Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 103 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate, committees have from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, June 2, in order to file legislative matters.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will begin the DOD appropriations bill on Monday, June 7, and hopefully will complete action on that bill by close of business on Tuesday, June 8. In addition, on Monday, it will be the leader's intention to move to proceed to S. 1138, the new compromised Y2K bill on Monday and file a cloture motion on the motion for a cloture vote on Wednesday, June 9. Also, on Tuesday, June 8, it will be the leader's intention prior to the recess or adjournment that evening to move to proceed to the lockbox issue and file a cloture motion on that matter for a cloture vote on Thursday, June 10. Members who have an interest in the important Social Security savings bill should plan to participate in that debate Tuesday evening and Tuesday night. Needless to say, when the Senate reconvenes following the Memorial Day recess, there will be a tremendous amount of legislation needing passage by the Senate. Therefore, the leader wishes all Members a safe and restful Memorial Day and looks forward to the cooperation of all Members when the Senate reconvenes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 97, S. 704.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, Senator Leahy has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I take a moment to express my appreciation to our guest Chaplain, Pastor Ronnie Floyd, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, Springdale, AR, who led the Senate in our opening prayer today. Chaplain Ogilvie was gracious enough to allow Pastor Floyd to lead us in prayer. Pastor Floyd has been a dear friend of mine for many years; he has had a tremendous impact upon my family and my children. I have a son and daughter-in-law who today still worship in his church and have been greatly impacted by his ministry. Pastor Floyd has a national television ministry and has touched lives all across this country. It is a great privilege today to have him in our Nation's Capitol ministering to us in the Senate. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, also reserving the right to object, I share Senator Enzi's concern and making this UC request to introduce a bill that would allow us to have offsets. We have an appropriations bill, as so often is the case with these emergency spending bills that come before us, traveling like a freight train. The ``freight train'' has little stowaways hidden all through it. So in the very short period of time that I began to look at some of the little stowaways hidden on this ``freight train,'' I found $1.8 million for safety renovations of the O'Neill House Office Building, $1.9 million for the Northeast Multi-Species Fishery, $250,000 for the L.A. Civic Center, $1.5 million for the University of DC, and $3.76 million for the House page dormitory. These may all be good things, but they are certainly not going through the right process. There is $100 million for aid to Jordan; $77 million to the Census Bureau, Postal Service, USTR, et cetera. The Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians gets $22 million. I don't see how that can be termed an emergency coming before us. There is $8 million dollars for an access road to Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota. On and on go these little stowaways. There is a high school, White River High School, which receives $239,000. The point is, Mr. President, we have a process that is being perverted, a process that is being circumvented.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Wellstone, Feingold, Bob Smith, Bunning, Collins, Kyl, Sessions, Grassley, Abraham, Snowe, and Jeffords, am submitting a resolution commemorating the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Ten years ago, the Chinese Communist government unleashed lethal force on peaceful demonstrators in Beijing. For ten years, demonstrators from Tiananmen have been suffering in prison. The resolution that I am submitting today simply calls on the government of the People's Republic of China to make amends. To reevaluate the verdict of Tiananmen Square. To release the prisoners. To stop harassing Chinese citizens seeking freedom. It says that if they are serious about being a respected member of the international community, then they will implement and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They will respect universal standards and they will respect their own citizens. At the moment, there is a great deal of tension between the U.S. and China. Chinese espionage of sensitive technology, allegations of illegal campaign donations, competing security interests in the Asia- Pacific region, and disagreements over Kosovo are just a few problems-- problems that illuminate the adversarial behavior of the Chinese Communist government. Most recently, there has been a great deal of Chinese furor over the mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. I do not take lightly this egregious error and this tragic loss of life. But as regrettable as this mistake was, the Chinese government has been using this event as a catch-all refutation of the United States. It was no accident that the human rights dialogue and the ongoing arms talks were other casualties of the embassy bombing--the two areas where the Chinese government refuses to be responsible. It was no accident that the Chinese government bused demonstrators from universities to the U.S. embassy where they pelted rocks at American property, breaking windows, keeping Ambassador Sasser and his staff hostage at the embassy. It was no accident that the Chinese government used propaganda to inflame the emotions of the Chinese people. But Mr. President, there is no moral equivalency in the accidental bombing of the embassy and the Tiananmen Square massacre. I the midst of the high stack of issues surrounding U.S.-China relations, I hope that human rights does not tumble to the bottom. The well-being of the Chinese people, the ability to express themselves, is fundamental to any future relationship between the U.S. and China. That is why I am submitting this resolution. Mr. President, the Beijing protests began in April 1989 as a call for the government to explain itself--to explain its dismissal of an official who had been sympathetic to students demanding political reform in 1986. The demonstrators, students and workers, asked that the government take action against corruption. They asked for freedom for the independent press. They asked for democratic reforms. These students from Beijing University and 40 other universities, these Beijing residents protested in and around Tiananmen Square. They held hunger strikes. They defied martial law. They were met with brutal repression. On May 30, after almost a month of student demonstrations in support of increased democratization in the Peoples Republic of China, the protest leaders erected a symbol of their growing movement--a symbol to be a ``powerful cementing force to strengthen our resolve'' and to ``declare to the world that the great awakening of the Chinese people to democratic ideas has reached a new stage.'' The symbol these students chose was the Goddess of Democracy--a thirty-seven foot high monument of foam and plaster with a striking resemblance to the Statute of Liberty. This symbol of democracy gave those thousands of onlookers a hope for a future free of communism. But on June 3, 1989, police officers attacked students with tear gas, rubber bullets, and electric truncheons. People's Liberation Army (PLA) officers armed with AK-47s opened fire on the innocent people who would dare stand in their way. But that was not enough for the government. They sent convoys of tanks to Tiananmen Square to absolutely crush the demonstrators. Their armored vehicles rammed the Goddess of Democracy, knocking it down, flattening it beneath their steel treads. They killed a symbol of democracy and massacred their own people. On June 4, the PLA and security forces killed 1,500 and wounded 10,000. By June 7, the Chinese Red Cross reported 2,600 people aspiring to democracy dead, In the end, the Chinese government killed and wounded thousands of demonstrators. They imprisoned thousands more for their participation. But the nightmare did not end there. For the hundreds that remain in prison, for their families, each passing day is a living horror. This ten year terror must stop. The resolution that we are introducing today simply calls on the government of the People's Republic of China to do what is right--to do what is consistent with their constitution and international standards. It is a message to those fighting for democracy--we will not forget the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators by police and PLA forces on June 3 and 4. We will not forget the suffering of those who saw their friends die for freedom. We will not forget that with each passing day, hundreds of prisoners still languish in prison simply because they desire freedom in China. Mr. President, I believe that it is time to move to a post-Tiananmen era. But this cannot happen without the release of Tiananmen Square prisoners. And it will not happen until we shed the scales of the Clinton Administrations' blind China policy and open our eyes. Let me suggest four tenets for an open-eye China policy. First, we must re-engage our allies. Our relationship with China has come at the expense of our relationships with Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. We need to rebuild a realistic picture of security in the Asia-Pacific and recognize China's aggressive military aims in the region--aims that will only be reached at the expense of our allies. Second, we must protect our sensitive technology. Recent investigations show that we need increased security at our national labs and other facilities, common sense background checks, controls on technology transfers, and a Justice Department that does not hinder its own FBI's investigations. While espionage may be a fact of life, we can still take comprehensive measures to minimize foreign spying. Serious theft of nuclear and technological secrets have already increased China's military prowess. Third, we must engage the people of China, rather than the Communist regime. We need sustained engagement, not just one time, highly publicized political visits. I therefore advocate increased funding for Radio Free Asia, the Voice of America, democracy building programs, and rule of law initiatives. Finally, businesses must do their part and aggressively advocate human rights. The door for China's entry to the WTO is still open, but a WTO deal is not just a deal between the U.S. and China. It is also a deal between the U.S. government and American businesses. A WTO deal must include an understanding that American businesses in China must not be complicit with slave labor or other human rights violations. Instead, American businesses must be advocates for human rights, to the Beijing government and to the people. The simple fact is that China desperately wants American trade and American business. U.S. companies must use this leverage to advance more than profits. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in supporting this bipartisan resolution--to recognize this regime for what it truly is and to never forget the tragedy that occurred ten years ago on June 3 and June 4, 1989.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize National Hospital Week, when we pay tribute to our Nation's hospitals, and the millions of workers, health care professionals, and volunteers who have dedicated themselves to caring for those who are sick and in need. I would like to give special recognition to Washington Regional Medical Center, located in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and a 1999 recipient of the American Hospital Association's NOVA award. This award highlights innovative community partnerships that respond to a particular community's needs. Washington Regional Medical Center is a 1999 NOVA award winner for its outstanding commitment to the children in Washington County. Chronic disease and disability, which can lead to death, are often attributed to poor health habits that are formed during childhood. The Washington Regional Medical Center is working to reverse this trend through its Kids For Health program. By partnering with the Washington County school system, the medical center has been able to teach more than 8,000 children about the importance of general health, nutrition, fitness, hygiene, safety, environmental health, and self-esteem. A sign of the program's success, Kids For Health is the recipient of a five-year grant from the Harvey and Beatrice Jones Charitable Foundation. Kids For Health is a stellar example of how a hospital can make a difference in its community, and I commend Washington Regional Medical Center and all those who have made this program possible for their excellent achievements.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a man of extraordinary courage. A fellow Arkansan. A soldier and a hero. His name was Carlos N. Hathcock II. Carlos was born on May 20, 1942, in Little Rock, Arkansas, the son of a welder. At the age of eight, Carlos saw his first Marine in full uniform. The sight left an indelible impression--a mark that would lead him to commit his life to the military. But in the meantime, he had some growing up to do. Carlos spent a great deal of time in the woods of North Little Rock, hunting squirrels and rabbits and bringing them home to eat. He had no problem filling the table. It seemed as if he was anticipating his future career. Carlos could hardly wait to start his career in the military. In May 1959, at the age of seventeen, he signed up with the Marines with the permission of his father. The moment he turned eighteen, Carlos went into the Corps. He quickly realized his talent as an effective rifleman and began to carve out his niche in the Marines as a sniper. The intramurals of the Marine Shooting Team was his first official match, a match that he won handily. This victory would certainly not be the last. Carlos won many more shooting competitions and rose steadily through the ranks, with a only a few minor bumps along the way. Indeed, the months and years could be counted by championships and promotions, and marked by his marriage to his wife Jo and the birth of his son, ``Sonny'' Hathcock. But soon enough, the skills of Sergeant Carlos Hathcock II were put to use and put to the test. In 1966, the Marines sent him to Vietnam. His tour of duty was no doubt difficult, but Carlos' amazing rifle skill made him a valuable asset to the Marines and an opponent to be dreaded by the North Vietnamese. For his great service, Carlos was presented with the Navy Commendation Medal with combat ``V.'' Carlos proved himself again on his fateful second tour of duty in Vietnam in 1969. By this time, Carlos knew the sweltering jungles of Vietnam. He could become one with his surroundings. With painstaking patience, he crawled and lay in wait--his hands controlled, resisting the urge to scratch or stretch, his body still as death--until that moment when he struck. Carlos was an expert. He even gained a reputation among the Viet Cong who dubbed him ``Long Tra'ng,'' or white feather, for the single white feather in his hat. But as precise and deadly as he was, Carlos did not enjoy killing people. In fact, he saved the lives of his comrades in the 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division. On September 16, 1969, the amphibious assault vehicle Carlos was riding ran over a landmine and exploded. Carlos, sprayed with burning gasoline and his flesh melting away, focused only on helping his comrades. Carlos went back to the vehicle and dragged his companions away to safety. He was burned almost beyond recognition. Fortunately, Carlos was able to recover. For his heroism in Vietnam, Carlos was awarded a Purple Heart and Gold Star. And with swift dedication, Carlos went back to the Marines, serving almost ten more years, retiring on March 1, 1975, after nineteen years, ten months, and five days of service. He had entered the Marines as a callow youth and left a Gunnery Sergeant, a veteran, and a hero. He carried on his patriotism and service to America, speaking at military gatherings and teaching his sniper skills to the Virginia Beach Police Department. And in 1996, he was again awarded for his heroism in Vietnam, this time with a Silver Star. Carlos Hathcock II passed away on February 23, 1999. But he lives on in the minds of many. His son, Carlos Hathcock III, is also a gunnery sergeant in the Marines. The Marines have a library in Carlos' name and an annual award presented to the best marksman in the Marine Corps. Marksmanship of legendary proportions will remain synonymous with the name Hathcock.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is not often that I rise to speak about specific individuals, but the individual I want to talk about today was a man of extraordinary character, Brandon Burlsworth. Last Wednesday, I was saddened to learn about the tragic and untimely death of Brandon Burlsworth. Brandon was only 22 years old when a car accident ended his life. While his time on this earth was short, his impact on our world will be long lasting. Brandon was a hero to the community of Harrison, the Razorback family, and the entire state of Arkansas. Brandon lived the kind of life that would make any parent proud. He led a wholesome life, and was a devout Christian who used his faith and strong work ethic to become a success in every facet of life. Brandon was not a highly recruited athlete coming out of Harrison High School. Several small colleges expressed interest in him, but Brandon had his sights on walking on at Fayetteville and becoming a Razorback. While the odds were long, Brandon worked hard and not only made the team, but went on to start for the Razorbacks for three years. Last year, he earned All-American honors, while leading Arkansas to the SEC West Co-Championship and a berth in the Citrus Bowl. Last month, the Indianapolis Colts selected Brandon in the third round of the National Football League draft. Not only was Brandon a disciplined player on the field, he was an outstanding student in the classroom as well. Brandon earned a bachelor's degree in marketing management and a master's in business administration, all in 4\1/2\ years. In addition, he was a three time member of the SEC Academic Honor Roll. Today, newspapers and newscasts are often filled with stories about athletes and their brushes with the law. Brandon became a symbol of how student athletes should conduct themselves. The manner in which he conducted himself on and off the field will be Brandon's legacy. He was a young man of great character and dedication. While I recognize that words alone provide little comfort in times such as these, I hope that Brandon's family knows how many lives this young man has touched.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. I especially thank him for his strong leadership on this issue and for pushing this issue to the point that we are having this debate on the floor of the Senate. I have believed for some time that this debate has been sorely needed and greatly lacking. Senator McCain is truly an American hero. He is one that I respect immensely, along with Senator Hagel and the other cosponsors of this resolution. Though I disagree with them and though I rise in opposition to the resolution, I believe they have taken a principled position, a principled stand that is justifiable and behind which there are rational arguments. I believe they reciprocate that respect for the principled position and belief that we do not have a vital national interest in the Balkans and that we have made a policy mistake and that given where we are, the placement of ground troops is not the next step that we should be taking. I regret the silence that has characterized Congress to this point, particularly the Senate. I applaud those who have pushed that we might have this time today. As I read the resolution, I read that it authorizes the use of all necessary force and other means. That, I do believe, is a blank check. I believe it grants blanket authority, and it does take us out of what is a very, very important role for the Congress. I read also that all necessary force and other means is granted to accomplish NATO's objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro. One of the questions I have is, what are our objectives? I do not believe those objectives have been clearly outlined. Does the resolution refer to military objectives, which we have been told means to degrade the military capability of Milosevic--whatever that term ``degrade'' may mean, subjective as it is--or does this reference to the objectives of NATO refer to political objectives, which have been defined in a much broader sense in reference to the withdrawal of Milosevic, the incorporation of an international peacekeeping force, humanitarian aid and a number of things? So I am not certain what objectives are in mind in the resolution or how one would determine whether or not they have been achieved. When I made reference to the silence that I think has been embarrassing for the Senate, I think Members of the Senate have been reluctant to speak on this for a couple of reasons. We have been reticent to speak out because nobody wants to be portrayed as not being in support of American troops. I went to Aviano. We have the bravest young men and women imaginable involved in this. They are willing and have been risking their lives daily in pursuit of this policy and the orders they have been given. I support them and I believe in them. I believe in their effectiveness and I believe in their courage. But I think that is one reason people have been hesitant to get into this debate, because they are afraid of being portrayed as not being supportive of the military, and also because of the horrible atrocities that have been committed by the Serbs and the Milosevic war machine. Nobody wants to be portrayed as being uncaring or not having a humanitarian concern for the ethnic cleansing and for the killing and massacres that have gone on, which truly are deplorable and ought to be condemned by all right-thinking people. I care about that just as I care about the 1.3 million-plus civilians who have died in the Sudan in the Sudanese civil war, and just as I care about those who died in the Ethiopian civil war, and just as I care about those who died in Rwanda, and just as I care about the oppression that goes on today in China. I care about those tragedies that are going on all over the world, not just in the Balkans. I have agonized a great deal about what is the right position not only on this resolution but on this, what I believe is a misguided conflict. The war in Kosovo reveals the extent to which we have overstretched our armed services. They are overdeployed and underfunded. For example, over the last 3 fiscal years, the Congress has added $21 billion to the President's meager defense requests. Unfortunately, even these increases have not kept pace with the military's increased tempo of operations. The President has committed United States forces to Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia, Macedonia, the Taiwan Strait, and now Kosovo. Each of these much-needed congressional plus-ups was passed over the administration's objections, and the administration simply said the Pentagon hadn't asked for the additional money. Between the years 1945 and 1990, the U.S. Army was deployed only 10 times, Mr. President. But since 1991, the U.S. Army has been deployed 32 times. That is an increase in deployments of over 300 percent. Simultaneous with our 300-percent increase in deployments around the world, we have cut funding for the U.S. armed services by one-third. That is a simple calculation that, if you ask the armed services to do 300 percent more and you give them one-third less, you are inviting a disaster and you are creating a crisis, and that is what we face today. This overuse of America's limited military might threatens our ability to execute our national security strategy to be able to fight-- and this is our stated strategy--and win two near-simultaneous, medium, regional conflicts. This past Friday in the Washington Post, Bradley Graham authored an important article on this very point. In the article, General Richard Hawley, who heads the Air Combat Command, told reporters--and General Hawley is retiring in June and therefore he spoke with particular candor--that 5 weeks of bombing Yugoslavia have left United States munitions critically short, not just of air-launched cruise missiles, as previously reported, but also of another precision weapon, the joint direct attack munition dropped by B-2 bombers. So low is the inventory of the new satellite-guided weapons, Hawley said, that as the bombing campaign accelerates, the Air Force risks exhausting its prewar supply of JDAMs before the next scheduled delivery sometime in May. In the past 8 years, the U.S. military has been weakened appreciably. While we are occupied in Kosovo, United States intelligence assets are necessarily focused on military operations there. If another country conducts a ballistic missile test while the bulk of United States intelligence assets are focused in Kosovo, and if that country only needs one test before deployment, like North Korea, for instance, then we will not have missed simply the one test, but we will have missed all the tests necessary to know what they are deploying and when they will deploy it. There is a great deal going on in our world, including a deteriorating relationship with Japan, with the People's Republic of China, with Russia; a dangerous situation in North Korea; Iraq is busy again on their ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction programs, with no U.N. inspections to inhibit them; India and Pakistan launching ballistic missiles and testing nuclear weapons; Iran, and other surprises yet to come. The United States needs to be sure it has the resources to focus on more than one troubled spot at a time. We need to decide what is important and see that we have the necessary capabilities. As reported in this most recent edition of National Review: General Henry Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress, ``Anecdotal and now measurable evidence indicates that our current readiness is fraying and that the long-term health of the total force is in jeopardy.'' Today's military is 36 percent smaller than it was during the Gulf War. Last year, the Pentagon determined that there was a high risk of being unable to [fight and] win two [near] simultaneous wars, a capability that current U.S. strategic doctrine demands. And even though [the Pentagon doesn't consider] the Kosovo assaults . . . as one of these major engagements, they have led to fewer patrols being flown over Iraq, and a [substantial] gap in naval forces in the Pacific. President Clinton responded to the readiness alert sounded by his military chiefs by proposing an additional $12 billion for next year's defense budget. But $8 billion of this ``increase'' represents savings from lower fuel costs and inflation rates that would be going to the military anyway. A good portion of the remaining $4 billion is dedicated to items like commissary operations and renovation of the Pentagon, which leaves precious little to meet our crying readiness demands. I believe that since we started what I believe is a misguided war in the Balkans, it has been flawed since its implementation. President Clinton and his national security team have mismanaged this operation from the very beginning. The U.S. and NATO should stop saying what the allies will or will not do. For example: We will hit only these targets. Why should we tell them that? We will only hit those targets at 2 a.m. when nobody will be hurt. We are running out of cruise missiles. Why should we tell them that? We are bringing in A-10 aircraft, or Apache helicopters, in four weeks. Why do we say that? Once again, such statements only help the enemy. It would also seem that the President did not learn many lessons from a war that he so forcefully and vocally opposed. A ``graduated response'' didn't work in Vietnam for President Johnson; it won't work for NATO in Kosovo. It will cost lives. If the United States is going to get into a fight, if we are going to place America's sons and daughters in harm's way, then it is worth winning, and we should hit hard and hit hard up front. Hoping for a measured antiseptic war-- ``immaculate coercion''--to be successful, without deaths on either side, is the only hope of the unschooled. The present practice of ``war by committee'' is another area ripe for scrutiny. There are too many lives at risk for NATO to continue to operate as it has for the first 6 weeks of the air war, with delays for the approval of each of the targets and delays on the dispatching of various weapons systems, such as the Apaches. If a ``war by committee'' is difficult to implement in an air campaign, I believe it would be virtually impossible to execute in a ground campaign. Even Margaret Thatcher, who herself advocates ground troops, has harbored doubts about Operation Allied Force and its implementation. During a speech delivered last week, the former British Prime Minister stated: So here we are now, fighting a war . . . on treacherous terrain, so far without much effective local support, with imperfect intelligence, and with war aims that some find unclear and unpersuasive. The key question that confronts the Senate and the Congress and the country is, What will guide our national security policy? Will it truly be our vital national security interests, or will it be that guided by understandable humanitarian concerns? Is Kosovo in our national security interest? Another excellent article that appeared recently that I would like to quote from, I think, speaks eloquently about this issue of our vital national interest. Ultimately, it says our vital interests must somehow be involved. Sometimes, as with President Clinton's attempts to relate America's interest to Kosovo with the outbreak of two world wars in the Balkans, it takes the form of bad history. Apart from the fact that the beginning of World War II had nothing to do with the Balkans, World War I began at a time when the interests of three vast empires collided in the region, making it one of extraordinary geopolitical sensitivity. That is no longer the case. Now, properly considered, it should be an insignificant backwater, and it has taken a good deal of determined and sustainable political effort to make it otherwise. The article goes on to conclude with an interview with Lawrence Eagleburger, whom the article rightly describes as ``one of the few Americans who both understands foreign policy and has a close firsthand knowledge of Yugoslavia''. Mr. Eagleburger is quoted as saying: Serb nationalism is the real ruler here. Whoever would follow Mr. Milosevic would certainly be just as bad. Or he might even be worse--a true believer in the nationalist cause. Mr. Harries continues: But if Serb nationalism is the real ruler, it doesn't make a great deal of difference whether the ostensible ruler is or is not a true believer, for in either case he is riding a tiger. Mark Helprin, writing recently, raised similar points. He rightly asks if it is the policy of the United States to support separatism and secession wherever they may be close to ignition and war? He goes on: The Administration's answer is that the Balkans are ``in the heart of Europe.'' The Balkans, of course, are not in the heart of Europe. They are a backwater separated from the European heartland by mountain ranges and salt water. They are entirely unastride the major routes of communication and/ or axis of invasion, and they are strategically and economically unessential. In citing them as the origins of the First and, incorrectly, Second World Wars, and therefore as justification for his policy of internationalizing their conflicts, President Clinton seems not to comprehend that one of the reasons for the First World War was that the great powers of the time stupidly, mistakenly and fatally internationalized the conflicts there. May I say, Mr. President, that is what we are doing. We are taking the conflict in the Balkans and we are ratcheting it up. We are internationalizing the conflicts in the Balkans. What is the proper role of Congress in all of this? I have applauded Senator McCain for ensuring that debate took place. There has been too much congressional silence--perhaps afraid of the political repercussions, perhaps wanting to make this a political winner for one party or the other. But at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, one of our Nation's Founding Fathers, James Wilson, a signatory of the Constitution, not only implicitly equated declaring war and entering war, but also explicitly foreclosed exercise of the power by the President acting alone. And he emphasizes the role of our national interests in entering a war. He said: This [new] system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large; this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives; from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war. So it was envisioned by our Founding Fathers that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war. It has yet to be adequately demonstrated to Congress or the American people that it is our vital national interest that has drawn us into this conflict. In fact, I would say we have stumbled into this conflict. We have slipped into this war. I want to take just a moment, Mr. President, to talk about the difficulties of a ground war. Escalating the conflict in Kosovo to include U.S. ground forces would require broad and deep public support, which is presently lacking. Deploying a NATO-led force of any consequence, would require the broad consensus of NATO's nineteen member states. Judging by the limited commitment of forces made by some of our NATO allies to the present operation, I strongly doubt that a consensus could be reached on deploying 200,000 or more soldiers into Kosovo. In fact, as important as this exercise is today, as important as this debate is today, it may truly be a moot point, because the likelihood of receiving consensus among our NATO allies is remote. Deploying a NATO-led force large enough to expel the Serbian Army and any paramilitary forces would take several months, by which time Slobodan Milosevic may have succeeding in expelling all of Kosovo's ethnic Albanian population. If anyone doubts this point, I would encourage them to re-examine just how long it took the Army to deploy just 24 Apache helicopters and their supporting equipment from Germany to Albania. That deployment alone took over one full month. Any ground operation in Kosovo, however it ends, would require an armed NATO-led presence in Kosovo for decades to come. While the American people have focused--focused well and focused appropriately-- on the humanitarian disaster in the Balkans, they have not yet focused on the length and cost of the commitment that this resolution would be asking us to make--truly a decade-long commitment. One need only look at the Korean peninsula where American troops have been deployed for over 45 years. Remember the first time I mentioned the decade-long commitment to the press, and the eyebrows went up and a look of skepticism. No one is skeptical about tenure with experts in foreign policy now saying 20, 30, 40 years, or a generation for sure. That is the kind of commitment that we are talking about. Americans must also keep in mind, as Andrew Bagevich wrote recently: . . . success will not come without cost, in blood as well as treasure. Once achieved, it will impose new burdens that few Americans will welcome: the U.S. will inevitably bear the chief responsibility for rebuilding and rehabilitating a post-Milosevic Yugoslavia (Estimates for rebuilding the Balkans already stands at over $30 billion.). Clinton, Albright, Berger, et al., will retire to write their memoirs. The rest of us will end up taking care of the broken crockery. It will be an enormous cost. It is a major commitment. We must ensure before we take that step that, in fact, this is a vital national interest to us, and therefore worth it and we can do it. Nor should we pull back, nor should we become isolationists. We do have a burden to bear as the leading democracy in the world and the remaining superpower in the world, but we must choose our fight well. The other great question as to what would happen with the introduction of American ground troops in Kosovo is the Russian question. I don't know the answer to that, but I know that we bet a lot that they are bluffing; that we bet a lot when we say they will back down; that they are more concerned about IMF loans than they are in being a major world power or player. But I do know this: They have 20,000 nuclear warheads still, which cannot only be used but can be sold, and that threat is a serious one and I think arguably a more serious one than a bully boy in Serbia. The issue of NATO's credibility comes up repeatedly in the United States, and the argument is that it may have been unwise to go in. Maybe we shouldn't have taken this step. But we did. And now that we are in it, we have to win it because otherwise we lose credibility. How many times have we heard advocates of escalation put forth the argument that NATO's credibility is at stake? At this time the near consensus among the foreign policy elite in Washington is that whatever the flaws of the original case for waging war over Kosovo, there is no alternative to pressing on, even if it means sending in ground troops. The cost of not doing so, it is insisted, would be prohibitive. But while it is certainly true that it would be very high, that there would be a high cost of not winning it, that in itself, in my estimation, is not a conclusive argument. The real question is whether it would be higher than the cost of the alternatives. There will be a high cost if we exit the Balkans without a clear and unambiguous victory, but we must weigh that against what the cost will be if we go down that road and we then do not have a clear and unequivocal victory. That question is not as easy, and I suggest to those who sincerely offer this resolution that is a serious issue for us to debate. For ordinary Americans, the strongest argument for continuing is likely to be to alleviate the condition of the Kosovar refugees. If you ask most Americans why, that is their justification for being there. It is graphically demonstrated on television screens every night. The American people are compassionate people and it is understandable and commendable that they react to those scenes that way. Senator Wellstone spoke earlier. It was the humanitarian disaster that became the primary justification. When President Clinton speaks about this war, it is primarily the humanitarian disaster that becomes the rationale for our involvement. Yet, if that is our rationale, where do we not go--because humanitarian disasters are occurring around the world, oftentimes as a result of bitter ethnic civil wars. Can we ask the American people to bear that burden and to introduce American troops in all of those places? In contrast to the reaction of the American people, for the foreign policy establishment the overriding argument turns on the necessity to protect America's and NATO's future credibility. If, having started the thing, we do not now prevail, the future costs all over the world in terms of emboldened thugs and rogue states will be steep. While those arguments are both serious and valid, those arguments were equally valid in 1965 when the question of how to proceed with respect to Vietnam was the issue, and in the end the policy they gave rise to turned out to be not such a great idea. This administration, I believe, needs to remember the ``Rule of Holes.'' If you find yourself in one, stop digging. To simply say that because we are there, we stumbled in or slipped in, because we are there, we must now stay regardless of the cost, I think, is misguided thinking. An infantry campaign in the Balkans will forever alter the unstable politics of Russia, may well provide it with the organizing principle for rearmament, and will most assuredly play into the hands of the ultra nationalists. When we think about the cost in American credibility, in NATO credibility, this alone will more than cancel out the benefits of impressing potential enemies with our resolve, the fact that we upset that balance of power in Russia. Anyone seriously planning to challenge American interests will be unimpressed if America itself cannot clearly define where those interests are, and thus we indiscriminately squander our military assets. It has been said nothing is more comforting to a soldier than to see the enemy fire wildly and waste ammunition. We need to ensure that when we go in, we go in with full force and that we have adequate justification from a national interest standpoint and that we have marshalled the support of the American people. I fear this resolution provides a carte blanche to the administration. It is a blank check. It takes Congress out of the process too early. This would be a wrong step to take. If we should go in pursuit of a misguided policy and, if, then, NATO fractures, the consensus is lost, and if at some future point we bail out of what we have escalated to the point of ground troops, I suggest to my colleagues that our long-term credibility would be damaged far more in that circumstance than making the prudent decisions denying this conflict now. I reluctantly, and with enormous respect for those whom I regard as American heroes who are sponsoring this resolution, take exception to their principal position and will vote against the resolution before the Senate today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the chairman for yielding. I am glad to join my colleague from Arkansas in supporting the Ed- Flex bill, also in joining all of my colleagues in our expressions of grief for the families who are suffering such a loss in Colorado today. I have been struck, as I have listened to my colleagues on the Senate floor. Time and time again words fail me to express the grief, the sorrow, that we all feel and really the lack of answers that we have. As I presided a few moments ago, Mr. President, and listened to Senator Wellstone, he made the statement that if he could snap his fingers and somehow make yesterday not happen, he would do that. I think all of us feel that way. I would add that if we could somehow pass a law today, if we knew the silver bullet, if we knew what it is that we could pass legislatively from Washington, DC, and put it in statutes, and that it would prevent these kinds of tragedies from occurring, I think we would have a 100-0 vote this evening in the Senate. Unfortunately, the solutions are not so simple. The answers are not so obvious. Perhaps it goes to the cheapening of life in our society. Perhaps it goes to the culture of violence that permeates so much of the popular media today. I do not know all the answers, and perhaps today isn't the day to even talk about what the answers are or whether we can do something from Washington, but certainly there is agreement that it is a deep and shocking problem in our society. What is it in America that allows this to happen? I will join my colleagues in seeking to find answers and trying to make this the kind of society where these tragedies are fewer and fewer. I am glad to rise in support of the Ed-Flex bill. Certainly this is a step in the right direction in education reform in our country. The Ed-Flex program is about cutting the unnecessary strings attached to Federal education funds. It does not cede accountability. In fact, the States must use the funds for the purpose intended; the money must remain targeted to the population it is designated to serve. This bill, though, is recognition that when limited Federal funding is spread so thinly over such a wide area, the result is ineffective programs that fail to provide students with the basic skills they need to succeed. If we are to expect schools to increase their performance and provide a better education for our children, then we must allow them to coordinate school reform plans and to implement plans that coordinate program funds. We do not need to compartmentalize education, and this bill makes that coordination between programs easier. In States such as Arkansas, where there are many small school districts, rural school districts that receive only small grants through various Federal programs, flexibility is the key. We must allow local school districts to decide how to spend Federal dollars in the way that will work for them, not the way that Washington tells them to do it. That is why, in addition to supporting this bill, I have introduced the Dollars to the Classroom Act, which also gives more flexibility to local school districts. It would eliminate the bureaucracy and allow schools to continue the reform efforts that they have already started to implement. Why do we think that Washington bureaucrats, who are over 1,100 miles from Arkansas school districts, can decide how to improve our children's education better than the parents, the teachers, the principals who live there? We must give schools the tools that are necessary to let them address the needs they are facing. It is time to stop the one-size-fits-all approach to education, and allow those at the State and local level to decide what is best for their children. The problems facing Arkansas schools are not necessarily the same as those facing schools in other parts of the Nation. Ed-Flex allows States and local school districts to address these problems without restrictions that can inhibit school reform. If Congress expects improvement in our Nation's schools, then we must not add any additional regulatory burdens that only create more paperwork for our teachers and principals. If we really want teachers to spend more time with their students, then we must cut the red tape that occupies so much of their time. In his testimony before the Senate Health and Education Committee on February 23, as we well remember, Michigan Governor John Engler stated: Many governors feel so strongly that the bureaucracy is the problem that we cannot imagine being unable to improve education with greater funding flexibility. In fact, he and the 49 other Governors support this legislation, along with the President and, most importantly, the teachers, the principals, the school boards and the administrators of this country. The U.S. Department of Education's 1998 report to Congress on waivers states: Waiver authorities can be useful tools for promoting improved student achievement and for promoting flexibility to support local efforts to improve teaching and learning for students. Finally, I am disappointed that the Lott amendment regarding IDEA was removed during conference. The main objective of the Ed-Flex legislation is to give schools more flexibility. Allowing school districts more options in how to spend their federal dollars can only benefit those districts by giving them control at the local level. After talking with an administrator for the Class Size Reduction program in Arkansas, there are still several school districts who will choose not to participate in this program because of excessive regulations. Many of the small- to medium-sized school districts in Arkansas who have not yet reduced class size to 18 students per class will choose not to go through the burdensome steps to form a consortia with several other school districts for the hiring of only one teacher that they must then share. While this is an issue that we must continue to resolve, I am proud to have supported this legislation, and I hope that the education debate that we have had in Congress will not end with the passage of this piece of legislation. A significant amount of work remains in improving our schools, and I look forward to further consideration of this issue. That is what this bill is about. That is why it has such broad support. Though we need to go much further, this is an important first step in providing greater local flexibility. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, if today I were not in my home state of Arkansas, I would surely be on the floor of the Senate casting an affirmative vote for H.R. 1376. I believe this Congress should pass this important legislation unanimously, so that it can be quickly sent to the President for enrollment into public law. Any time the men and women of our great country choose to wear our nation's uniform, they are making a statement. They are saying that principles like duty, honor and freedom are more important than personal gain and personal comfort. Any reasonable action the Congress can undertake to ease the Federal burden weighing on our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines is one that should be considered and acted upon quickly. Recognizing the area around Kosovo, where our military is deployed under orders from the President, as a hazardous duty area for Internal Revenue code purposes will grant service members a small degree of relief. Allowing service members an additional 180 days to file their federal income tax return, and exempting a portion of their income from taxation may be only a small gesture of support, but it is one that has already been earned. I will continue to keep the men and women participating in Operation Allied Force in my thoughts and prayers, and I look forward to their safe and speedy return. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate expects to begin consideration of S. 767, the uniformed services tax filing fairness bill. Passage of that bill is expected, and it will then be the leader's intention to begin consideration of the budget resolution conference report. There are 10 hours for debate on the conference report, but it is hoped that a significant portion of that time will be yielded back. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues about some of my thoughts about Amendment 211 that was authored by my good friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum. This Amendment to S. Con. Res. 20, was accepted by the Senate by unanimous consent. Mr. President, I know that I am not alone in stating that many of us in the Senate believe that, first and foremost, we believe that the Davis-Bacon Act should be repealed. If full repeal is not possible at this time, there are meaningful steps we should take in the meantime to get us to that end. Mr. President, we must allow widespread use of ``helpers'' on federal construction projects. Considering our nation's changing welfare-to- work environment and with the importance of revitalizing disadvantaged communities, it is particularly critical that the government not limit opportunities for entry-level jobs. Congress should exempt schools from the outdated rules and restrictions and give local school districts the flexibility to spend resources where they will most effectively meet students' educational needs. The Davis-Bacon wage process has been shown to be inaccurate, subject to bias, and used as a tool to defraud taxpayers. In March 1997, a DOL Inspector General's report confirmed that 2/3 of the wage surveys were inaccurate. In January 1999, a General Accounting Office report found errors in 70% of the wage forms, and confirmed frequent errors go undetected and the high proportion of erroneous data ``poses a threat to the reliability'' of prevailing wage determinations. Mr. President, again, I know that I am not the only Senator who would prefer repealing Davis-Bacon, but in light of the spirit of Senator Santorum's Amendment to the FY2000 budget measure, I ask that we at least consider the reform points I outlined above. veterans health care

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise this evening to join my colleague, Senator Lincoln, my other colleague in the Senate, to honor our Nation's children and citizens who have been victimized by school violence. The Senate just adopted Senate Resolution 53 which designates March 24, today, as ``National School Violence Victims Memorial Day.'' As you know, 1 year ago today at the Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, AR, five children and one teacher lost their lives to an inexplicable and cowardly act of violence. Ten others were left wounded, and countless parents, relatives, and friends were left permanently scarred. In addition, the entire State of Arkansas was left numb with shock, horror, and grief. I cannot express the loss and the pain that we feel as a result of this tragedy. But I ask you and my fellow colleagues in the Senate to reflect on the loss of Natalie Brooks, Paige Ann Herring, Stephanie Johnson, Britthney Verner, and Shannon Wright. We hurt for these families. I know that the simplest things in life will forever cause them pain. For instance, I know that Floyd Brooks will never see another frog without thinking of the frog collection which his daughter Natalie was so proud of. We remember that Paige Ann Herring was a very bright, intelligent 12- year-old girl who loved life and enjoyed it to the fullest through such activities as playing the piano, softball, volleyball, basketball, singing in the school choir. It saddens me, and I think all of us, so much that we will no longer hear her voice. It is the little things. Stephanie Johnson believed that a ladybug's landing on her brought her good luck. And her mother knew that her prayers for peace were answered when she asked God for a sign that Steph was OK and then upon her next visit saw ladybugs on Stephanie's gravestone. We remember today that Britthney Varner was an extremely caring and loving little girl who got good grades and loved daffodils. I know that Mitchell Wright will never look at his son, Zane, without thinking of Zane's mother, Shannon, who gave her life to save the lives of her students. I want these families to know that while we can never fully know the pain they feel today, we will certainly never forget their loved ones. As I close, I want to give a special message to Zane Wright, Shannon Wright's infant son Zane. Your mother was a genuine heroine. Scripture teaches us that there is no greater love than the love it takes to lay down your life for another. So whenever you wonder what you mother was like, remember her as an incredibly brave woman who loved others like few others in this world ever have. In addition, to the families of the victims of school violence in Bethel, AK; Pearl, MS; West Paducah, KY; Edinboro, PA; Pomona, CA; Springfield, OR; and the rest of the Nation--we want them to know that we stand today to honor their loved ones. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor to my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I rise in opposition to the resolution. I have all the confidence in the world in the capability of our military. But I think this is an ill-advised mission. I heard my good friend from Delaware, and I also heard the Senator from Massachusetts use the word ``hopefully.'' In fact, that word was used repeatedly. ``Hopefully,'' the airstrikes will work. ``Hopefully,'' the airstrikes will bring Milosevic to the bargaining table. ``Hopefully,'' there will be a peace agreement. The question I ask is, What if our best hopes are not realized? What if it doesn't work? What happens then? I raised that question to Secretary of Defense Cohen. I don't believe the answers were sufficient or satisfactory. There were far more questions than answers. The President has not made the case to the American people or to the Congress. We all know the great limits there are on airstrikes, the capability of airstrikes in changing behavior. There will be limits on these airstrikes and how successful they can be. Our hearts go out to those who are suffering, and they should. But I remind my colleagues that there are massacres taking place in many places in this world, including Sudan, where the level of carnage is far greater than what we have seen in Kosovo. I asked the Secretary this afternoon what will be the cost in financial terms? To my dismay, there is no estimate of what kind of dollars or costs, budgetary costs there will be. But the far greater cost will be in potential American casualties. We all know that the probability is high that there will be the loss of American lives. So this afternoon I did a lot of soul searching. I thought about my 20- year-old son, Joshua. If it were him going in, could I in my mind justify sending him in, and the tens of thousands of Joshes who are 20 years old? I believe stability in the Balkans is not a satisfactory answer.