Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I yield solely for the purpose of a question.

Mr. GREGG. I think the Senator from New Mexico, as usual, has hit the nail on the head. That is the most significant strategic concern we have on the issue of Kosovo, which is where does Russia end up? Do we end up forcing it down the road towards a nationalist state with maybe irresponsible leadership? Or do we continue it on the path of democracy and marketplace economy? I think that ever since the end of the cold war period everyone has analyzed the Russian situation as being tentative. The biggest concern of everyone who has analyzed it is that they may go the course of a nationalist leader who might use the West as the purpose for uniting a militaristic response, a militaristic nation approach. That is the concern. The Senator's point is absolutely on target. Our biggest strategic interest today is what happens with Russia.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will address what is obviously the issue most pressing on us as a nation and certainly on the Western World. That is, of course, the issue of Kosovo and the war that is being pursued there. First, I think it is important to understand that we as a nation are obviously the sole major superpower in the world and that we have, as a nation, a significant obligation to use our strength in order to promote the betterment of the world and to promote interests around the world which assist our national policy. We should not disengage from the world, we should not be isolationist--just the opposite; we have an obligation to reach out and use our great wealth and our great good luck and our great good fortune to benefit as many people around the world as we can. But I think we must also be sensitive to the fact that we can't be everywhere all the time and that when we ask American troops, men and women, to put their lives on the line, we have to be very specific as to why we are doing it and what the purpose of that effort is, because that, of course, is the most extreme request we can place on any American. We should have a process of putting forward a plan, a test, if you will accept it, as to why we engage with American force. I have always felt that test should have three elements. I have spoken about it before. The first is, is there a definable American interest? In many instances this could be international interests which impact us significantly, such as the gulf war, where European oil was at risk. But is there a definable American interest which is specific enough and which can be justified and which can be explained, quite honestly, in these terms: If an American service person loses his or her life, could you go to the parent of that person, could you go to the wife of that person, could you go to the child of that person, and tell them why the loss of their life was important to America? Could you explain our purpose in terms that would satisfy a grieving parent, wife, or child that their son or daughter had died in a cause which assisted America? That is the first and most important test. The second test is, is the engagement of American troops going to be able to resolve the situation, or is the situation so complex, so convoluted, and so historically intertwined that it probably can never be resolved or never even be, for any extended period, pacified? The third is, is there a plan for getting out? Before you get into something, you ought to know how you are going to get out of it or at least have some concept of how you are going to get out of it. That is absolutely critical. Those are the tests for our engagement. We are now engaged in a war in Kosovo. Unfortunately, in my opinion, none of those tests was met before we made the decision to go forward. This administration could not explain, and has certainly not explained very well, why we decided to step off on this route of military action. The initial statement was that we were doing it in order to bring Milosevic into negotiations, in order to bring the Yugoslav Government into negotiations to try to settle the situation in Kosovo, because a number of people had been killed in Kosovo, hundreds maybe, although the number that had actually been reported was somewhat less than that, and because we were concerned that there would be a great dislocation of population in the Kosovo--or the administration was concerned that there would be a great dislocation of population in the Kosovo province of Serbia if we did not take action to try to force Milosevic to agree to the settlement as had been outlined at Rambouillet. That was the initial purpose of the use of air power against Serbia, and against Yugoslavia, or Yugoslavia and Kosovo and Serbia. The purpose, therefore, was never to go in to occupy and to win a war against Yugoslavia. That was never the original purpose as presented by this administration. One has to wonder, what was our national interest in that region in Kosovo? A legitimate case could be made that humanitarian interests are a national interest. But actually what was happening in Kosovo, although severe and brutal and being shown on TV, was nothing-- absolutely nothing--compared to what was happening in Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Sri Lanka, and a number of former republics, in fact, of the former Soviet Union, where literally millions of people died in Africa as a result of internal civil war. Remember, this was a civil war situation. Kosovo was a province of Yugoslavia, which was an independent state, and is an independent state. So there is the issue of humanitarian interests, although they hardly raised it to the level that justified use of American force when we weren't using American force to settle matters in Ethiopia, in Somalia, in Sudan, in Sri Lanka, or Azerbaijan, or Georgia. So you had to ask, what was in the national interest? Quite honestly, prior to this process--this is all prior to the actual air campaign--I never believed, and I don't think the President ever made clear, because he really couldn't, that there was a dramatic American national interest in Kosovo. In fact, the irony of this situation is that NATO is now using all its force against a region--Albania and Kosovo--and claiming that that region is strategically important, when throughout the cold war when NATO was at its peak--at its absolute peak--of deterrence and purpose, when it had specific purpose, which was to deter East European and Soviet aggression in Albania, which was behind the Iron Curtain, which was an Eastern European country, it was never even considered a factor of threat. Other nations were--East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Russia, Soviet Russia--during the cold war. But Albania was never a factor, because it was such a poor and desperate nation; it had no strategic impact at all. But suddenly it becomes a nation of strategic impact to us. Suddenly Kosovo, a subprovince of Yugoslavia, becomes a nation of strategic impact to us. It is hardly explainable to the American people. It must be found against other strategic events which precipitated the bombing. And what impact do those have? And what is the significance? I think the answer to that is yes, the unintended consequence of this bombing is that we have created significant strategic and national concerns which weren't there before we started the bombing but are certainly there now. Let's name three of them. First, of course, is the humanitarian issue. The huge number of refugees, to whom our heart goes out, and to whom we obviously have some responsibility for carrying forward--and I will get back to that in a second--clearly we now have a strategic and national concern about doing something to care for those refugees. That should have been anticipated before we started the bombing. But it obviously was not by this administration. So we created an event there. The second event, which is maybe even more significant, which absolutely is more significant, was an unintended consequence which this administration clearly didn't expect and can't even represent that it marginally expected, and which has occurred; that is, that we have managed, through this bombing activity and this military action of NATO against the Kosovo region, potentially to be expanded to a greater Serbia--we have managed to dramatically undermine and, in my opinion, destabilize the process of evolution towards democracy in Russia, and certainly the process that Russia was moving towards engaging with the Western nations in a constructive way, including being a partner for peace ancillary to NATO. We have as an unintended consequence managed to invigorate the nationalist spirit within the political system of Russia, which was already under great strain, and a fledgling democracy which is absolutely critical to the future peace of this world and to the prospective activities of us as a nation as we move into the next century. A democracy in which we had invested a great deal has been placed at some jeopardy as to its relationship with us in the West, and we have clearly undermined much of the goodwill that we built in Russia. Unfortunately, it could get worse, significantly worse. If we were to pursue a course of invasion of Yugoslavia, it would put Russia in an almost untenable position because of the relationship which has gone back for hundreds of years where the Russians consider the Slavic people and the Serbian people to be their brothers. An invasion would clearly make it very difficult for the forces of moderation and reason within Russian society to overcome the forces of nationalism and jingoism. Even worse than that, were we to declare war--which has been proposed by some, because we are at war, but if we were to formally declare war, we would even see a more difficult position placed on the Russian moderates and voices of reason. Let me say this: Our relationship to Russia, our ability to nurture and build that nation as a democracy and a capitalist-oriented, marketplace-oriented society is exponentially more important than what happens in the Balkans. The Balkans are important to Europe. Russia is important to the United States. So that unintended consequence has occurred. We have started the destabilization of our relationship with Russia, and we have dramatically encouraged the forces of nationalism. The third unintended consequence which this administration has created by its actions in Kosovo is that we have dramatically weakened our military capability to fulfill our legitimate obligations in many places around the globe. As a result of this administration's continuous reduction in defense activity and its basic antipathy towards the Defense Department for the first 4 to 5 years of this Presidency, we no longer have the capability to fight effectively in an extensive engagement on two fronts, as was our traditional approach to our military defense. And we know--now publicly reported--that our ordnances are being drawn down and our capacity to support our men and women in military action is at risk. That is a consequence of this event and could lead to serious ramifications, which I have no desire to go into but which are logical. So that is one of the reasons I have called this undertaking by our administration to be one of the--probably the most significant-- blunders of the post-world-war period, because we have created a huge refugee population in large part, in good part--obviously not entirely--because Milosevic is a thug--because of the function of our bombing. We have undermined our relationship with Russia and we have degraded our own military capability, all in the name of intervening in a region of the world where our interests were there, obviously, because we are a humanitarian nation concerned about humanitarian needs, but in relationship to other points around the world, whether it be African genocide that is occurring today at a rate--well, it wasn't until the refugee situation anyway--at a rate dramatically greater than what was occurring in Kosovo, or whether it be in our strategic relationship with areas such as North Korea or Iraq, where we have dramatic national interests. Our interests in this part of the world were limited, yet we have rolled the dice there at a level that is extraordinary. So what do we do now? That is of course the question. We have been drawn into this action, and almost on the back of an envelope, it seems. You have watched the administration's different justifications for being there. And they change with the regularity of the weather, it seems, in that part of the world. There is no consistency to their position. One day it is that we are there to help the Kosovars have some form of autonomy within the Yugoslavian system and to avoid refugees. And then there is a huge refugee event, in part because of our--in part, I say, only in part--because of our bombing. And now it is no longer that we are there in order to maintain autonomy. We appear to be moving there, being there, for purposes of obtaining independence, or some greater autonomy than certainly a state relationship, and it is to put the refugees back in a region which has been decimated. The target moves constantly. It is one day that we are trying to bring Milosevic into negotiations. It is another day that we are trying to replace the Milosevic regime. And, of course, we don't even know what it would be replaced with. So it is a policy that has gone arbitrary and, in my opinion, on the back of an envelope process without any definitive purpose that can be subscribed to in a way that we can be assured we can get there in any course or pattern. So what do we do now? One other point that should be made is the cost. One hates to talk about costs when American troops are at risk. Clearly, we will do whatever we need in this Congress to support those troops with whatever dollars are appropriate and whatever dollars we can put towards their efforts. But the fact is, the cost of this is going to be astronomical. This $6 billion request from this White House, which is such an understated and inaccurate figure--it is frustrating to deal with a White House that won't be forthcoming with the American people on this issue, which it has been, clearly, on others. But clearly, on this issue, that cost nowhere near reflects what it will cost in the long run to pursue this policy that they have undertaken, simply because we are going to have to replace all of the ordnance they have used, for one thing, which is accounted for. And, No. 2, we are going to have to rebuild what we have blown up in order to put the refugees back, if it is the purpose of this administration to put the refugees back. Obviously, you can't put them back without housing, without electricity, without water, and without jobs. So the potential of reconstruction costs exceeds the military costs probably by a factor of 2, 3, or 4. The absurdity of this administration coming to us and claiming that $6 billion will get them through the rest of the year just from the standpoint of executing this war is, on the face of it, something the American people should question seriously. So the cost is dramatic. So what should we do? I don't know the answer. If I had the answer, obviously it would be wonderful. But I don't. But let me suggest a couple of options. No. 1, we have the responsibility to the refugees. We have a responsibility to make sure they are adequately housed and fed. I think that is going to mean getting them out of where they are today. We cannot let them sit there as chips at the bargaining table for months, or years, as the Palestinians were left in limbo. Rather, we are going to have to move them someplace where they can survive the winter and where possibly they can be resettled. It may be political asylum for them in many parts of Europe or in the United States, but there has to be a thoughtful, long-range plan for how you handle these refugees. Second, it is going to cost a lot of money, and we are going to have to spend it. Instead of pushing Russia to the brink, instead of engaging Russia in a way that basically undermines the moderate and reasoned forces and accelerates and raises the nationalist forces, let's engage Russia in a constructive way. Let's use the German proposals. Let's use their support and use our contacts with Russia, which has the contact with Serbia, in order to try to negotiate a resolution of this, a resolution which would probably involve some sort of multifinanced force, not NATO related, in the Kosovo region. But, rather than pushing Russia away, let us try to draw them in and let us not put ground troops into this region. How disastrous would that be. This is an area of the world where the people fight, where they believe. We have taken a nation which was a little bit fractured, actually, Yugoslavia, greater Serbia, and united those people. And they will fight. Unless we go in there in a noncombative way, there will be a significant loss of life. And again the question will have to be asked, for what cause? And I cannot answer that question. So I do not see it as being constructive to put ground forces into that region. To authorize this administration to have that flexibility, after this administration has so completely mismanaged the issue to begin with, is, to me, foolhardy. So this is a complex and difficult issue, but it is the issue of the time and we need to address it and that is why I have taken this time. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG. Yes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Let's do it the right way. Let's do it the way it is done in this budget. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, essentially, no one in this Senate has worked harder--many have worked as hard, but I think I have worked as hard as anyone else to try to get funding for IDEA programs. What this amendment is essentially is a ``don't worry, be happy'' amendment. It is an amendment which doesn't address the underlying problem, which is that this Congress and, unfortunately, some people on the other side of the aisle in this Congress are not willing to set priorities in the area of education. We have in the law, on the books a law that says we should fund IDEA. The only people who have been trying to do that have been on this side of the aisle. In the last 3 years, we have increased funding for IDEA by 85 percent from this side of the aisle. In the Domenici budget, we have increased it by another $2.5 billion.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to table.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. If you wanted to help Medicare, if you wanted to make it solvent, you would have supported the proposals that came out of that Commission, the majority of that Commission. There is another point to make here. That is this: You have to look at what was actually proposed by the President to see whether or not there was a sincere effort to address this issue or whether there was a political effort to address this issue. On the issue of Social Security, the President's budget, as it was sent to us, would have spent $158 billion of Social Security funds for general operations of the Government. It would have invaded the surplus of Social Security to the extent of $158 billion. Senator Domenici and Senator Abraham's proposal does not allow that to happen. They say the Social Security surplus shall be sacred; it shall be used for senior citizens. They do not say, as the President has said and as the other side has said, if they are supporting the President's proposal, that the Social Security fund is only sacred to the extent that we want it to be sacred, but if we have some special program, whether it is building schools or spending money on defense or, I guess in the case of Al Gore, trying to correct the traffic problems in D.C., we are going to invade the Social Security fund to do that. Specifically, they were going to invade the Social Security fund to the extent of $158 billion. So there is an issue of truth in budgeting here that has to be addressed. Our budget honestly saves the Social Security fund. Their budget didn't save the Social Security fund at all. In fact, it invaded the fund for the purposes of operating the general Government. So there is a lack of consistency, as there is a lack of consistency on this Medicare hyperbole we are hearing from the other side, which is that they want to use the general fund to fund Medicare. I originally rose to address, however, the amendment by Senator Ashcroft, which I think is an extraordinarily good amendment. It addresses another element of the President's proposal on Social Security, which is that the Federal Government should become the shepherd of the marketplace, that we should essentially have a reverse nationalization or take the Federal trust funds of Social Security and nationalize the capital markets of this country by having the trustees of the Social Security trust fund invest in the capital markets, in the equity markets, and control those investments as a block. This is a really terrible idea. I mean, bad ideas come through this place occasionally; really, too often bad ideas come through this place. But when a really bad idea comes through this place, everybody should be concerned. You don't have to listen to me to see what a bad idea this is. All you have do is listen to Chairman Greenspan, who says that this would basically pervert the marketplace, pervert the flow of capital, and would inevitably lead to a diminution of our ability as a nation to be more competitive. Or, if you want to listen to some other group that maybe is more liberal leaning, listen to the Democratic leadership of the UAW and the major labor unions of this country. This is their statement relative to the investment of Social Security trust funds surpluses: In particular, we are deeply troubled that stock market investments of the Social Security surpluses would result in public tax revenues being used to finance the construction of runaway steel mills in Thailand, apparel sweatshops in Malaysia, auto plants in New Mexico. . .. The list goes on and on. They oppose that investment. Why do they oppose it? They oppose it because they do not want money of the trust fund being invested in stocks, which they deem to be undertaking political activity that is inappropriate. That is the whole reason not to do it, of course. They are making the case for why we should not have public investment in the stock market by the Social Security trustees. The issue is this. If the Social Security trustees are going to invest and they are going to invest in the equity markets, they should do so in a manner which allows them to invest on the rate of return, not on the basis of some political issue. But the UAW and the USWA and the other labor unions are saying, no, any investment in companies that might be running a steel mill in Thailand or a sweatshop in Malaysia or an auto plant in Mexico or an electronics plants in China, that would be the wrong investment. So we know exactly what is going to happen. The first time the Social Security trustees happen to invest in, let's say, a tobacco company, there is going to be a bunch of folks on this floor who are going to say: You cannot make that investment, Mr. Social Security trustee. You have got to abandon that investment. You have to let go of that investment no matter what the rate of return is. So investments aren't going to be made on the basis of what the rate of return is. They are not going to be made for the best interests of retirees. They are going to be made for the best interests of what happens to be the political fad at the moment. That, of course, is why everyone agrees, except for the President and those who support his plan, that this is a really terrible idea. This is one of those really bad ideas that comes through here every so often and should be killed. Of course, the Ashcroft amendment accomplishes that or at least makes a statement to that effect, that we should not go forward. If you don't think this is a problem, think about the size of the amount of money that may be invested here. By the year 2035, you are talking about a $2.1 trillion investment, which would be controlled by the Social Security trustees; that investment being in private equities. This isn't the whole trust fund. This is just the percentage of the trust fund which would actually be invested in the private markets--$2.16 trillion. That is a huge function. Think of the impact that would have on the market if suddenly the Senate said: Well, Social Security trustees, you cannot invest in autos, because we are upset about the automobiles because of emissions; you cannot invest in some sort of food product, because we are upset that there may be a tainted food; you cannot invest in some activity involving electronics, because maybe there is a competition issue, such as Microsoft, you can't put any money in Microsoft. What a perversion of the marketplace it would be if you had that amount of money being invested on the basis of political events. Yet we know that is what is going to happen, because we have already been told by the unions that they are going to make that case. If this ever occurs, they are going to argue that you shouldn't be able to invest that way. They are going to pick different companies that shouldn't be invested in. As a practical matter, the opportunity for creating chaos in our capital markets is huge, if we go down the President's route of allowing the Social Security trustees to control the investment, to control the investment decisions as a unit, as a block. That is why those of us have been supporting--and this is on both sides of the aisle--personal accounts, which give individuals that decision, versus the Social Security trustees that decision. It makes so much more sense. Yes, we should have some sort of investment of the Social Security trust funds in equities. Why? Because if you happen to be 25 years old today and you are working and you are paying FICA taxes, which happen to be very, very high taxes, you are never going to recover the amount of money you pay into the Social Security trust fund. This is especially true if you are an African American. Why? Because the rate of return on those taxes that you are paying is extraordinarily low because, unfortunately, the benefit structure is so high and the generation that is about to retire is so large that they are going to take all that money before you can get there to retire. So your rate of return represents basically a negative rate of return, if you about 20 to 25 years old. If you happen to be 25 to 35 years old, it is about 1.1 percent. If you are 35 to 45 years old, it is about 2.5 percent. Terrible rates of return. We do need to invest the Social Security trust fund in something other than what it is presently being invested in so that we can get a better rate of return. What is the logical place to do it? It is to put it in equity markets. But how you do it is the key. You cannot do it by giving that control over that investment to the Social Security trustees, because then you create an incentive for a perversion of the marketplace by having the market adjusted by whatever happens to be the local political fad at the time. Rather, you have to give control over the investment decision and ownership, most importantly over the asset, to the retiree, so that when you pay your taxes in FICA, you know that some percentage of those taxes--you are actually going to own that retirement benefit. If you die before you turn 60, your estate will get that benefit, and during your lifetime, you are going to be able to make the decisions on how that benefit is invested so that the investments get the best return for you, not the political return for some labor union or some fad of the moment. This proposal by Senator Ashcroft is an excellent one. It is only a sense of the Senate, but I think it is a shot across the bow of an element of the President's proposal on Social Security that needs to be made, and I strongly support it. I hope it will receive strong support in the Senate. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New Mexico for this excellent bill. I think he has done a superb job of putting together a budget which is responsible and appropriates for the future of this country. As long as we are on the subject, I also wanted to comment a little bit about the proposal of the Senator from North Dakota, because he keeps comparing some sort of lockbox concept on Medicare with the Social Security lockbox which is in our budget, which is in the Republican budget. You really cannot compare the two. You are comparing apples and oranges. The Social Security lockbox that the Senator from New Mexico has created, along with the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, is a real lockbox. It takes money which is being raised from the wage earner today under the FICA tax, the Social Security tax, and which is creating a surplus in the Social Security fund, and it keeps that money to benefit the Social Security fund. That is a very important point, because there is no money being proposed by the other side that comes from the Medicare fund which would be locked up and protected for Medicare. What the other side is suggesting is that the Medicare trust fund should dip into the general fund, which, for Part A, is not traditionally done. And then we should take money from the general fund and transfer it over to support the Medicare trust fund. This is a whole new concept. It is an invasion of the general fund. It is a use of general tax revenues to support Medicare, Part A. That is the practical impact of the proposal of the other side. If the other side really wanted to address Medicare, if it wanted to address it within the context of the revenue being raised by Medicare, if it wanted to have people who are paying Medicare premiums covered by Medicare, have those premiums fully ensure them, then the other side would have agreed with the Commission that was chaired by a Senator from the other side, Senator Breaux. Because that Commission put forward a proposal which the majority of that Commission supported, including two of the Democratic Senators, which essentially put in place a structure to assure the solvency of Medicare. It was a good proposal. Yet when that proposal came forward, the rug was pulled out from under the chairman of that Commission, who was a Democrat, and the other members of that Commission, who had worked so hard to put together the proposal. A legitimate way of resolving the Medicare problem was essentially walked away from by the administration and by the other side of the aisle. Now they come forward with this crocodile-tear approach relative to Medicare, which is exactly what it is. If they cared about Medicare, they would have supported the President's Commission. They would have supported the proposal from the President's Commission, and they didn't. They refused to do that. They certainly wouldn't be taking general funds to subsidize the Medicare Part A, which is what they are proposing under this. There is absolutely no comparison between what the Senator from New Mexico has done in absolutely protecting the Social Security trust fund under the lockbox, protecting FICA money to be used for Social Security, as compared with what is being proposed here by the Senator from North Dakota, which is to take general funds to support Medicare.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the issue of Kosovo. It is obviously a topic of extreme importance. It appears that the administration and the President have decided to use American military force in Kosovo in conjunction with NATO. This, to me, is a serious mistake. I wish this administration had a set policy we could turn to and say, ``This is why they have decided to do this.'' But they do not. In fact, the Kosovo decision has many parallels to the Haiti decision, and the Haiti decision, as we know, has turned into a complete disaster, costing millions of dollars--potentially, I think, billions of dollars--although luckily no American lives, but it has not corrected the problem in Haiti in any significant way. Kosovo, on the other hand, has the potential of not only to cost billions of dollars, but also to cost American lives. It is a mistake to pursue a policy of using American force without a doctrine or a guideline or a theorem as to why you are using that force. My belief is that before we use American force in this world today to address issues which are ethnically driven, religiously driven, or which involve civil war type of instances, which are the new threats we so often seem to get involved in--I am not talking about issues of terrorism, which is a separate issue, or state-sponsored terrorism, which is a separate issue. I am talking about regions of the world where we are seeing ethnic, civil, and political violence of such a nature that American forces are considered to be sent into that region. It is my belief that before we make a decision to pursue the use of American force and put American lives at risk, we need to answer three basic questions. The first question is this: Is there a national interest, is there an American interest, which is significant enough to justify risking American lives? Is there a national interest which can be clearly and concisely explained, if it has to be explained, regrettably, to a parent, to a wife, to a child of an American service man or woman who may lose their life because we have pursued the use of American force? Is there a definable American interest of such significance that we are willing to put at risk the cream of America's young people--our service individuals? So far, this administration has set forth absolutely no presentation of doctrine or ideas or position which establishes that there is such an American interest. There may be a European interest, no question about that. Clearly, what is going on in that part of the world is horrific in many instances. But is there an American interest that justifies using American force and risking American life? We have not heard that explained to us. If people are being indiscriminately killed by a group of thugs, then are we not also supposed to be in Georgia or Azerbaijan or Rwanda or any number of other places in this world? In fact, I think there was some tallying up of this, and there is something like 39 places in the world today where there is this type of activity going on, and some of it involving much larger deaths in the way of civilian casualties than is occurring in Kosovo. Of course, any death is a tragedy. The fact is that there has to be a reason for Americans stepping in to try to stop that conflict. In this instance, we have not seen a differentiation that justifies us going into Kosovo versus going into some other of these 39 confrontations around the world. There has been no definition given to the purpose of the use of American military force, other than that this conflict appears on television. This conflict involves a European state. This conflict, therefore, maybe attracts more sympathy from a country which has always identified itself with Europe, but sympathy is not a good reason for putting at risk American lives. The Balkans represent no strategic issue for the United States today of any significance. It is a strategic issue for the European nations, and it is a European issue which should be addressed by the European nations, but clearly there is no definable American purpose for going into Kosovo, and this administration has presented none. I was at a briefing where I heard the Secretary of State say something to the effect, this might lead to World War III if we let this conflict ensue between Serbia and Kosovo, because she was referring back to World War II and World War I which started in this region of the world. The dynamics of the world have changed. There are no alliances which are going to cause the domino effect that is going to bring the death of the Archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into play with Germany, with Prussia. There are no such alliances that exist today. There is no Adolf Hitler who has the capacity to project force throughout Europe as a result of actions occurring in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. In fact, the Balkans have been, for all intents and purposes, strategically bypassed. There are other regions of the world where America has significant strategic interest--Iraq is obviously the most apparent at this time, but there are others also--where, if we have to use American force, we should use American force. But to use American force arbitrarily and simply because the region happens to be European and because it happens to be on television, and for no other apparent reason, is a very hard explanation to make, should American lives be lost, to the parent or the spouse or the child. That is the first point we must test. The first test of engagement is, Is there a vital national interest for us? No, there is not. I want to come back to that because there are a couple of other points on that. Let's go on to the second point. The second point is, Can the use of American force stabilize or terminate the conflict? When we are looking at these racial, political, religious, civil war type situations, can the introduction of American force have a long, lasting effect? That has to be the second question. And if it cannot, then why would we put the force in? I think anybody who has done even a cursory study of the Balkans knows that these folks, these cultures, regrettably, have a historic, almost a genetic, attitude which causes constant conflict and which creates tremendous antagonism which leads to violence between these different cultures. I have tried to trace it back a little bit. I was reading the history of the Ottoman Empire. Ironically, it goes back, I think, to Kosovo and a battle that was fought, I think, in 1555 or 1585 where Solyman ``the Great'' fought the Serbs in Kosovo. In fact, just a few years ago, the Serbs dug up their hero of that battle and took his body all around Serbia as an expression of support for that battle and for their hatred of the Moslem empire which had caused that fight to occur. And those hatreds have developed and evolved and have gone forward in every generation, been passed down from generation to generation to generation. We cannot understand it as Americans because we are a melting pot, and we do not have that type of hatred in our Nation. A lot of people came to the United States, however, to get away from it and immigrated here for that purpose. But I remember, I worked in Montenegro one summer, and I would meet people--and this was back a long time ago, back in 1970-something--and I would meet people, the local folks who I was working with, and they would tell me, forthrightly, that as soon as Tito died there was going to be a genocide in that part of the world because the Serbs hated the Croatians. And it was just a matter of fact, a matter of their lives that as soon as this stabilizing force, Tito, died, this was going to occur. They knew it as a culture. So what arrogance do we have as a nation, sitting here across the ocean, that we think we can project arms into a region, putting American lives at risk, and stabilize that region which has not been able to settle things out for hundreds of years--hundreds of years. I think it is foolish for us to presume that. But equally important, I think we have to understand that, in this instance, to put American forces in there is essentially an act of war on our part, because this is a freestanding nation and Kosovo is a province of that freestanding nation. It is as if Canada decided to put troops in Vermont because New Hampshire and Vermont were not getting along. That may be too glib a statement, but the fact is, from a physical standpoint and a political standpoint, that is essentially the same situation. This is a nation which is at civil war. What if the English during our Civil War had decided to set troops down in North Carolina? I don't think the North would have taken that very well. Granted, in this instance, the Serbs are led by a malicious and malignant individual who is acting in a manner which is outside, in many ways, the bounds of any type of confrontation that should occur in the 20th century or the 21st century. But the fact is, for us to put American troops in there will be legally, at least, an act of war because we will be invading a sovereign nation which is fighting within itself relative to a province in that nation which is trying to create independence, and we will be deciding to separate that country by our use of military force. Of course, this administration has not come to this Congress and suggested that. In fact, this administration has not come to the Congress at all. It has violated all sorts of directives, but it has just marched down this road of arbitrary evolution into a position of confrontation in Serbia and Kosovo. It has set our prestige at risk without having any idea why our prestige should be at risk, in my opinion. But that is the second point: Can you resolve the conflict by the use of American force? I would have to say that history tells us we cannot. A lot like Haiti. When we went into Haiti, a lot of people asked, Are we going to correct this situation? Is this going to improve this situation? Are we putting our people at risk? Are we spending all this money and getting something out of this that is better after we leave? Is it going to change the culture? We have seen it did not. Haiti is back to almost the exact position it was before we put our troops in, except that it has absolutely no private enterprise now because we basically wiped out the private enterprise when we went in and closed all the private enterprise down and pushed it offshore. We wiped out their private sector workforce and capitalist base. So we actually put them in a worse position economically. And politically they are in the same position. I suspect that no matter how long we put American troops in there-- and there is no definition coming; and that is the third point of how long we will be there--no matter how long American troops are in that region, there will be no resolution of this problem by the introduction of American troops into that region which will have any long-term impact. They will be back at each other's throat as soon as the opportunity arises, unless we wish to stay there forever, which brings us to the third point. The first point is: Is there a vital national interest for us? The second point is: Can the conflict be resolved by the use of American forces? The third point: Is there an exit strategy or are we committing Americans' tax dollars and the lives of American troops without any-- any--idea as to how we are going to get out of this situation? As far as I know, this administration has not really defined an entrance strategy. They have sort of stumbled into that, so, clearly, they have not found any exit strategy. In fact, if you ask them, all they have thought about is the first bombing raids. They have not even thought about the second--they may have thought about the second series of bombing raids, but they have not thought about what they do after that. There is no exit strategy. In fact, there is very little strategy at all other than what the military has been willing to do and has to do in order to prepare itself to execute public policy which is so haphazardly designed. We could be there a long time. I mean, since 1385 or 1355, it has been 600 years. Are we going to stick around another 600 years in order to pacify this region? I think we might have to if our intention is to accomplish that goal. And for what purpose? What is the national interest that justifies that? And remember, this is not like Haiti in many ways. This is a country where people do fight, where people are under arms. This is a country of military-type individuals. This is a country which fought the German army to a standstill; the greatest army in the world at the time they invaded, fought them to a standstill through guerrilla tactics. These are proud people, proud people and militaristic people. I know that. I was there for awhile. It was a long time ago, but I do not think they have changed. They do not seem to change much. So where is this policy going? It appears that it is a policy that is undefined, that cannot give us a legitimate national reason, that cannot proclaim that the introduction of American forces will settle the situation. And it cannot give us a definition as to how they are going to get out of the situation once we get into the situation. It is a bad policy. It is one that, unfortunately, puts many American lives at risk if it is pursued. But this administration seems insistent on going down that road. And I think that is wrong. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. I want to congratulate the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Frist, for having brought this bill finally to a vote after what was considerable resistance from the other side and what amounted to essentially a blocking of this bill as initiative after initiative after initiative was brought forward from the other side. I think you have to look at the context of this bill in the context of those amendments from the other side that were offered. The concept of this bill is to give local communities, local teachers, local principals, and local school boards the ability to apply the Federal funds and to be released from the burden, the cost, and the interference of Federal regulations. That is what Ed-Flex is all about. Thus, it is with some irony and significant inconsistency of the proposals that we have seen thrown at this bill from the other side do just the opposite. They create new program initiatives, almost all of which have been subject to no hearings, no disclosure in the sense of the congressional process, almost all of which create brand new, federally mandated, programmatic initiatives which tell the local communities, you must do this in order to get these Federal dollars: You must do this in order to get these Federal dollars. And the directive comes from here in Washington. It says that some group of bureaucrats sitting in the Department of Education, or at the White House, or maybe just the leadership on the other side of the aisle, is going to tell some school district in New Hampshire, or Vermont, or Missouri, or wherever, how to manage their day-to-day activity of managing the education of children. Those proposals, which are being put forward--whether it is the 100,000 teachers, the afterschool program, the school building program--are all fundamentally inconsistent with the underlying purpose of this bill, which is to free up the local communities from the burden of Federal regulation. More significantly than that, every one of those proposals suggests as its funding mechanism taking money from the special education accounts, money that is due the special education children of this Nation under the law that was already passed by this Congress--taking that money and using it for a brand new Federal program instead of putting it where it is supposed to be, which is with the special education child through 94-142. Let's review that issue for a second, because it is so critical to this whole debate. We have put forward an amendment on our side that says: Before you start a new program, before you create a new panoply of Federal regulations, let's do the job that we said we were going to do for the special education kids in this country; let's pay, or begin to pay, a higher percentage of the cost of special-education education. When the special education bill was originally passed, the Federal Government said it was going to pay 40 percent of the cost. It dropped down to where the Federal Government was only paying 6 percent of the cost 3 years ago. And that difference, that 34 percent, was having to be picked up by the local taxpayers. The Federal share was having to be paid for by the local taxpayer. So that skewed education at the local community. So, if the local teacher needed some assistance in their classroom, maybe a teaching assistant, or, if a principal needed an addition onto the school, or needed some new computers, they couldn't buy those kinds of things, they couldn't hire that new teacher. Why? Because the Federal Government wasn't paying its fair share, its obligated share, of the cost of special education. And the local community was having to take local dollars to support the Federal obligation for special education. So what did the other side come forward and suggest? We are not going to pay any more money to special education. We are not going to increase that money at all. This administration set up a Federal budget. Instead of new money for special education, it essentially flat-funded that program and took the money that was supposed to go to special education and put it in all these new programs they created. What does the local school district do now? They get hit twice: First, they get hit by the Federal Government, which refuses to pay for the special education children to the tune of the 40 percent they are supposed to. Then, they get told, if you want to get the dollars from the Federal Government, which is supposed to be coming to you for special education, you have to follow one of these brand new, great ideas that the President has held a press conference on. You have to follow one of these press conference initiatives, whether it happens to be more teachers, more classroom size, or more afterschool programs. So the local school district, in order to get this money, first loses it, and then it is told, ``Oh, but we will give you the money that we just took from you, but you are going to have to follow what we want you to do here in Washington.'' How arrogant can we get? At what point does the arrogance of this administration stop in the area of education? I do not believe that there is one person in this administration who can name more than maybe one child at Epping Elementary. I do not believe they have any idea what the child in the Epping Elementary School needs for education. When that teacher in the Epping Elementary School walks into that classroom and that teacher knows every child at every desk and knows what the child needs for education and knows that they need more books or more computers or maybe they need another teaching assistant, it should be that teacher who makes the decision as to what is used to help that child's education. It should not be here in Washington that that decision is made. And yet, that is exactly what these proposals suggest: Don't give the local school districts the flexibility to spend their own money on special ed, to spend their own money on general education activities. Instead, force the local school districts to take up the Federal share of special education costs and then tell the local school districts that because we want you to have more teachers in order for you to get the money which was supposed to go to special ed, you have to apply and take on this new Federal program. It is total hypocrisy. It is total arrogance. And yet, it is these proposals that are coming forward. Fortunately, the people in this Congress, at least in the Senate, are going to have a chance to make a choice. They are going to have a chance today, because we are going to give them the option. We are saying that the money last year which was appropriated for the teachers' program, $1.2 billion, let's free that money up so that local school districts can make the choice: Do they want a new teacher or do they want the money to come to the special education accounts? That is the simple choice that comes on the Lott amendment which was drafted by the Senator from Vermont and myself and the Senator from Tennessee, and it is really an excellent idea. We will find out what the local school districts need more. Do they want the dollars for special ed, or do they want the dollars for teachers? It is a perfectly reasonable proposal, and it is flexibility in the tradition of Ed-Flex. So this amendment, this underlying amendment, about which I have heard people on the other side get up and say, oh, I can't support that because it pits one group of students against another group of students, well, ladies and gentlemen, the people who are pitting one group of students against the other group of students is the administration and the people who support these administration initiatives, because what they have done is to say we are going to pit the special ed students, who we are supposed to be funding, against our programs coming from Washington because we are going to take their money and use it. That is where the real conflict comes. So we are going to give you an opportunity. We are going to give you an opportunity to live up to the obligations which the Federal Government put on the books back in 1976 and has refused to live up to. And we are going to give the communities the option of choosing whether they want a teacher, a program directed from Washington, designed by Washington, told to them how to operate by Washington, or whether they want to free up their local dollars by getting more special ed dollars that the Federal Government was obligated to pay in the first place and use those local dollars to either, one, hire a teacher; two, buy books, add new computers, add a new classroom, whatever they want to do with it. That is the ultimate flexibility. The choice is going to be pretty clear here today as to how you want to manage education in this country. You can vote for all these directives from Washington, all these programs which are made for the creation of press conferences but give the local communities no flexibility and no opportunity to make their choices as to how they spend the money, or you can vote to give the local communities true flexibility by funding an obligation that has been on the books since 1976 and thus freeing up the dollars for the local community to either hire teachers, buy books, add classrooms, or create afterschool programs. I opt for the side of giving local communities, teachers who know their kids, principals who know their schools, parents who know their children, the opportunity to make decisions on dollars rather than the Federal bureaucracy or even an American President. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time back to the floor manager.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota was here before I was. Does he wish to have time on the Democratic side?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, the chairman of the committee and Senator Frist, who is the author of this bill, in stating that I find it really disheartening that the Members on the other side have decided to use this bill, which was bipartisanly supported, was supported by the President, in order to make political points, not substantive points. The amendments which the other side is offering on this bill are not appropriate to this bill. They basically represent amendments which accomplish obfuscation and delay of what is a very good bill. The underlying bill will give local communities flexibility in how they deal with Federal regulations. I understand that that is anathema to some people on the other side of the aisle. I understand that some people on the other side of the aisle would like to have the ability to regulate and control and direct and have the input into how the day-to-day education should occur in our school systems. That happens to be their philosophy. They want to centralize decisions here in Washington. We want to take decisions and give them back to communities. Their reason for opposing this bill, by throwing out all these amendments, isn't that they actually think these amendments are substantively going to go anywhere. It is because they want to make a political statement, and because they want to slow down a bill which is a good idea and which releases the local school districts from the huge weight of Federal regulation. It really is unjustified. It contradicts the purposes which the President has already subscribed to in saying that he supported this bill. So when the American public asks the questions, ``Why don't we have more flexibility at the local level? Why do we get stuck with all these Federal regulations?'' the answer is very simple. Look to the Democratic membership of this Congress. They are the ones who are slowing up a bill which would give the communities flexibility.

Mr. GREGG. How much time is remaining?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. ``A commitment we have an obligation to keep.'' That is what we are hearing from the other side. ``A commitment we have an obligation to keep.'' Tell the special ed child that. Tell the special ed child, whose funds you are raiding. You are raiding those funds to start these new initiatives. That is where the funds are coming from. Every time the President goes to the podium to propose a new program, where does that money come from in education? It comes from the children. It comes from the special ed child. Why? Because this administration year in and year out has refused to fund special education. In fact, ironically, if you take all of the President's new initiatives, which have been thrown at us on poll number after poll number--every time he takes a poll, he puts out a new initiative. If you take all of his new initiatives on education, they, ironically, happen to add up to almost exactly the amount of money it would take for the Federal Government to fulfill its obligation to the special needs children of this country, an obligation which was made--a commitment, the term used by the other side, a commitment which was not made last fall in order to entertain the concerns of the teachers unions in this country; it was a commitment that was made in 1975-- 1975--when we passed 94-142, a law which said that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent--40 percent--of the cost of the special needs child. What happened? The Federal Government reneged on that obligation, to the point where it was down to only 6 percent that was being paid by the time the Republicans took over this Congress. We have been able to reverse that trend as a Republican Congress. We have increased that funding by almost 100 percent in the last 3\1/2\ years. We have gone from 6 percent up to 11 percent but without any help from this White House. Not once did they send up a budget that has said, let's look at the needs of the special ed child. Not once did they send up a budget that said, we have a 40-percent obligation here; we are only fulfilling 6 percent of it, so let's start to fill up the rest of the obligation. No, every time they send up a budget, it is take the money that should have gone to special education, put it into some brand new program which moves responsibility back here to Washington so we can have more control here in Washington purchased with the money that is supposed to be going to the special needs child. We have another example of it right here on this floor today that is going to be proposed by the Senator from Washington. Let's add 100,000 teachers. How much does that cost? Billions. Does it say anything about taking care of the special needs child, the 40-percent obligation? No, nothing. Nothing. Let me point out that if we took the money that was going to the 100,000 teacher program proposed by the President and sent it back to the communities to spend on their special needs children, that would free up the local dollars so that the local principal, the local teacher, the local school board could make the decision as to whether they needed a new teacher, a new classroom, a new afterschool program, a new computer, a new science program, a new math program, a new language program. But, no, no, the President and his Members on the other side of the aisle are not going to let that sort of freedom fall into the hands of the local education folks. They are not going to let parents suddenly have some power or teachers have some power or principals have some power. No, don't let that happen. We have to set up a new program and take all the money going to special ed, which would have freed up local dollars, and tell the school districts how to spend it. Tell them that we, here in Washington, know better. My goodness, we all know that the folks down here on, I think it is 600 Independence Avenue, the Education Department, know a heck of a lot more about the kids in the Epping Elementary School than the principal of the Epping Elementary School. We all know that. That is sort of one of those prima facie facts here in Washington, that the bureaucrat in that building, in that back room there on the 15th floor of some office building knows a heck of a lot more about how to educate a child in Epping, NH, or in Concord, NH, or in Nashua, NH, than the teacher who sees that child every day and the principal who works with that teacher every day or the parent who happens to be involved with this child more than every day, obviously, 24 hours a day. No, it is the great theory of self-worth which says that Senators here in Washington and bureaucrats here in Washington, especially the President here in Washington, know more about how to educate the child than the child's parents, the child's teachers, the child's principal, or the child's school board. So they take the money that should have gone to special ed and they put it into these new programs. Let me reiterate what the practical effect of that is, because this is the insidiousness of the proposal that is being made from the other side. You see, if the Federal Government actually funded what it said it was going to fund in special needs, actually paid for the cost of the special education child to the full 40 percent as required, that would free up the local resources, because today what happens is the Federal Government is only paying 11 percent of the cost. It would have been 6 percent of the cost if this administration had been allowed to have its way for the last 3 years. But we changed that. We raised it to 11 percent. So the next amount of the cost, the difference between 11 percent and 40 percent, has to be found somewhere else; that Federal share that is not being paid by the Federal Government has to be found somewhere else. Where is it found? It is found in the local taxpayers' pockets and the State. And so the local school district has a special needs child, or maybe a series of special needs children who are costing them a considerable amount of money, and we should fund that; we should take care of them. And they know that and so they pay for that child's proper education. But when they make the decision to pay for that child's proper education, instead of getting 40 cents back on the dollar from the Federal Government for every dollar they spend, they only get 11 cents back, and so they have to find the difference somewhere else. Where do they find it? Well, maybe they do not hire another teacher that they want for history or art. Or maybe they do not put in a computer room. Or maybe they do not start an afterschool program. Or maybe they do not build a new building or add on to their building. They have to make a decision such as that at the local level. It is a daily decision that is made in this country. All across this country that decision is being made, because the Federal Government refuses to pay its fair share of special education costs to which it has committed. No, instead we have this arrogance of power that says we are going to take the money from special ed; we are going to create a new program; we are going to give it to you but you have to spend it exactly as we tell you. You have to spend it to hire teachers. You have to spend it for an afterschool program. Or you have to spend it to hire consultants, which is the way it usually works out. The local school district, instead of having flexibility to make its own decisions with money that it should be getting from the Federal Government, suddenly finds itself hit twice. First, it does not get the money the Federal Government was supposed to send it. And then it is told that if it wants to get the money the Federal Government was supposed to send it, it has to create a brand new program that they may not even want. It is an arrogance of power. The other side has said, we don't want to pit student against student. We don't want to pit student against student. Tell us about the special needs child and their parents going to a school board meeting in my State. We have town meetings. School budgets are voted in the open in a town meeting. Anybody can go. Anybody can vote who is a member of that town. Let me tell you, student is pitted against student; parent against parent. It is awful. Why does it happen? It happens because we have failed to pay the obligations of the Federal share of special ed. It is absolutely inexcusable that we put special ed kids and their parents through the nightmare of having other kids and their parents saying to them, ``You are taking our money.'' But that is what happens every day across this country because the Federal Government refuses to pay its fair share. So, what does the other side propose? Let's pit more students against students. Let us not increase special ed funding; let's create a brand new program so the special ed kid is once again left out there without the protection of the dollars that were supposed to come from the Federal Government, and once again is thrown into the meat grinder, unfairly and inappropriately being accused by other students and parents in the school district that funds going to that child should be going to the general education activities. So this student-against-student argument is--well, it is like arguing that black is white, to say that this new teacher program is somehow going to relieve the student-against-student issue. It is just the opposite, just the opposite. It is going to create an excessive problem for the special needs child. Do they need teachers? I don't know. I don't know whether the town of Epping or Concord needs new teachers. I do know this: The people in the town of Epping and the city of Concord know whether they need teachers. I am not going to tell them whether they do or they do not. What I am going to try to do is give them the money and the flexibility to make the decisions themselves, rather than have it directed here from Washington. But that seems to be an anathema to the President and to the people who are carrying his water in this Congress; the concept that the local community should make these decisions, the concept that the local teacher or the local principal, or even, God forbid, the parent might know more about what the child needs than we know here in Washington. That is the attitude. That is the attitude that leads to this arrogance which takes the money from the special needs child and moves it over for new programs which happen to poll well, and therefore create some sort of political statement that allows you to create an election event, because that is what this is all about. If this administration wanted to help the children of this country get a better education, the absolute first thing it would have done would have been to fund special education at the full 40 percent, or made a commitment to try to get there. The fact that they did not, the fact that they have not, the fact that the only people who have been committed to this have been on our side of the aisle, reflects the insincerity of their effort in the area of education. It reflects that they are interested in politics, while we are interested in actually producing quality education. This bill, by the way, is another example of that. It stuns me that this bill would be held hostage for these really blatant political weapons, especially ones which make so little sense. That is what is happening here. This bill is being held hostage so somebody can take a poll and do a focus group and decide we need a new program. I imagine we will get another one after this teacher one, where the Federal Government can tell the local communities how to run their educational system. It is inappropriate, to say the least, because everybody supports this Ed-Flex bill. It is supported by the Governors. It was supported by the President. It was even supported by Members on the other side of the aisle. Why? Because it is a good idea. It gives flexibility to local school districts. It allows local school districts to make decisions as to how Federal dollars are spent without the Federal strings. In fact, I think 12 States are already functioning under this and doing extraordinarily well, and all this bill does is expand it to the rest of the States. It is ironic that 12 States should have this benefit, but the rest of the States should not have this benefit. This second-degree that has been offered, which I think is absolutely on target, takes the money which was stuck in the bill last year for this teachers initiative and moves it over to the special ed accounts, which is where it should be--should have been in the first place. We made a mistake last year. This is an attempt to correct it. This mistake has been confirmed beyond any question by the recent Cedar Rapids decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said just last week that not only do the local school districts now have to pay for the special needs child's educational activities, they are going to have to pay for the medical activities within the school system that are required in order to educate that child. I can tell you, those medical costs are going to be extraordinary. This is an exponential increase on the local school districts in order to pay those medical costs. Those medical costs used to come out of Medicaid in most instances. Sometimes they came out of other accounts, but a lot of these kids were Medicaid qualified, so if they were really high they might have come out of there. But they didn't come out of the local school budget. Now they are going to come out of the local school budget. Many of the New Hampshire school districts, for example, have small numbers of people in them. If you have a child who needs an extreme amount of medical help in order to be mainstreamed--and they should be mainstreamed; this is critical, it works, it is a good idea--but they have to have full-time nursing care, or they have to have very high caliber medical assistance, devices like ventilators or a variety of other things, oxygen, it gets extraordinarily expensive. And every one of those dollars, according to the Supreme Court, is now going to come out of the school budget. Where is it going to come from? It is not going to come from the Federal Government, because we are not going to pay our 40 percent. No, it is going to come from maybe the math/science department. Maybe the decision to buy new computers will be put off. Maybe the decision of hiring a new teacher will be put off. Maybe the decision to add a wing onto the building will be put off. Maybe the football team will be dropped. Who knows? But somebody is going to have to lose, because there is now a Constitutional requirement that the health needs of that child, when that child is being educated, must be paid for by the school department. The Federal Government is not going to come through with its 40 percent of that cost. Instead, the administration is going to take the money which should have gone for that cost and move it into some new program which is going to be directed out of Washington where the local school district will be told from Washington how and when they can hire a teacher, and what sort of qualifications that teacher can have. It is, in light of that decision in Cedar Rapids, absolutely inexcusable that we would be initiating new programs without funding the special needs program first--absolutely inexcusable. It is going to put extraordinary pressure on every school district across this country unless we face up to that reality. So, the $1.2 billion that last year we put into this teachers program should be taken out of that and moved over to special needs and the special needs child's program, in light of the Cedar Rapids decision. To not do that is to really be derelict in our duty as a Federal Government. We have already walked away from that duty by not funding the full 40 percent. But to fail to do it in light of the decision on Cedar Rapids is really to add insult to injury--to rub salt in the wound. So I congratulate the chairman of the committee for offering this amendment. I think it is right on. I look forward to this debate, because this is the issue we should join. Are we going to support the special needs children in this country with dollars, not rhetoric? Or are we going to start new programs, directed by Washington, decided by Washington, under the control of Washington, which take the money from special needs which would have freed up local flexibility and put them into categorical decisions out of Washington? That is the debate here. That is the substance of the education issue and the difference between the two parties on education. It is not an issue of dollars. It is an issue of how local communities get to manage those dollars and where those dollars get spent. There isn't a community in New Hampshire which, if given the option, would take the special ed dollars before they would take a new categorical program from Washington. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I support this amendment. I am an original cosponsor of this amendment offered by Senator Jeffords. I think it goes to the essence of what is very much the debate which we are about to embark on here in the Senate and as a country--at least at the Federal level--relative to where we are going in applying the resources of the Federal Government when it comes to education. Now, the President has come forward almost on a weekly basis with a new initiative. In fact, I doubt there is a week that has gone by, or even hardly a day that went by for a while--while we were in the impeachment trial, there was never a day that went by--without a new initiative on some subject. Now we are in a period where it is weekly. Many of those initiatives have been new ideas in the area of education, which would essentially centralize decisionmaking here in Washington; new programmatic ideas that would require Washington's imprimatur of approval before they can go forward, before a State can use them; new ways in which to move into the District of Columbia the control over our local schools and how local schools are either hiring teachers, building additional schools, doing their afterschool activity or exercising their initiatives in the area of dropouts. That is a philosophy of government, and I recognize that--the philosophy that all good ideas in education come from Washington, the philosophy that when you manage the schools at the local level, they should have significant influence from Washington in the decisions and in the process as to how they are run. That is not a philosophy I am attracted to, but it is clearly the philosophy of the other party and of this Presidency. Our position, as reflected in this amendment, is significantly different. Our position is that, first, before we start any other major, new programs in education in the Federal Government, new programs that put new costs and burdens on the local communities, we as a Federal Government have an obligation to live up to what we said we were going to do in the first place. One of the things we said we were going to do back in 1975 was to take care of special ed kids and pay 40 percent of the costs of special education at the local community level. That is one theory we have on our side. Let's do what we said we would do first, let's pay for what we said we would pay for first, before we add a bunch of new programs that may or may not be good ideas, but in any event which we don't have the resources for, unless you take them from programs that already exist at the Federal level. The second philosophy we have is that the local folks--teachers, parents, principals, school boards--know a heck of a lot more about education than we know here in Washington. I can name a couple of kids in my local school district because I know them, but I can't name all of them. I will bet you the principal at Rye Elementary School can name them and that he knows something about every child, knows some of the problems that child may have. Certainly, the teachers know that. They know what they need in order to address that child's concerns. Maybe Johnny Jones has a reading problem and they know he may have to get extra reading. If Mary Smith has a problem with attention, they know they have to get a specialist in for that. Maybe it is just as simple as they may need a computer in order to allow that child to get a little extra help that is self-initiated, or a little confidence in themselves. They know what their children need in order to educate them better. I don't. I can tell you that nobody down at the Department of Education knows, and nobody in this Senate knows better than the parents, teachers, and the principals what those children need in order to make them better students. I will tell you something else. As Republicans, we don't believe that folks here in Washington have more concern for those kids than their parents, teachers, and principals. That seems to be a philosophy we are hearing a lot--that in some way, somehow, because we have been granted the office of the Senate, or because we are serving in the administration of a President, we suddenly have some knowledge or capability that gives us a better awareness and a more sincere desire to help a child than the parent of that child has, the teacher of that child has, the principal in that school has, or the school board has. That, to me, is a lot of hokum. But it is the philosophy, regrettably, that pervades the proposals that have come from this administration. So these are the fundamental differences we have, and they are joined in this debate over this amendment: One, that we as a government have an obligation to fund what we already have on the books; two, that better decisions are made at the local community level, not here in Washington; three, that we have no special portfolio or no special awareness, no higher level of concern for a child's education, than that child's teacher has, or that child's principal has, or that child's parent has. So this amendment says simply that, back in 1975, the Federal Government said it would pick up 40 percent of the cost of special education in this country. Well, as of 3 years ago, the Federal Government was only paying 6 percent of the costs of the special education in this country, and what did that do? What did that failure of the Federal Government to pay that additional 34 percent do to local schools? Essentially, what it did was it skewed the ability of the local school systems to deliver the educational efforts that they desired to deliver, because the local school districts were having to go out and use their tax base, whether was a property tax or a State broad-based tax; they were having to use their tax base to pay for the Federal share of special education. So they were basically taking dollars that they should have had available to them from their property taxes--in New Hampshire, for example--and instead of spending then on a new classroom, or a new teacher, or a new computer system, or new books, they were having to take those dollars and pay for the Federal share of the obligations to educate special ed children. Now, I happen to be a very strong supporter of special ed. I chaired a center for special needs children; I was president for many years. I am still on the board. I think 94-142 is one of the best laws this country has ever passed. One of the insidious aftereffects of the Federal Government's obligations to pay under 94-142--to pay its 40 percent--is that I saw time after time, in school district after school district, a cost to my State--and I know it happens in other States because I have heard about it from other Senators--that the special needs child was confronted with other parents in the school system who felt that because so much money was being spent on the special needs child, and because so much of the local tax base was being used to help the special needs child, their children weren't getting an adequate education and their children were being unfairly treated. But it wasn't the special needs child's fault. That child was just getting the education they had a right to. It wasn't the fault of the parent of the special needs child, who usually got most of the abuse at the school meetings. They were just asking for what they had a right to have. They were being put in this terrible position of being confronted by other parents who were legitimately angry about the misallocation of resources, as they saw it. Why? Not because of anything the special needs child did, or the parents of the special needs child, but because the Federal Government refused to pay its obligation of picking up the 40 percent of the cost of that child. So 3 years ago, under Republican leadership in this Senate, under the leadership of Senator Trent Lott, with a lot of effort by such people as Senator Jeffords from Vermont, myself, and Senator Collins from Maine, we made a commitment to do something about this, to pay our fair share of special needs. In fact, S. 1 in the last Congress said we were going to put ourselves, as a Congress, on a ramp that would allow us to pay special needs children the 40 percent. It would take us 10 years, but we would get there. Then we backed that up with appropriations. Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, 3 years in a row, has dramatically increased the funding for special needs, for IDEA--$740 million in the first year, $690 billion in the second year, and $509 billion last year. I think those are the numbers. It essentially has meant almost a doubling of the commitment to the special needs child by this Congress. Do you know something? The administration didn't support any of it. This administration, which is so committed to education, has not sent a budget up to this Congress in the last 3 years that has called for any significant increase in special ed. They are playing a shell game on education. What they are doing, in fact, is they are borrowing money that should be going to special ed in order to fund all these new initiatives, so that members of this administration can go across the country and say, ``I am for this new program,'' or, ``I am for that new one,'' ``We are going to put a billion dollars into that and $500 million into that.'' Where do they get that money? They take it from the special needs child. How much did they ask for in new funding for special education in this budget? We presently spend $4.3 billion. On special education, how much did they ask for as an increase? $3.3 million. That is what the administration asked for--$3.3 million out of a $4.3 billion budget, which only accounts for, by the way, out of that $4.3 billion, 11 percent of the cost of special education. We are supposed to be paying 40 percent. So, under this Republican Congress, we have taken it from 6 percent to 11 percent. That is good news. The bad news is, we still have a long way to go. The bad news is that still in every school district across this country, local school leaders, principals, PTAs, school boards, are having to take money they would have otherwise used maybe to add a teacher, maybe to build a building--where have we heard that before?-- maybe to do an afterschool program, maybe to put a computer in, to put an arts program in, a language program in. Instead of taking the money they would have used for those programs, they are having to take that money and having to use it to fund the gap that remains in the Federal obligation to pay for special education. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court in the Cedar Rapids case made it very clear that that gap isn't going to get smaller, it is going to accelerate dramatically, because the Supreme Court decided that, as a matter of education, the person had a right to health care while in the school system. Many of these children need extraordinary health care. Kids we dealt with in the center I was involved in required immense health care. So that is going to increase the cost of special education even further. What is going to happen for every dollar increase that comes about as a result of the need and as a result of this new Supreme Court decision? The local school district is going to fall further behind. It is going to have to take more taxes than it would have used to buy books and to add teachers and to build new buildings, more of those taxes, and have to move them and reallocate them to special education. So it is going to become worse. The situation is going to become worse. Why? Because this administration refuses to fund special education or even make an attempt to address it in any aggressive way. Instead, it comes forward with program after program after program, borrowing from special education funds to do that, and, as a result, leaves the special education child out on the street while it puts out its press releases. We are going to debate this, as the Senator from Massachusetts said. I look forward to that debate. If the Senator wants to filibuster the Ed-Flex bill, which has been supported in the last Congress, supported in this Congress, supported by the President, and is supported by members of both parties, a bipartisan bill, if he wants to filibuster the Ed-Flex bill, that is his choice. But the fact is that what he is really filibustering is special needs children. What he is filibustering is the ability of local communities to manage their dollars more effectively so that we take care of special needs children and the other children who are in our school system. It is ironic and I think inappropriate to filibuster. But it sounds as if that is what we are going to get. Ed-Flex, a program defended and supported in the last Congress by the majority of the Congress, a program supported by the President, a program supported by the Secretary of State, is now going to be filibustered because people do not want to fund special education--a very interesting approach to government. Mr. President, I look forward to this debate, I look forward to a lot of it, because I do think that the American people need to learn just how irresponsible this administration has been on the funding of special education. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator accept this amendment on any other initiatives, which are appropriate, which are going to have funding for the purpose of education?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank you. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Ed-Flex bill we are going to take up next week, which has been brought to the floor by Senators Frist and Wyden and which is an excellent piece of legislation, a commonsense idea. The Ed-Flex bill simply gives freedom to the States to assist local school districts in meeting the particular needs of their particular students. As a former Governor, I was very frustrated when I would receive Federal funds that were chock full of strings and Federal directions-- strings that limited the ability of local school districts to address the educational needs of their students. Had Ed-Flex been an option when I was Governor, schools could have chosen whether they would use Federal funds to hire more math teachers or instead if they wanted to use them to hire more reading teachers. Those choices should have been dependent upon the particular needs of each school. They should have been dependent upon the particular needs of the students. Instead, those choices were being made by the Federal Government. Under the current system, 38 States are prohibited from issuing the type of waivers the Department of Education can issue under the Ed-Flex Program. New Hampshire is one of those States. This means that someone at the Department of Education who doesn't even know the name of one student at, for example, the Rumford Elementary School in Concord, NH, has more authority over whether the Rumford Elementary School principal and the Rumford schoolteachers can decide whether they need math help or reading help for that student than the principals and the teachers have. It is difficult to fathom that some of my colleagues believe that the Federal bureaucrat, however well- intentioned, rather than a Concord school district principal or a Concord elementary district schoolteacher or a parent is a better judge of what a child needs in the Rumford Elementary School than they are. It is hard for me to understand how we can turn to a Federal bureaucracy to make decisions about local schools rather than have the local schools make decisions about how the education should proceed. This philosophy of Federal control over local education is insulting to the principals, to the teachers, to the superintendents, to the school board, to the parents. And more importantly, it is counterproductive because it doesn't put the resources where we need them. It doesn't help the student with the needs that that student has been identified as needing by the local school district, but rather with a set stringent regulated framework which has been determined by a Federal bureaucracy. Furthermore, this philosophy of Federal control is unjustified. Twelve Ed-Flex States, in the words of Secretary Riley, have used their authority to grant waivers ``judiciously and carefully.'' There is no compelling reason to delay expansion of Ed-Flex authority to all the States. In fact, Secretary Riley, President Clinton--both of whom are former Governors--and the National Governors' Association support expanding Ed-Flex to all 50 States. I congratulate the President and I congratulate Secretary Riley for his support of this initiative. With that said, Ed-Flex is a modest but important first step to driving more flexibility and control to the locals, thereby giving them the schools to improve education. However, it still leaves the bulk of decisionmaking and control regarding Federal education programs in the hands of the Department of Education rather than with the States and local communities. I hope that later on in this year we will address those additional regulations. At this time, we are taking up Ed-Flex. That, at least, is a first step and a positive step. Ed-Flex is a bipartisan, widely supported bill with proven effectiveness. We should take this opportunity to provide much needed flexibility to the States. Finally, I take this opportunity to commend Senator Frist and Senator Wyden for their diligent, bipartisan effort to expand Ed-Flex to all 50 States. They led the fight last year to ensure that all States benefit from the increased flexibility and innovation that Ed-Flex provides. I thank them for their efforts to bring Ed-Flex again to the floor of the Senate. I believe the very fact that Ed-Flex will be considered on the Senate floor next week sends a clear signal to the American public that the top priority of this Senate is education and educational programs that are sensitive to the needs of the parents, the students, and the local schools. Ed-Flex is proof positive that the Senate is prepared to hit the ground running and promote proven educational reform measures such as the expansion of the Ed-Flex Program. I hope that in a strong, bipartisan manner we can work together to pass Ed-Flex and give the Governors, the local schools, the parents, teachers, and the principals this much needed tool which will free them from much unneeded Federal regulation.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. Are we in morning business?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to address the bill that is presently before the Senate. I begin by congratulating the chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, for bringing this bill forward in the sense that it has addressed the issue of pay raise for our service people. This is important. I think we all recognize that our ability to attract in a volunteer service first-class folks who are going to be willing to put their lives on the line for us requires, in turn, that we pay them a fair compensation which reflects the gravity of the job that they are doing and the importance of the job that they are doing. So the pay raise part of this bill, I think, is a very appropriate element of the bill. In addition, I am very supportive of the attempts to address the health care issues, not only of the service men and women, but of their families, which is critical to the quality of life. Of course, housing needs of service individuals is also extremely important. Those elements of the bill, especially the pay and the health care parts, are, in my opinion, steps forward, and I congratulate the chairman for bringing the bill forward and bringing it so promptly to our attention. But I do have serious reservations about some other elements of this piece of legislation. There are two areas where I think this legislation either creates a new entitlement, which is inappropriate and extraordinarily expensive, or actually is counterproductive to its overall purpose. The first place that I have concern is in the area of the new entitlement for children of service individuals to receive, basically, the GI bill benefits. This is a significant expansion of the GI benefit. It has always been a superb benefit and a well-used benefit, but it has only been directed at the military personnel. Now it can be used by the spouses and by the children of military personnel. The potential costs in the outyears of this are extraordinary because it is an entitlement. They really are not recorded in this bill because this bill only has a 5-year window, and when we get out past that 5 years, this number is going to be extremely high, and I think we will have, in my opinion, expanded this benefit in a way that will put great strain on the Defense Department budgets, which I do not think is the proper way to approach this. Education is important, but the GI bill has always been focused on the soldier, the sailor, the airman. It is not for the children, unless the soldier, the sailor or airman has died in service. We do have a large panoply of other types of educational initiatives in our Government that are available for military children, as well as for all other children, for that matter. It would be better to work an additional benefit for military children through those types of already-existing educational programs which are not entitlement oriented but are discretionary oriented. In my opinion, for that reason, this bill has a very serious flaw. The second problem this bill has, which I really do not understand why the decision was made to go in this direction, is that it reverses the decision we made back in 1986 to drop the 50 percent back to 40 percent, the percentage of pay which a person will get on retirement after 20 years. The reason we did that, and the reason it passed so overwhelmingly back in 1986, was because we were trying to retain people in the military service. That is the reason that decision was made. We saw the purpose of that pension structure, 50 percent of pay upon 20 years of completion of service, as being, essentially, an encouragement to cause people to leave the military, and they were. So this bill reinstitutes an initiative which makes no sense if our purpose is to attract people and keep them in the military. I understand this bill also has a $30,000 bonus if you stay in the military and take the 40 percent. But the fact is, going back to 50 percent is going to cause a lot of good officers and a lot of our more senior enlisted individuals to leave the service, because their age is usually in the early forties when they hit that 20 years, sometimes younger, but usually in the early forties, and that is the perfect time to go off and find a new career. If you have an incentive that you are going to get 50 percent of your pay if you go out and find a career, you have a huge incentive to leave the career you are in and go out and find a new career. So it makes much more sense to stay at the 40 percent. I think it would have made a great deal more sense in this bill if we said, rather than bumping it back up to 50 percent, something to the effect that we are going to stay at 40 percent and we are going to give the military, the Defense Department, the flexibility to take the money we would have used to go to 50 percent and use that money to create new programs which will encourage people to stay in the service rather than to leave the service. For example, the bonus is in this bill, but certainly there are other things that could be done that would encourage people to stay in the service after 20 years if there were a big pool of resources available to the Defense Department to set up educational programs or additional benefit structure programs or even a pay increase incentive program for people who reach that 20 years and are thinking of retiring. Instead of doing that, we are doing the exact opposite. We are saying we are going to bump your percentage up to 50 percent and encourage you to leave the military. It makes no sense; plus, it is extremely expensive. It is $2 billion and, once again, when we get outside the 5- year window, the cost is very high. This is an extraordinarily expensive bill. We should not underestimate that it costs $45 million in discretionary money and $14.1 billion in new entitlement spending over the 5-year period. If you were to graph it, it would go up probably horizontally on the entitlements side because of the new entitlements in the education accounts. I think and I am hopeful that when the extraordinarily high quality leadership, which this committee has, takes a look at this bill again as it heads into conference, they will take a look at these two items, because these two items, in my opinion, create serious flaws in a bill that otherwise is very positive and is very appropriate. It seems to me that the first one is an expansion of the entitlement, which is inappropriate, and the 50 percent, which is counterproductive to the purposes of the bill. It would be logical if we go back and visit both of those items. I do have an amendment that I would be willing to offer on the second one, the 50 percent. I am hopeful that this committee, which is so well led--and I do not want to slow up the bill because I think it is a bill, I understand, that the committee wants to move--I am hopeful the committee will take a hard look at this, and if they don't, obviously, I might have to resort to the amendment. But, hopefully, there will be an attempt to take a look at this, at least in the conference stage so we can address what I think are the two flaws in this bill. I thank the President for his time, and yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.