engaged on and off in Iraq without any discernible prospect of removing Saddam Hussein from office; and our multibillion-dollar adventure in Bosnia, an adventure that has no end, because we are attempting to force people to live together who have no intention and no willingness to do so; and, now here in Kosovo we propose to do exactly the same thing. Mr. President, I believe that the situation would be different and perhaps more justifiable if the President were to go all the way and to say that the service of freedom requires liberating people who no longer wish to be a part of Yugoslavia and helping them attain their freedom. But we are not doing that. We continue to promote the fiction that borders will not be changed. The Secretary of State has justified this intervention on three grounds: that it is vital to the survival of NATO, a strange proposition when we have gotten NATO into this position largely ourselves and largely by accident; second, that there are humanitarian reasons to save the victims of this civil war, a justification which will also require us to enter a civil war in Africa, and perhaps in Afghanistan, and in Lord knows how many other places around the world; and the ancient domino theory that if we don't stop this fighting here, it will next go over into Macedonia, into Greece, and into Turkey. But if we were to defend Macedonia, at least we would be defending a sovereign nation. Mr. President, I am convinced that before the President commits our Armed Forces to combat in Kosovo that he should be required to seek the advice and consent of both of the Houses of the Congress of the United States. I am convinced that this is a matter on which the views of this body should be known formally after a debate, and by a vote. I am convinced that the amendment sets the issues in this case in stark and appropriate context. And I am convinced, Mr. President, that we should vote in favor of that Smith amendment; that we should not risk the lives of members of our armed services and the prestige of the United States to an undefined cause for undefined and secondary ends in a way in which those ends are highly unlikely to be met, or at least highly unlikely to be met without a permanent investment in both our money and in our Armed Forces.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to recognize a truly outstanding feat by a 3rd grade class in Fort Lewis, Washington. Mr. Chris Luther's 3rd grade class at Beachwood Elementary School has not missed a spelling word on their weekly spelling tests for 25 weeks. Nearly a month ago, as my colleagues may remember, I announced an ``Innovation in Education Award'' program to recognize the important role individuals and communities play in the education of America's students. This class and their teacher, Mr. Luther, are perfect examples of this principle in action. This is a classroom of average kids, all with different backgrounds and abilities. Yet, Mr. Luther has found a way to encourage and tutor these students so they are all accomplishing equally praiseworthy work. The key has not been some magical formula rather, the success of these students comes from a concerted effort by Mr. Luther to boost their self-esteem, to enhance their memory skills, and to impress upon every child in the classroom that learning is important. Those strategies combined with the individual effort of each of his students has clearly paid off. Mr. Luther's creativity to engage his students in learning extends far beyond spelling. Each year, he produces a ``Math Relay'' that involves some 2000 students from 88 local schools. This remarkable gathering combines physical activity and competition with math questions and answers. Not only does the size of the event speak highly of its success but, the fact that Mr. Luther handles the mind-boggling logistics of an event this size himself is further cause for recognizing this fine educator. I applaud Mr. Luther's initiative, creativity and ability to encourage his students to succeed. It is the work of educators like Mr. Luther and the efforts of students like those in Mr. Luther's 3rd grade class who are making education work across America. That is why it is my pleasure to recognize Mr. Luther and his third grade class for their accomplishments and it is why I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting local educators.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, one of the ways in which the Congress of the United States has been the bane of every Governor and State legislator in the United States of America is its constant willingness to impose unfunded mandates on States and on local communities. We constantly pass laws that tell States and local communities what they are to do, but we rarely pass appropriations sufficient to cover the costs of carrying out those duties. Just last week we debated the overwhelming unfunded mandate that is included in our rules relating to the education of special needs students, and, in fact, we moved, at least slightly, in the direction of funding some portion of those unfunded mandates. Here, on the other hand, we have the exact mirror image of an unfunded mandate originally imposed by the Congress of the United States. Here we are asked, in this amendment, to decide that billions of dollars recovered by almost every State in the Union in tobacco litigation against tobacco companies will be appropriated, effectively, by the Federal Government, unless the States agree on the way in which we think that money ought to be spent. Mr. President, 50 percent of all recoveries that the States have made, pursuant to this amendment, must be spent in accordance with this amendment, and detailed regulations are promulgated by the Federal Government for every State in the country. Every Governor will have to make a new application every year for 25 years and meet these requirements or will, in effect, lose an amount of money equal to 50 percent to 100 percent of the money that State has already recovered in an action in which the United States of America was not a party at all. That is fundamentally unfair. It makes an assumption, an unwarranted assumption, that these were Medicaid claims that were presented by the States of the United States. My attorney general, the attorney general of the State of Washington, Christine Gregoire, one of the three or four leaders of this effort, brought and prosecuted a case through much of the trial period, before it was ultimately settled, without the slightest mention of Medicaid. There were all kinds of fraud and contract and tort claims connected with this litigation, quite independent of Medicaid claims on the part of the various States of the United States of America. Last year, this body spent weeks debating whether or not we should control the settlements that the States were making. We ultimately abandoned that effort and left it entirely to the States. As a consequence, we have absolutely no right, at this point, to tell the States how they are to spend their money. Many are already engaged in extensive and sometimes successful antismoking efforts. Many have priorities that are different than the priorities here in the U.S. Senate. But if Members of the U.S. Senate want to control the spending in their own States, money that their own States have recovered, they should run for the State legislature, not for the Senate of the United States. The position taken by the Senator from Texas and her companion, the Senator from Florida, a position that was accepted by the Senate Appropriations Committee, is the right and just position. This money was recovered by the States, this money belongs to the States, and the spending of this money should be determined by each of the 50 States of the United States of America. It is no more difficult than that. It is as simple as that. We have already imposed too many unfunded mandates on the States by our substantive legislation here. Let's not do essentially the same thing by telling States that money they have already recovered has to be spent on our priorities, rather than their own. Support the position of the Senator from Texas and Florida. Reject this amendment.

Mr. GORTON

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