Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in late-December 1999, the Federal Communications Commission took the unusual and aggressive step to restrict the programming of noncommercial television stations by not allowing certain types of religious programming. Within the context of a license transfer involving a noncommercial television station in Pittsburgh, PA, the FCC attempted to establish guidelines for what they felt were ``acceptable'' educational religious programming. The commission states in the Additional Guidance section of their decision document that, ``. . . programming primarily devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally-held religious views or beliefs generally would not qualify as `general educational' programming.'' As a former religious broadcaster, this type of misguided agenda coming from a nonelected agency of the federal government is very disturbing. My office was flooded with letters and phone calls from Arkansans who were worried that the Federal Government had finally made an overt attempt to restrict what religious programming we watch on television or listen to on the radio. Surprisingly, the national media remained strangely quiet despite the serious free speech implications and first amendment violation by the commission's ruling. Soon after the FCC's controversial decision, I sent a letter to Chairman Kennard, along with Senators Nickles, Helms, Enzi, and Inhofe, criticizing the commission's actions. Congressman Oxley introduced legislation in the House to address this issue. Although I am a cosponsor of Senator Brownback's companion bill to Congressman Oxley's bill, I do not believe this legislation to prevent future attempts by the FCC to restrict religious programming goes far enough. That is why I am introducing S. 2215, the ``Noncommercial Broadcasting Eligibility Act of 2000.'' Simply put, my bill would effectively deny the FCC the ability to create new rules defining what is appropriate and eligible programming for noncommercial television and radio stations, while creating a ``clear and simple test'' and guidance as to what programming noncommercial television and radio broadcasters may broadcast. This ``clear and simple test'' is based on the well-established guidelines from section 501(c)(3) and 513 (a) and (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. By requiring the FCC to look to the well-established guidance used by the Internal Revenue Service and the courts in defining what is ``substantially related'' programming, my legislation gives noncommercial broadcasters the ability to broadcast programming that is ``substantially related'' to their tax-exempt purpose, whether it be educational, religious, or charitable. It is clear that the FCC intended to restrict religious programming and may be inclined to do so in the future. The commission should not be allowed to circumvent the United States Constitution and pursue its own political agenda. Again, the Noncommercial Broadcasting Eligibility Act of 2000 will help prevent future misguided attempts by the FCC to limit our rights which are protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. I ask that my colleagues join me by cosponsoring this bill and making it clear that the Senate will not stand idly by as the FCC attempts to unilaterally decide what religious programming is in the public's best interest. I think it is outrageous for a nonelected agency to decide that a church service is not educational or that certain choral presentations do not fit their accepted definition of religious education. It is time that we draw the line. This legislation will do that. I ask my colleagues to join me in it.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in late-December 1999, the Federal Communications Commission took the unusual and aggressive step to restrict the programming of noncommercial television stations by not allowing certain types of religious programming. Within the context of a license transfer involving a noncommercial television station in Pittsburgh, PA, the FCC attempted to establish guidelines for what they felt were ``acceptable'' educational religious programming. The commission states in the Additional Guidance section of their decision document that, ``. . . programming primarily devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally-held religious views or beliefs generally would not qualify as `general educational' programming.'' As a former religious broadcaster, this type of misguided agenda coming from a nonelected agency of the federal government is very disturbing. My office was flooded with letters and phone calls from Arkansans who were worried that the Federal Government had finally made an overt attempt to restrict what religious programming we watch on television or listen to on the radio. Surprisingly, the national media remained strangely quiet despite the serious free speech implications and first amendment violation by the commission's ruling. Soon after the FCC's controversial decision, I sent a letter to Chairman Kennard, along with Senators Nickles, Helms, Enzi, and Inhofe, criticizing the commission's actions. Congressman Oxley introduced legislation in the House to address this issue. Although I am a cosponsor of Senator Brownback's companion bill to Congressman Oxley's bill, I do not believe this legislation to prevent future attempts by the FCC to restrict religious programming goes far enough. That is why I am introducing S. 2215, the ``Noncommercial Broadcasting Eligibility Act of 2000.'' Simply put, my bill would effectively deny the FCC the ability to create new rules defining what is appropriate and eligible programming for noncommercial television and radio stations, while creating a ``clear and simple test'' and guidance as to what programming noncommercial television and radio broadcasters may broadcast. This ``clear and simple test'' is based on the well-established guidelines from section 501(c)(3) and 513 (a) and (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. By requiring the FCC to look to the well-established guidance used by the Internal Revenue Service and the courts in defining what is ``substantially related'' programming, my legislation gives noncommercial broadcasters the ability to broadcast programming that is ``substantially related'' to their tax-exempt purpose, whether it be educational, religious, or charitable. It is clear that the FCC intended to restrict religious programming and may be inclined to do so in the future. The commission should not be allowed to circumvent the United States Constitution and pursue its own political agenda. Again, the Noncommercial Broadcasting Eligibility Act of 2000 will help prevent future misguided attempts by the FCC to limit our rights which are protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. I ask that my colleagues join me by cosponsoring this bill and making it clear that the Senate will not stand idly by as the FCC attempts to unilaterally decide what religious programming is in the public's best interest. I think it is outrageous for a nonelected agency to decide that a church service is not educational or that certain choral presentations do not fit their accepted definition of religious education. It is time that we draw the line. This legislation will do that. I ask my colleagues to join me in it.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think morning business is for 10 minutes. That is what I need, 10 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Command Sergeant Major Charles J. Johnson of the U.S. Army Communication- Electronics Command who is retiring from the United States Army after 30 years of active duty. Sergeant Major Johnson is an exceptional leader, a ``soldier's'' soldier and has served this great country with honor and dignity. He understands soldiering, leadership and selfless service. He is known for his dedication and integrity. He has tackled the tough issues that our Army has faced the passed few years while consistently focused on the proper care and concern for our soldiers and families. Through his hard work and efforts and the most significant contributions he has made our United States Army enters this new millennium as a strong, well-trained, proud fighting force. This wonderful American deserves a tremendous praise and thanks from a nation for which he has given so much and loves. Sergeant Major Johnson was born on August 8, 1949. He was raised in Canton, Georgia, and entered the Army in April 1970 at Fort Knox, Kentucky, where he was trained in Basic Soldiering and Basic Combat Skills. Upon the completion of Basic Training he received advanced individual training as a Communications Center Specialist at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Throughout his career, Sergeant Major Johnson continued his military education completing numerous military schools but most notable: Defense Race Relations Institute, Advance Noncommissioned Course, Organizational Effectiveness Staff Officers Course, First Sergeant Course and the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. Sergeant Major Johnson was also awarded a Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of Maryland. Sergeant Major Johnson's initial assignment was with the Defense Communications Agency Southwest Asia Mainland Region (Vietnam). He was assigned to the Defense Communication Agency in Washington, DC, following duty in Vietnam. Sergeant Major Johnson has served over 24 years overseas to include six tours in Germany, one tour in Korea, and another combat tour in Southwest Asia. Sergeant Major Johnson has served with distinction in every leadership position from Team Chief to Command Sergeant Major. He served as a First Sergeant of B Company, 440th Signal Battalion (Darmstardt, Germany) and as Command Sergeant Major of the 44th Signal Battalion (Mannheim, Germany), 22d Signal Brigade (Corps) (Darmstardt, Germany), U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and the Command Sergeant Major of the 1st Signal Brigade ``Voice of the ROK'' in Yongsan, Korea. Sergeant Major Johnson also served as an instructor at the Infantry Center and School at Fort Benning, Georgia and on both the Equal Opportunity and Organizational Effectiveness Staffs at Headquarters, V Corps in Frankfurt, Germany. Sergeant Major Johnson's awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal (with oak leaf cluster), Meritorious Service Medal (with fourth oak leaf cluster), Army Commendation Medal (with oak leaf cluster), Army Achievement Medal, Good Conduct Medal (10 Awards), Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal and numerous service and campaign medals for service in both Southeast and Southwest Asia. He has also been awarded the German Marksman Award and the Signal Corps Regimental Medal, the Silver Order of Mercury.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think that underscores, once again, the bipartisan nature of this legislation. I appreciate the Senator pointing out that omission. Like the rest of our country's health care system, the military health care delivery system is in great need of reform. Over the years, I have met with and heard from countless veterans, military retirees, and their families, who have informed me of the many and varied problems of every aspect of the military medical care system--including access to proper care, dissatisfaction with the current TriCare program, loss of coverage at age 65 when they become eligible for Medicare, and, especially, availability of needed pharmaceutical drugs. Last month, in fact, I had the privilege of leading a congressional delegation overseas to visit U.S. service men and women serving in Japan and South Korea. The most common complaints I heard, aside from the high OPTEMPO that keeps families apart, were complaints about the military health care system and how it treats dependents. Too many had trouble scheduling appointments for dependents, and too many had trouble being reimbursed for the cost of care provided to their loved ones. This is unacceptable. The men and women who choose to wear America's uniform have too many other important things to worry about than dependable health care for themselves and their families. Millions of Americans made the sacrifice to defend our country with the understanding that health care would be available to them upon retirement if they served at least 20 years. Unfortunately, for too many military retirees this commitment has simply not been honored. Since the establishment of CHAMPUS, and its successor, TriCare, we have seen that the idea of space-available health care at military treatment facilities for military retirees is simply not adequate. With base closures, military downsizing, and reduced services at military treatment facilities, it is nearly impossible for military retirees to access quality health care without having to travel hundreds of miles. It should come as no surprise that problems with military medicine are often cited by troops as a key reason for leaving the force. In fact, a GAO study found that access to medical and dental care in retirement was the No. 5 career dissatisfier among active-duty officers in retention-critical specialties. One of the critical challenges now is how best to reconfigure military health care delivery systems so that it might continue to meet its military readiness and peacetime obligations at a time when our base and force structure is continually changing. Let me briefly give a summary of legislative provisions in the bill that we are introducing. Section A deals with our over-65 retirees. It extends the demonstration programs that have been in place. It allows expansion of ``Medicare subvention,'' which is critically important as a funding stream for military retiree health care. It allows expansion of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program Demonstration--a program that I believe will still work, though there have been too few enrolled in it. We need to adequately publicize it, adequately promote it, and allow it to be expanded. This bill does that. It expands the National Mail Order Pharmacy Program to all beneficiaries, including Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, with only a $150 deductible. Addressing of the needs of retirees for pharmaceuticals is probably the most critical part of the entire bill and will provide great relief for our military retirees in the area of prescription drugs. It directs modification to DOD's implementation of a legislatively directed pharmacy pilot program by reducing participation fees and alternative payment methods. Section C deals with TriCare Prime. It makes improvements to the TriCare program, especially for active duty and their family members. It requires expansion of TriCare Prime Remote for active-duty family members of those members in remote locations. We hear many complaints from those who are serving in remote locations, and who are not near military hospitals, and this would allow expansion of that Prime Remote for those important service members. It eliminates copays for TriCare Prime for active-duty family members, a very important provision. It directs improvement in business practices used in administering provision of health care services through the TriCare program to include access, availability, and scheduling of appointments; claims filing, processing, and payment; and national enrollment. It continues and caps previous provisions related to custodial care. Section D provides for further collaboration between the DOD and the VA in the cooperative programs that exist in the areas of patient safety and pharmaceutical safety. All of these are critically important provisions, and there are other provisions that are going to help our military health care situation. As we know, retirees especially have had problems with access to health care. These over-65 retirees and their families are seeing a critical problem develop. These beneficiaries believe--and rightly so-- that a lifetime commitment was made and that lifetime commitment is not being honored. Service members thought they were assured free lifetime health care. This was promised by recruiters in recruiting materials as late as the 1990s. We must honor that promise to our retirees. Our active-duty service men and women find that access to care is very often difficult. Young families find it especially difficult to navigate the often cumbersome process of getting their young children to the care they need. Implementation of the managed care program appears inconsistent across the country. Families don't know what to expect when they move to different regions of the country because administration of the program appears to be handled differently at different locations. We must show these active-duty service men and women that we care. We can do that by the passage of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this legislation enacted. This is a very doable, very achievable first step in improving our military health care provision for our service men and women. I thank the Chair for his willingness to serve a little extra today so I could make my comments regarding what I think is very important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is, indeed, encouraging that this issue has been given such a high priority by the leadership of the Senate and that we have a bill--whether it passes freestanding or whether it is incorporated in the authorization bill--that is eminently doable this year. I think that is one of the hallmarks. There are others that have grander schemes of what can be done, but this is very achievable this year.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Warner, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, for his outstanding leadership on this critically important issue. I am glad to join the majority leader, along with Chairman Warner, and Senators Levin and Cleland, in the introduction of this legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think that underscores, once again, the bipartisan nature of this legislation. I appreciate the Senator pointing out that omission. Like the rest of our country's health care system, the military health care delivery system is in great need of reform. Over the years, I have met with and heard from countless veterans, military retirees, and their families, who have informed me of the many and varied problems of every aspect of the military medical care system--including access to proper care, dissatisfaction with the current TriCare program, loss of coverage at age 65 when they become eligible for Medicare, and, especially, availability of needed pharmaceutical drugs. Last month, in fact, I had the privilege of leading a congressional delegation overseas to visit U.S. service men and women serving in Japan and South Korea. The most common complaints I heard, aside from the high OPTEMPO that keeps families apart, were complaints about the military health care system and how it treats dependents. Too many had trouble scheduling appointments for dependents, and too many had trouble being reimbursed for the cost of care provided to their loved ones. This is unacceptable. The men and women who choose to wear America's uniform have too many other important things to worry about than dependable health care for themselves and their families. Millions of Americans made the sacrifice to defend our country with the understanding that health care would be available to them upon retirement if they served at least 20 years. Unfortunately, for too many military retirees this commitment has simply not been honored. Since the establishment of CHAMPUS, and its successor, TriCare, we have seen that the idea of space-available health care at military treatment facilities for military retirees is simply not adequate. With base closures, military downsizing, and reduced services at military treatment facilities, it is nearly impossible for military retirees to access quality health care without having to travel hundreds of miles. It should come as no surprise that problems with military medicine are often cited by troops as a key reason for leaving the force. In fact, a GAO study found that access to medical and dental care in retirement was the No. 5 career dissatisfier among active-duty officers in retention-critical specialties. One of the critical challenges now is how best to reconfigure military health care delivery systems so that it might continue to meet its military readiness and peacetime obligations at a time when our base and force structure is continually changing. Let me briefly give a summary of legislative provisions in the bill that we are introducing. Section A deals with our over-65 retirees. It extends the demonstration programs that have been in place. It allows expansion of ``Medicare subvention,'' which is critically important as a funding stream for military retiree health care. It allows expansion of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program Demonstration--a program that I believe will still work, though there have been too few enrolled in it. We need to adequately publicize it, adequately promote it, and allow it to be expanded. This bill does that. It expands the National Mail Order Pharmacy Program to all beneficiaries, including Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, with only a $150 deductible. Addressing of the needs of retirees for pharmaceuticals is probably the most critical part of the entire bill and will provide great relief for our military retirees in the area of prescription drugs. It directs modification to DOD's implementation of a legislatively directed pharmacy pilot program by reducing participation fees and alternative payment methods. Section C deals with TriCare Prime. It makes improvements to the TriCare program, especially for active duty and their family members. It requires expansion of TriCare Prime Remote for active-duty family members of those members in remote locations. We hear many complaints from those who are serving in remote locations, and who are not near military hospitals, and this would allow expansion of that Prime Remote for those important service members. It eliminates copays for TriCare Prime for active-duty family members, a very important provision. It directs improvement in business practices used in administering provision of health care services through the TriCare program to include access, availability, and scheduling of appointments; claims filing, processing, and payment; and national enrollment. It continues and caps previous provisions related to custodial care. Section D provides for further collaboration between the DOD and the VA in the cooperative programs that exist in the areas of patient safety and pharmaceutical safety. All of these are critically important provisions, and there are other provisions that are going to help our military health care situation. As we know, retirees especially have had problems with access to health care. These over-65 retirees and their families are seeing a critical problem develop. These beneficiaries believe--and rightly so-- that a lifetime commitment was made and that lifetime commitment is not being honored. Service members thought they were assured free lifetime health care. This was promised by recruiters in recruiting materials as late as the 1990s. We must honor that promise to our retirees. Our active-duty service men and women find that access to care is very often difficult. Young families find it especially difficult to navigate the often cumbersome process of getting their young children to the care they need. Implementation of the managed care program appears inconsistent across the country. Families don't know what to expect when they move to different regions of the country because administration of the program appears to be handled differently at different locations. We must show these active-duty service men and women that we care. We can do that by the passage of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this legislation enacted. This is a very doable, very achievable first step in improving our military health care provision for our service men and women. I thank the Chair for his willingness to serve a little extra today so I could make my comments regarding what I think is very important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is, indeed, encouraging that this issue has been given such a high priority by the leadership of the Senate and that we have a bill--whether it passes freestanding or whether it is incorporated in the authorization bill--that is eminently doable this year. I think that is one of the hallmarks. There are others that have grander schemes of what can be done, but this is very achievable this year.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Warner, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, for his outstanding leadership on this critically important issue. I am glad to join the majority leader, along with Chairman Warner, and Senators Levin and Cleland, in the introduction of this legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 on Tuesday, February 22, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 375, H.R. 1883, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999, and it be considered under the following limitations: debate until 4:30 on Tuesday be equally divided in the usual form; the only amendment in order will be a managers' amendment to be offered by Senator Lott or his designee. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the managers' amendment be considered agreed to, the bill then be read the third time, and at 4:30 today the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill as amended.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, noting that Senator Durbin is not on the floor, I ask unanimous consent to proceed up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I was deeply distressed with the news over the weekend of China's new ultimatum regarding Taiwan and the front-page, above-the-fold story in the Washington Post today. I think the headline summarizes the situation: China Issues New Taiwan Ultimatum: Delay in Reunification Would Spur Use of Force. It seems that mainland China cannot stand democracy. It is almost as if they have a visceral antipathy to freedom. I went to Taiwan last month--the Presiding Officer accompanied me on that visit to the Pacific rim--and had the opportunity to visit with the President of Taiwan and numerous officials. One of the things that struck me as we disembarked the plane and I looked off the tarmac was a whole press contingent, more than we had seen in, say, Japan or South Korea; a media contingent--cameras, reporters--shouting questions at us. I thought, even as we walked toward them, democracy has certainly arrived and democracy has blossomed in Taiwan because one of the signal signposts, I believe, of democracy is an independent and a vigorous and aggressive media. That was certainly evident in Taiwan. One of the first questions shouted to our delegation, the Senator from Wyoming will remember, was: Will China attempt to disrupt our Presidential elections as they did before? My answer was: I certainly hope not because it did not succeed before and it won't succeed this time. Four years ago, China launched missiles off the coast of Taiwan, hoping to disrupt a cornerstone of democracy in Taiwan, its Presidential elections. That effort failed both because of American aircraft carriers and the determination of the Taiwanese people not to be intimidated out of their freedom. Next month, on March 18, the thriving democracy of Taiwan will once again hold Presidential elections, and once again it seems that the Chinese Government hopes to disrupt those elections. Just yesterday, China issued a new threat to democratic Taiwan. In an official new white paper on Taiwan, the Chinese Government stated that: If the Taiwan authorities refuse, sine die, the peaceful settlement of cross-Straits reunification through negotiations, then the Chinese government will be forced to adopt all drastic measures possible, including the use of force. In other words, ``Negotiate or face invasion'' was effectively the ultimatum issued by the Chinese Government. No longer is the bar set at a declaration of independence or occupation by a foreign power; now it includes refusing to negotiate reunification--a dialog that was broken off by the Chinese Government. This is, in effect, a blank check that the Chinese Government has written themselves, making a subjective judgment on this new, ambiguous standard they have established. Taiwan is not a military threat to China, and no one in the world believes it is. If it is a threat, it is an ideological threat. A burgeoning Chinese society, less than 100 miles across the Strait, with increasing freedoms of religion, speech, and press--freedoms that are stifled on the mainland--the Chinese Government can't stand this shining contrast to its own totalitarian system. That is why China is pulling down the threshold for invasion and building up its arms pointed at Taiwan. I suggest it is no accident that earlier this month the first of four Russian Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyers sailed into Chinese waters. I suggest it is no accident this destroyer is equipped with surface-to-surface missiles designed specifically to destroy American Aegis ships and aircraft carriers, America's ships that would come to the defense of Taiwan. It is no accident that China has ordered Kilo-class submarines equipped with torpedoes designed to evade detection. It is no accident that China has deployed short-range ballistic missiles in the provinces just across the Taiwan Strait. It is no accident that China has flown over 100 sorties over the Taiwan Strait, many with Russian-bought SU- 27s. We must not tempt intimidation with ambiguity. We must not tempt aggression with weakness. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1838, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. Opponents of this act have held this out as being somehow bellicose, somehow threatening. I suggest to all my colleagues in the Senate they simply read what the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act says. Our colleagues in the other body passed this legislation by an overwhelming vote of 341-70 earlier this month. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act will bring greater clarity to our relations with Taiwan and China by increasing military exchanges with Taiwan, by establishing a direct military communications link with Taiwan, and by reestablishing Congress as a consultant in the annual arms sales process--as intended and required by the Taiwan Relations Act--which at least, supposedly, governs our relations with Taiwan. Just last month, General Xiong Guangkai, the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army and a former head of Chinese intelligence said, ``. . . we will never commit ourselves to renouncing the use of force.'' The irony is that this general did not make this statement while he was in China. He said this right here in Washington while he was being hosted by the Clinton-Gore administration. This reveals the irony of the situation. We have greater military exchanges with a country that points ballistic missiles at us than we do with a democratic ally. The State Department prohibits our senior military officers from meeting with their Taiwanese counterparts. Instead, the focus is on their Chinese counterparts. Isn't it ironic. I was visiting--I will not mention their names--with leading Army officials, some of whom had served in Taiwan many years ago, and they pointed out to me the irony that while they can hold talks with leading Communist Chinese military leaders, they cannot so much as go to Taiwan and meet with the military leadership in Taiwan, a democratic entity. It is only a matter of common sense that in the event of a crisis--a crisis now more likely--we should be able to communicate with the Taiwanese military--the people we may be called to defend. Opponents of this bill claim that ambiguity is good. But there is nothing ambiguous about the Chinese position. The Chinese White Paper even specifically opposed the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. I suggest we should not be ambiguous about our support for democracy in Asia, nor should we apologize to China for helping Taiwan to defend itself. I believe China has made itself clear on the Taiwan issue. So should we. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of S. 2039 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, last month we had a very serious, severe snow and ice storm in Arkansas. It brought life in Arkansas to a halt. Schools and businesses closed, airports, including the Little Rock Airport, were snowed in, and highways were littered with hundreds of stranded motorists. It was not too unlike the situation we had in the Nation's Capital, except it blanketed the entire State of Arkansas. Fortunately, there were very few human fatalities that were reported, but Arkansas's poultry farmers and the poultry industry suffered very heavy losses. Snow and ice built up on poultry houses across the State, and the sheer weight caused the roofs on almost 800 poultry houses to collapse, killing an estimated 10.5 million chickens. Dennis Richie, a poultry farmer in Nashville, AR, had six poultry houses the morning of Thursday, January 27. By Friday evening, half of his houses were destroyed, along with the income he needs to provide for his family. Hubert Hardin, another poultry farmer near Nashville, AR, and a single parent, lost all of his poultry houses in the storm. That means fewer options for him in supporting his family, his children. The poultry industry is a pillar of Arkansas's agricultural industry and one of my State's leading employers. These losses represent a very real danger to my constituents and to Arkansas's economy. That is why, today, I am introducing the Poultry Farmer Disaster Relief Act of 2000. This bill would amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to allow a loosening of the restrictions currently in place for emergency loans through FSA. It would allow active poultry producers who were previously ineligible for insurance to apply for emergency loans through FSA. The current law prohibits growers whose structures were uninsured from receiving these low-interest loans. If the individuals did not seek insurance and chose to risk not insuring their structures, they would not qualify. Under the bill I am introducing, these folks, who tried to get insurance, tried to do the responsible thing, tried to do the right thing and were unable to get insurance, would be allowed to qualify for these low-interest loans. This act will also allow growers whose structures were insured to apply for the same low-interest loans to cover the difference between what the houses were insured for and the cost of rebuilding their structures to current industry standards. It is very important for them to be able to do that. The need for upgrading poultry houses comes from the new regulations within the industry. Many poultry producers must increase the size of their houses and improve the safety of their facilities to meet these new regulations. Without the availability of these new low-interest loans to cover the difference, FSA officials in Arkansas estimate almost half of the growers who lost houses will not be able to rebuild, that is, half of the poultry growers would be out of the business and unable to rebuild unless we pass this legislation. Currently, the FSA requires those seeking these emergency loans to prove they are unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere before the loans are approved. Due to the severity of the destruction and the impact it could have on poultry producers throughout Arkansas, this bill waives that requirement, should there be a disaster designation from the President. This would allow the victims of this storm to apply for and receive aid in the most expeditious manner possible. Finally, this bill would require farmers who receive these FSA loans to insure the new structures. Poultry farmers in Arkansas are critical to the survival of the State's agricultural economy. Losses such as those suffered last month not only create financial hardships for the growers, but dramatic disruptions for poultry processors. I ask my colleagues to look favorably upon this relief bill. The poultry processors and growers in Arkansas and across this country deserve that. It certainly is in an area where we had a natural disaster that has affected literally thousands of individuals now in the State. This is a compassionate act and something I trust we will act upon in an expeditious manner.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, last month we had a very serious, severe snow and ice storm in Arkansas. It brought life in Arkansas to a halt. Schools and businesses closed, airports, including the Little Rock Airport, were snowed in, and highways were littered with hundreds of stranded motorists. It was not too unlike the situation we had in the Nation's Capital, except it blanketed the entire State of Arkansas. Fortunately, there were very few human fatalities that were reported, but Arkansas's poultry farmers and the poultry industry suffered very heavy losses. Snow and ice built up on poultry houses across the State, and the sheer weight caused the roofs on almost 800 poultry houses to collapse, killing an estimated 10.5 million chickens. Dennis Richie, a poultry farmer in Nashville, AR, had six poultry houses the morning of Thursday, January 27. By Friday evening, half of his houses were destroyed, along with the income he needs to provide for his family. Hubert Hardin, another poultry farmer near Nashville, AR, and a single parent, lost all of his poultry houses in the storm. That means fewer options for him in supporting his family, his children. The poultry industry is a pillar of Arkansas's agricultural industry and one of my State's leading employers. These losses represent a very real danger to my constituents and to Arkansas's economy. That is why, today, I am introducing the Poultry Farmer Disaster Relief Act of 2000. This bill would amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to allow a loosening of the restrictions currently in place for emergency loans through FSA. It would allow active poultry producers who were previously ineligible for insurance to apply for emergency loans through FSA. The current law prohibits growers whose structures were uninsured from receiving these low-interest loans. If the individuals did not seek insurance and chose to risk not insuring their structures, they would not qualify. Under the bill I am introducing, these folks, who tried to get insurance, tried to do the responsible thing, tried to do the right thing and were unable to get insurance, would be allowed to qualify for these low-interest loans. This act will also allow growers whose structures were insured to apply for the same low-interest loans to cover the difference between what the houses were insured for and the cost of rebuilding their structures to current industry standards. It is very important for them to be able to do that. The need for upgrading poultry houses comes from the new regulations within the industry. Many poultry producers must increase the size of their houses and improve the safety of their facilities to meet these new regulations. Without the availability of these new low-interest loans to cover the difference, FSA officials in Arkansas estimate almost half of the growers who lost houses will not be able to rebuild, that is, half of the poultry growers would be out of the business and unable to rebuild unless we pass this legislation. Currently, the FSA requires those seeking these emergency loans to prove they are unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere before the loans are approved. Due to the severity of the destruction and the impact it could have on poultry producers throughout Arkansas, this bill waives that requirement, should there be a disaster designation from the President. This would allow the victims of this storm to apply for and receive aid in the most expeditious manner possible. Finally, this bill would require farmers who receive these FSA loans to insure the new structures. Poultry farmers in Arkansas are critical to the survival of the State's agricultural economy. Losses such as those suffered last month not only create financial hardships for the growers, but dramatic disruptions for poultry processors. I ask my colleagues to look favorably upon this relief bill. The poultry processors and growers in Arkansas and across this country deserve that. It certainly is in an area where we had a natural disaster that has affected literally thousands of individuals now in the State. This is a compassionate act and something I trust we will act upon in an expeditious manner.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to commend a special program that is having a positive impact on schools throughout my home State of Arkansas. This program is called WatchDOGS, and was founded to combat school violence in the wake of the Jonesboro tragedy by Jim Moore, PTA President of Gene George Elementary School in Sprindgale, Arkansas. Jim has informed me that the program has rapidly expanded to about 35 schools and I share in his goal of seeing it implemented in schools throughout the State of Arkansas. Furthermore, it is my hope that this program will be implemented in schools throughout the nation. In a WatchDOGS program, fathers and grandfathers of students volunteer to spend at least one day a year in their child's school. By doing so, they not only provide unobtrusive security, but they also serve as positive role models for the children. Each school has a WatchDOGS coordinator who schedules the shifts to ensure that there is a father or grandfather on the premises at all times. WatchDOGS participate in a wide variety of school activities. For example, they read to and tutor students, participate in playground activities, eat lunch with students, and assist in the loading and unloading of school buses. I believe that this program can be a great tool in our efforts to prevent school violence and to improve student performance because it increase parental initiative and involvement in their children's education. It can often be implemented without any expenditure of school funds as the only supplies necessary are a pair of walkie- talkies and identifying t-shirts, which are usually donated by local merchants or the PTA. I hope that my colleagues will ask the school superintendents and principals in their respective home states to consider implementing this program in their schools. Finally, I wish to thank Jim Moore, Gene George Elementary School Principal Jim Lewis, and all the other people who have worked so hard to develop and implement the WatchDOGS program. Thank you for helping to make Arkansas schools the safe havens of learning that they are meant to be.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 65, which commends the World War II veterans who fought bravely in the Battle of the Bulge. This resolution was passed unanimously by the House on October 5, 1999 and mirrors S.J. Res. 32, which I introduced earlier this year. Mr. President, in mid-1994, the Allies were hopeful. The Russian Red Army was closing in on the German army on the Eastern front and German cities were being devastated by American bombing. The Allies had taken Paris, Casablanca, Tripoli, Naples, and Rome, and they were looking toward an end to the war in Europe. Hitler was on the run. In desperation, Hitler planned a surprise counterattack on the Allies on an 80 mile front running from southern Belgium to the middle of Luxembourg. Hitler hoped to break through this thinly held line in the Ardennes forest region, cripple Allied fuel supply lines, and inflame tensions within the alliance. On the harsh winter morning of December 16, 1944, five months after the Allied landings at Normandy, France, eight German armored divisions and thirteen Germany infantry divisions launched a brutal onslaught against five divisions of the United States first Army. A screaming hail of artillery fire sent many men to their deaths. Roger Rutland, First Sergeant in the 106th Infantry, described the devastation. ``We lost many men that first day. An infantry company was approximately 200 men. A Company was 21 men after the first day. C Company could account for 59 men, and in my company, I lost only 28 men the first day. Every company commander was missing the first day except my company's commander . . . some of my better men in garrison were some of the first to crack under combat conditions. They were like hugging each other and just shivering . . . They never had seen such a thing before.'' The American forces were pushed back. Many ran out of ammunition. After three days of fighting, more than 4,000 of the 106th were forced to surrender. But the American forces regrouped and pressed on. For forty-one days, American forces fought against two enemies, German forces and the worst European winter in memory. Freezing conditions made it difficult to see more than ten or twenty yards ahead, much less fight out of frozen foxholes. Halfway through the battle, American troops were still waiting for the main shipment of winter boots. Men became cut off from their division. They lost the feeling in their feet as their toes froze. Some had to have their feet amputated at the ankles. Fifteen thousand soldiers were taken off the line because they suffered from frostbite. Some wounded soldiers froze to death. But the American forces did not give in. They pushed on. They were met with brutality. On December 17th, 140 Americans were taken prisoner at Baugnez. While on the road headed for Malmedy, 86 of these unarmed American soldiers were shot by their German captors in cold blood in what is now known as the Malmedy Massacre. In spite of this horror, American soldiers fought on and took the key Belgian town of Bastogne. One of the heroes at Bastogne was James Hendrix, a Private in the 53rd Armored Infantry Battalion. 4th Armored Division and a native of Lepanto, Arkansas. On the night of December 26th, Private Hendrix was part of the leading element in the final thrust to break through to Bastogne. He and his fellow soldiers were met with fierce artillery and small arms fire. But he did not back down. Instead, he advanced against two 88mm guns and overpowered them. He saved two of his fellow soldiers who were wounded, helpless, and at the mercy of intense machine gun fire. He fought on and in another selfless act, Private Hendrix ran through sniper fire and exploding mines to pull a soldier out of a burning half-track. Because of his courage and valor, because of men who fought like him, because of the heroic efforts of the 101st Airborne. American forces fought successfully at Bastogne. Private Hendrix was later awarded a Medal of Honor for his selfless heroism. When the skies cleared at the end of December, Allied air forces were able to assist the ground forces. By early January 1945, Allied forces began pushing Hitler's troops back. At the end of January, American troops made their way back to the lines they had held when the battle began. Three months later, Allied forces put an end to Nazi Germany. Six hundred thousand American troops, 55,000 British soldiers, and other Allied participated in the Battle of the Bulge. With catastrophic casualties, the Army constantly had to find new men to take the place of fallen soldiers. Training was cut. Physical standards were lowered. Many of these soldiers were only 18 or 19 years old. At the end of these forty-one days, over 80,000 American soldiers were maimed, captured, or killed. Nineteen thousand gave their lives to stave off the forces of tyranny. They made sure that we could live in freedom today. I believe that Ronald Reagan put it well when he said. ``If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people of Earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high. But we have never been unwilling to pay that price.'' Mr. President, the soldiers who fought in the Battle of the Bulge bought with their lives a precious gift for all Americans--freedom. it is this gift that we must continually cherish. We cannot forget these sons, husbands, and fathers who died for our great country. We cannot forget their families, who endured through days of worry and nights of grief. We cannot forget those men who were exposed to blistering cold, to unyielding enemy fire--to this unimaginable nightmare. For those who died at Ardennes--for those who were massacred at Malmedy--for those who won at Bastogne, we must remember their sacrifices. There is no more appropriate time than now, for the Senate and the Congress to honor those who fought in the Battle of the Bulge. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.