Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, tomorrow morning, as previously ordered, the Senate will be in morning business until 2 o'clock. Following morning business, the Senate may proceed to any legislative or executive business cleared for action. Therefore, votes are possible during Thursday's session of the Senate. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. I inform the distinguished Senator from Montana that the order right now is Senator Nickles for 20 minutes, Senator Domenici for 45 minutes, and Senator Byrd for 1 hour.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 12, and immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate immediately begin a period for the transaction for morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Nickles, 20 minutes; Senator Domenici, 45 minutes; Senator Byrd, 1 hour; Senator Thomas, 10 minutes; Senator Allard, 20 minutes; Senator Dorgan, 1 hour; Senator Murkowski, 20 minutes; Senator Jeffords, 5 minutes; Senator Gramm, 30 minutes; Senator Johnson, 10 minutes, and Senator Baucus for 30 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on February 11, 1998, by the President of the United States: Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on accession of Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic (Treaty Document No. 105-36.) I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, on Monday, February 23, 1998, immediately following the prayer and the disposition of the Journal, the traditional reading of the Washington's Farewell Address take place and that the Chair be authorized to appoint a Senator to perform this task.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks by my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a business meeting to consider the nominations of Donald J. Barry, to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Department of Interior, and Sallyanne Harper, to be Chief Financial Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, Tuesday, February 10, immediately following the 11 a.m. cloture vote, the President's Room, S-216, the Capitol.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at 10 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on the defense authorization request for fiscal year 1999 and the future years defense plan.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet at on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. on indecency on the Internet.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on February 10, 1998, at 10 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at 2:30 p.m. on computer security.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-342, to hold a hearing on Fraud on the Internet: Scams Affecting Consumers.''

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, to conduct a hearing into the FDIC's year 2000 preparedness.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on Tobacco Settlement IV during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at 10 a.m.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on ``The Tobacco Settlement.''

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet Tuesday, February 10, 1998, beginning at 10 a.m. in room SH-215, to conduct a markup.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the previous order for the Senate to stand in recess at the hour of 12:30, that I may be permitted to speak for up to 40 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about United States policy with regard to Iraq. Through the national and international news media and in consultations with members of Congress, we have been told time and again in the past several weeks that the United States is on the brink of waging a limited but significant military strike against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. At the same time, Administration officials and President Clinton have also repeatedly stated they are hopeful for a diplomatic solution. It would appear, however, that Saddam Hussein despite almost frantic revolving-door diplomatic efforts from Russia, China, France, Turkey and others, will not agree to the resumption of full and open U.N. inspections. So, we have a standoff. Mr. President, in regard to this latest crisis in the Gulf, I commend to the attention of my colleagues the remarks made yesterday by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel. His remarks are both thoughtful and thought provoking and they come from a man who is a veteran with a most distinguished record. Senator Hagel said this: This dilemma must be approached from the framework of both our short-term and long-term foreign policy objectives. We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to stampede us into precipitous action. What chain of events will we unleash with any action we take? What is the Administration's long-term objective in Iraq? Do we have one? Or, are we crafting a long term policy to justify short-term actions? Senator Hagel went on to say he was disturbed about reports over the weekend quoting high ranking Administration officials and Congressional leaders saying such things as: ``We may have to face the reality that we will not get U.N. inspection teams back into Iraq; ``Any military action would be to just slow Saddam Hussein down; ``We have to keep going back to bomb him again; ``Our allies support of us in Iraq may be tied to our future commitment to NATO'' and other such disconcerting remarks. Senator Hagel concluded by saying we owe it to our country and the men and women in uniform who will be called upon to fight a war to do better than just bomb Saddam Hussein. He said: That is not good enough. There is something surreal about all of the war talk, and war preparation played out in this `matter of fact' tone on international TV with every talk show host panelist presenting his or her theories and options when most of them have never been to war, prepared for war or understand the first thing about the horrors of war. There are no good options. Saddam Hussein has and is intent on building the most vile weapons in the history of man, weapons outlawed by nearly every country in the world. He cannot go unchallenged. But, the American people and the Congress must have a more solid basis for our support. Whatever action is taken, it must meet a clear and immediate objective. We cannot continue to ricochet from crisis to crisis and call that foreign policy. Mr. President, that is straight talk and I commend Senator Hagel for his candor and forthrightness. And, Senator Hagel is right. The policy discussions regarding Iraq have indeed been unique, if not bizarre. We have seen more policy declarations, more redefined policy declarations, and more mixed signals than a coach signaling his quarterback with the time clock running out. That may well be part of diplomatic carrot and stick efforts but it certainly does not improve public understanding or provide confidence for a well defined and successful military mission. The latest comments by Administration officials indicate the attack is now only weeks away although there has been considerable speculation that the U.S. would not attack while the Winter Olympics are being held. The United States is a signatory to a U.N. resolution that calls on all countries to honor a cease fire during the Olympic Games. International Olympic Games President, Juan Antonio Samaranch has made a public appeal to the United States. I do not mean to be disrespectful but it occurs to me that a previous U.S. President canceled U.S. participation in the Olympics in response to one country invading another. This time we apparently will attack, but not while the Olympics are being held. In addition, while our strongest Arab ally in the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia, has refused the use of their country from which to base an attack, they have expressed strongly that any military strike should be well over before the beginning of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina that is the high point of the Islamic year. The Olympics are over February 23 and the pilgrimage begins March 20. Such are the rather unique things that military planners must factor into their planning in this modern world of limited and political military strikes. Saddam Hussein doubtlessly can pretty much figure out when the strike is coming: all he has to do is read the latest Time magazine for the latest target and battle plan information and the London Times for the Iraqi sites at risk not to mention many other press reports. It goes without saying, this will be no surprise attack. Nevertheless, additional time will at least afford us the opportunity to take a hard look at what is being proposed, especially as Senator Hagel has stressed in regard to how a limited strike will fit into long term foreign policy goals and the law of unintended consequences. First, I recommend to my colleagues and the American public the comments made by the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia almost 30 years ago to the date. The Senator made his remarks in the midst of the Vietnam war and during the month in which the United States suffered over 2,000 casualties. He said this: ``I for one am not afraid of the old fashioned term, victory. We hear a great deal about limited wars, but I would point out that there is no such thing as a limit on actual combat in which our men are engaged. While it is a sound policy to have limited objectives, we should not expose our men to unnecessary hazards to life and limb in pursuing them. The Senator went on to make the following pledge: As for me, my fellow Americans, I shall never knowingly support a policy of sending even a single American boy overseas to risk his life in combat unless the entire civilian population and wealth of our country--all that we have and all that we are--is to bear a commensurate responsibility in giving him the fullest support and protection of which we are capable. It is inconsistent with our history, traditions and fundamental principles to commit American boys on far-flung battlefields if we are to follow policies that deny them full support because we are afraid of increasing the risk of those who stay at home. It is a confession of moral weakness on the part of this country not to take any steps that are necessary to fully diminish the fighting power of our enemies. I submit, Mr. President, that is a most powerful statement of truth that has direct application to the challenges we face today in the Persian Gulf. The only thing that has changed is that today we refer to American men and American women. The question must be asked, just where are we in regard to specific goals regarding Iraq? Last week, in a press conference with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, President Clinton ``clarified'' Administration policy. He said the goal of the proposed attack on Iraq would be to, ``substantially reduce or delay Iraq's ability to develop and use weapons of mass destruction.'' The President also ruled out the removal of Saddam Hussein from power or action designed to compel him to halt obstruction of disarmament inspectors from the U.N. The President went on to say, ``I don't believe we need to get into a direct war with Iraq over the leadership of the country. Do I think the country would be better served if it had a different leader? Of course I do. That's not the issue.'' In making this statement, the President has clearly narrowed the goals of the proposed air strike. In fact, in my opinion, he has narrowed them from the goals articulated in previous speeches by key administration officials and from the goals outlined in consultation with Members of Congress. Secretary of State Albright, in a speech given last year emphasized the American strategy was to continue the sanctions until there was a successor regime. The President stated sanctions would continue ``until the end of time or as long as he lasts.'' That strategy was changed however to one of trying to accommodate Saddam with what was described as ``small carrots.'' It was the ``small carrot'' strategy that many observers now say led to the current crisis. Just last week, members of Congress were told there were two specific goals: First, to set back Saddam Hussein's ability to deploy and deliver weapons of mass destruction and, Second, to preserve the ability of the U.N. Security Council to respond to the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by enforcing the disarmament resolutions that ended the 199l Persian Gulf war, specifically in regard to unrestricted access for weapons inspectors. Now, with all due respect to the President and his national security advisers, I am concerned the first mission may have a very limited success at considerable risk to our men and women in uniform and for all intent and purpose, end whatever possibility there is for achieving the second mission. The bombing may not destroy Saddam's capacity to deploy and deliver weapons of mass destruction but it is almost a sure bet bombing Saddam will NOT bring about open inspections. This is especially significant in that the current resolution of support being crafted by our Senate leadership has been premised on U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 and four subsequent resolutions demanding open inspections by the U.N. inspection team. The language mirrors the statement of the distinguished Democratic Leader, Senator Daschle who stated last week: The end game is simply to allow access by U.N. inspectors into all locations suspected to be the manufacturing facilities for biological weapons. I don't know what could be more clear than that. The Democratic Leader's statement is, in fact, clear and direct. The problem, however, is that there is a follow on goal articulated in the resolution draft and it says: We urge the President, in consultation with the Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and existing laws, to take all necessary and appropriate action to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to allow inspection. The question is will the bombing be effective? It may set back Saddam's capability to deploy and deliver biological weapons and it may not. But one thing for sure, after a week of bombing, there will be no welcome mats for U.N. inspectors. In addition the resolution draft urges the president to work with Congress to further a long-term policy. My colleagues it has not taken long to discover that we do not have the support of our allies, that we do not have a long-term strategy and that if we go ahead with the limited military strike we will effectively end chances for open inspection, which is precisely the original stated goal of the administration and the stated goal of the draft resolution of support. Now, in making these remarks, I realize the current challenge posed by Saddam Hussein is both difficult and complex and that the situation in the Gulf and our relations with the members of the Gulf Coalition allies has dramatically changed. The President stated, ``I don't believe we need to re-fight the Gulf war. It's history. It happened. That's the way it is.'' The President is right. The way it was is not the way it is and we have been frantically trying to play catch up in efforts to formulate a successful response to Saddam's latest threat. Nevertheless, Administration officials state today we have Saddam in a box. To the contrary, after repeated efforts to ``lead'' and convince our allies in supporting the planned military action, I do not see much ``following'' and I wonder who has whom in a box. It seems to me there are several obvious disconnects: First, other than Saddam simply behaving like the international thug that he is, we are told his primary reason for closing down the inspections is to somehow force an end to the economic sanctions now in place, that the deprivation now experienced in his country is such that his continued rule is threatened. It is true that most of his 22 million people are going through severe deprivation. But, this is the man who has a 90,000 strong security force made up of well trained, dedicated, fanatical professional units that have maintained a climate of terror. To the extent one can be, he is both bomb and assassination proof and simply gets rid of his opposition even to the extent of using weapons of mass destruction upon his own people. The argument is also being posed that with France, Russia and China all opposing military action, and his Arab neighbors sitting on the fence, the United States might then be willing to lift the sanctions or at least increase the oil for food and medicine program. But, the United States already proposed increasing the oil for food program and Saddam refused it. And, he has used oil revenue to further construct the many palaces that now house his weapons. In any case, this explanation of his reasoning, if true, represents a good argument against a military strike. In a paradox of enormous irony, it could be argued that by withstanding and suffering through the attack and exploiting the obvious propaganda opportunity, Saddam may actually gain sympathy and support for ending the sanctions from the very nations we are asking for help! Second, what if Saddam's primary reason for shutting the door to U.N. inspectors was simply self preservation, not from within but from Iran? In fact, it was the attack from Iran several months ago that precipitated the crisis. Saddam, without his weapons of mass destruction and Iran with that capability and with a growing army represents a self preservation crisis for Saddam. A military strike against Saddam further weakens Iraq in relation to their long standing enemy. Have we thought through what the Mideast will look like when Iran has the balance of power? Third, in proposing military action, we do not have the support of the members of the Security Council whose credibility and effectiveness in enforcing open inspection we are trying to protect! We do not even have Security Council or allied support for the continuation of sanctions. So much for a rational prospective U.N. policy with reference to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. France wants to sell Iraqi oil, China wants to buy it and Russia desperately needs the money that Iraq owes to Russia. All three do not support military action and have warned of dire consequences should military action be taken. While trying to broker a diplomatic solution (Lets see, how about eight palaces open for inspection for 60 days with x number of inspectors from this country and y number of diplomats from that country and on and on) France is worried that American bombs plus Iraqi casualties will only consolidate domestic support for Saddam and that the bombing does not represent a long term answer. They have a point. The Chinese foreign minister, speaking on television, said China is extremely and definitely opposed to the use of military force because it will result in a tremendous amount of human casualties and create more turmoil in the region and could even cause more conflict. However, the winner of the Coalition Cross Current Sweepstakes has to be Russia. Foreign Minister Primakov has seized an opportunity to climb back on the world stage as the self declared pro Muslim broker while Boris Yeltsin's comment that bombing could mean ``world war'' could well have been made while pounding his shoe on a lectern. But, the Iraq issue did not stop there. Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist leader stated the Russian Duma should not ratify the START II treaty and said Americans ``act like drunk cowboys.'' The ultra nationalist Vladmir Zhirinovsky called for Yeltsin to put Russian troops in Southwest Russia on alert. Moderate members of the Russian Duma have argued the United States must get U.N. authorization before any attack. We cannot simply dismiss this sorry state of affairs as just Russian bluff and bluster. To say that these landmark changes in policy amongst our former coalition allies will have grave consequences is an understatement to say the least. Fourth, we do not have the support of the Arab nations whose sovereignty and freedom were are allegedly trying to protect! With the exception of Kuwait, no Arab nation has endorsed American threats of military action. Saudi Arabia, our closest Arab ally and a major regional power provided a crucial base for 500,000 American and allied troops that routed Iraqi forces back in 199l. Today, Saudi Arabia has refused to support a military strike upon Saddam Hussein and Secretary of Defense Cohen and the Commander of U.S. Forces in the Middle East, General Anthony Zinni have been forced to change battle plans. The Saudi's stance also undercuts political support throughout the Arab world sensitive to the view that the United States has already excessively punished the Iraqi people and that the limited attack will not rid the Gulf region of Saddam and that he will remain as vengeful as ever. In proposing limited strikes, the United States is in the position comparable to local law enforcement asking a witness to testify against the Mafia with no promise of incarceration or protection. Those chances are slim and none. Like other staunch allies during the Gulf war, Turkey is now putting its own interests first regarding any confrontation with Saddam. Their foreign minister has also been one of the revolving door diplomats trying to broker a solution. Seen in the rest of the Muslim world as a pawn of the United States, having suffered economic losses as a result of the Gulf war, and having to fight Kurdish rebels, the Turks have also refused the use of air bases. There is no doubt that most leaders in the Muslim world would like to be rid of Saddam Hussein. They view him as a menace. But, the political reality is that limited bombing with no plan for getting rid of the menace will lead to the perception of the United States conducting a military exercise with innocent civilians being killed on world wide television with ominous repercussions throughout the Muslim world . . . including the trouble spots of Bosnia and in Indonesia. Our policy has also made Israel more than a little nervous. Israeli leaders have stated they reserve the right for self protection and will act in accordance with their defense interests. Once again, we are trying to convince Israel to forgo its right to self defense and retaliation. A retaliatory attack upon Israel in response to U.S. bombing may be unlikely but it cannot be ruled out. Such a missile exchange would have devastating consequences. Fifth, as a result of Arab denial to use our bases in their countries, the United States must now launch any attack from aircraft located in neighboring gulf states, from aircraft carriers and from an Indian ocean island. The USS Independence was supposed to be decommissioned this coming September but now, the oldest ship in the fleet, is in the Gulf. This renewed buildup of sea and air forces in the Gulf and the corresponding manpower and equipment gaps in Europe and the Pacific is another example of just how stressed and stretched our U.S. military has become, all in the wake of substantial troop cuts and rising commitments to various peacemaking and nation-building missions such as Bosnia. We are already experiencing serious problems in regard to readiness, modernization, procurement and military quality of life. If we sustain a three carrier force in the Gulf, it will mean zero presence somewhere else. Yet, Navy command has mapped out plans for two carrier presence through 1999. Our Air Force is not structured as a mobile expeditionary force. Accustomed to operating out of large bases, the new operations and personnel tempo has caused serious retention problems. The obvious budget, military readiness, national security and foreign policy repercussions will be far reaching. Without question we cannot fund this current buildup and prospective military strike from within the current defense budget. If this is, in fact, an emergency requiring a military strike, then it should be funded by an emergency supplemental bill. I must ask, has enough consideration been given to the collective risks that could well outweigh whatever benefit a limited military strike might bring? Can we really ascertain the extent of Saddam's air and missile defense? Can we, with any degree of certainty effectively target and destroy his most deadly weapons and eliminate the threat? Do we have adequate protection for the men and women who will conduct the operation? Personnel recovery? POW recovery? Can this strike destroy most of Saddam's deployment and delivery capability? Will this action end all chances of further inspection? If this is true, what happens next when his capability is restored? Will this strike hurt or improve his support within and without his country? Will the strike prevent Saddam from counter-attacking and using weapons of mass destruction? Will Iran attack a weakened Iraq? What will be the response of the Muslim nations throughout the world? How will the attack change Saddam's conduct? Are our forces adequately equipped and protected against biological and chemical agents? Have we considered the possibility of terrorist activities both in the Mideast and in the United States? There is almost no end to these kind of questions and there is no question that the President's national security team and Pentagon planners have studied all of these questions and more with great care and purpose. ` I can say as a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I have great faith and a sense of personal pride and trust in our military and in our intelligence community. But, I also know that too often in the past military action has been rooted in misguided policy and our military has suffered the consequences. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, has already found it necessary to refute allegations that the battle plan and targets in Iran have been drafted and selected by the executive as opposed to warfighters, a charge that harkens back to the limited and political decision making in the Vietnam war. There is no question that our military will obey their Commander in Chief and will do an exemplary job, no matter what the mission. That is how it should be and is. Nevertheless, I would be less than candid if I did not say judging from the private commentary from many within the military and public questions from those with expertise in military tactics and national security that this proposed strike may well be flawed and counterproductive. Administration spokesmen have stated that this strike will attempt to destroy as much of Saddam Hussein's capability to deploy and deliver chemical and biological weapons as possible: not the actual material mind you, but the delivery means. But, we will not be able to destroy all of that delivery means. So, at the end of the attack, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, with civilian and military casualties, Saddam will still be in power, his scientists will still be at work, his military and the Republican Guard still deployed, some of his weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means will still be intact. It strains credibility that there will be any chance of inspections. In a year or two we may have to do it all over again. In the meantime, we will have a continued erosion of faith and confidence with our allies, anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world, and the horrors of war on international television courtesy of Saddam Hussein. If our bombing does not kill innocent civilians, then Saddam will. This is not some kind of impersonal therapy to correct Saddam's behavior we are contemplating. Too often we refuse to recognize the reality and horrors of war. In this regard, there is a pretty good test. Imagine what you would say to the loved one of an American service man or woman who will be put in harms way and may not return. For what did that airman, soldier, sailor or Marine die? Justify that loss. Many times in our history we have been able to do so with the knowledge and comfort in knowing that our nation and our individual freedoms were protected. Tragically, there have been other times we have not. We could not in Vietnam. We could not in Beirut. We could not in Somalia. Unleashing the horrors of war can be justified only to protect our vital national interests and to get rid of a greater evil. I am concerned the proposed military strike may not do either. Mr. President, before we consider S. Con. Res. 71, these concerns should be answered and other policy alternatives should be considered. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my privilege to submit a Senate concurrent resolution today commending the centennial celebration of college basketball played at the University of Kansas. This weekend former Jayhawk players and coaches, along with fans from all over the country, will gather for a reunion weekend in Lawrence, Kansas. Festivities include a legends game, banquet, and culminate with the Missouri game on Sunday afternoon. They will celebrate and honor a tradition that is second to none. College basketball history contains many milestones and accomplishments achieved by the Kansas Jayhawks. Since KU's first team in 1898-99 the Jayhawks have had more than 1,650 victories, second only to North Carolina and Kentucky. Kansas has played in the NCAA Tournament 26 times, made 10 final four appearances and won or shared 44 conference titles. Not only can Kansas lay claim to college basketball's greatest coaches, but it has ties to both its inventor and one of its dominant players. In 1898 Dr. James Naismith, only seven years removed from nailing two peach baskets on the wall in Springfield, Massachusetts YMCA, became KU's first basketball coach. Ironically, Dr. Naismith was the only Jayhawk coach to retire with a losing record. Although Dr. Naismith's record does not reflect his ingenuity for inventing basketball, he is fondly remembered at KU. Ten years later, Forest ``Phog'' Allen took over the reins from Naismith. Allen, a KU basketball letterman learned the game from his playing days under Dr. Naismith and refined them so much so that he is referred to as the ``father of basketball coaching.'' Off the court, Allen joined in the creation of the National Basketball Coaches Association, led the international effort making basketball an Olympic sport, and assisted in the formation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association Tournament. Allen compiled a record of 590-219 in 39 years as the Jayhawks head coach. This includes 24 conference championships and one NCAA Championship. All totaled Allen won 746 games, a record twice since broken by his former players. One of the outstanding games in the Jayhawks 100 year history is the 1952 NCAA championship game played in Kansas City's Municipal Auditorium. The Allen-coached Jayhawks won the game over St. John's with Basketball Hall of Fame member Clyde Lovellette contributing 33 points. Another future Hall of Famer saw limited action that night, Dean Smith. Also in the fifties, the Kansas Jayhawks added more to the history and legacy of college basketball. In 1957 Wilt Chamberlin led the Jayhawks to a 24-3 record and a spot in the NCAA finals where Kansas was defeated by North Carolina, 54-53 in three overtimes in what is considered one of the most exciting games in NCAA Tournament history. Despite the loss, Chamberlin was selected tournament MVP and was a two- time All-American. Chamberlin went on to achieve great success in the NBA setting a single game scoring record of 100 points while with the Philadelphia Warriors. In recent years, Kansas Jayhawks on the court continued to add more history. Danny Manning and his all-stars persevered in their underdog effort that culminated in the Jayhawks 1988 victory over Big Eight Conference rival Oklahoma and once again being crowned national champions. Even after reaching the pinnacle of being a national champion in 1988, the Jayhawks are still regarded as one of the top teams in the nation. In his nine seasons as the Jayhawks head coach, Roy Williams has led the Hawks to two Final Fours and five conference championships. Like all his coaching predecessors, Williams' teams excel on the court and off, not only preparing student athletes for difficult games, but for the challenges to come in lives. I would like to list for my colleagues those Kansas Jaykawks who have been elected to the Naismith Hall of Fame in Springfield, Massachusetts: Dr. Naismith, Phog Allen, E.C. Quigley, John Bunn, Adolph Rupp, Paul Endacott, Dutch Lonborg, William Johnson, John McLendon, Wilt Chamberlain, Dean Smith, Clyde Lovellette, and Ralph Miller. In addition, KU's Lynette Woodard, who became the first woman to play with the Harlem Globetrotters, has also been recognized for her winning endeavor on the Jaykawks women's team. Mr. President, this short history cannot convey the atmosphere of college basketball played at ``Phog'' Allen Field House, which opened in 1955. Although it resembles a large Kansas barn, when it's filled with 16,300 Jaykawkers it quickly becomes a near impossible place for opposing teams to win. The mood of the building is often inspiring, and Coach Allen's spirit is said to remain in residence and aid the Jaykawks in times of need. On this 100th anniversary of KU basketball, I want the past and present fans, alumni, players and coaches to know the United States Senate appreciates their efforts for the past one hundred years in contributing to, and perpetuating the heritage of America's unique game; basketball.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my colleagues to introduce legislation to help meet the child care challenges facing families around the nation. Our bill is entitled the ``Caring for Children Act.'' Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home when both parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families strong. Unfortunately, finding quality, affordable child care is one of the most pressing problems for families in Kansas and around the country. The ``Caring for Children Act'' takes the first steps to address this challenge through a responsible approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without expanded government costs or intrusion in our lives. This legislation builds into the existing network without adding more government intervention or mandates. This legislation will help families that have two working parents and families that have a stay-at-home parent. This legislation will help to increase the supply of quality of child care. First, in order to provide additional tax relief and increase affordability of child care, we expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) by raising the income level to $30,000 at which families become eligible for the maximum tax credit. We also raise the maximum percentage of child care expenses that parents can deduct to 50 percent. These changes make the DCTC more realistic for families that face increasing child care costs. Increasing the income level and the percentage of child care expenses that are deductible will help families where both parents work. But, we also recognize that families who choose to have one parent remain at home have child care expenses as well. Therefore, we extend eligibility for the DCTC to families with a stay-at-home parent. This provides greater options to more families and leaves child care choices where they should be--with the family. In order to target this credit to parents who need it the most and meet our fiscal responsibilities, the credit is phased out for higher income wage earners. Small businesses play a critical role in providing child care options to millions of working parents. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a child care center. The ``Caring for Children Act'' includes a short- term, flexible grant program to encourage small businesses to work together to provide child care services for employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of three years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $100,000 for start-up costs, training, scholarships, or other related activities. Businesses must continue to meet state quality and health standards. Businesses will be required to match federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future. ``Caring for Children'' also includes provisions to provide a tax credit of expenses up to $500,000 for employers who choose to construct, renovate, or operate on- or near-site child care facilities for their employees. And, ``Caring for Children'' includes funding to promote greater availability of the Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP) for families with children. This will allow the Department of Labor to conduct outreach to businesses to promote awareness of the DCAP program. All children deserve quality care. Although all states have health and safety standards in place, many times these regulations are not enforced. ``Caring for Children'' includes incentives for states to improve their inspection efforts and ensure that facilities are in compliance with their own state standards. The bill also authorizes funding for the Department of Health and Human Services to get more information in the hands of parents and help child care providers access child care training programs. Finally, we authorize additional funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. This program sends federal assistance to states, permitting them to allocate resources where they are most needed in the state. We maintain maximum flexibility and allow states to make decisions about how to address their own child care challenges. Child care is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. While parents continue to struggle to meet the constant demand of work and family, we must continue to do our part to expand child care options and protect our nation's most valuable resource, our children. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in this important effort.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my colleagues to introduce legislation to help meet the child care challenges facing families around the nation. Our bill is entitled the ``Caring for Children Act.'' Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home when both parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families strong. Unfortunately, finding quality, affordable child care is one of the most pressing problems for families in Kansas and around the country. The ``Caring for Children Act'' takes the first steps to address this challenge through a responsible approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without expanded government costs or intrusion in our lives. This legislation builds into the existing network without adding more government intervention or mandates. This legislation will help families that have two working parents and families that have a stay-at-home parent. This legislation will help to increase the supply of quality of child care. First, in order to provide additional tax relief and increase affordability of child care, we expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) by raising the income level to $30,000 at which families become eligible for the maximum tax credit. We also raise the maximum percentage of child care expenses that parents can deduct to 50 percent. These changes make the DCTC more realistic for families that face increasing child care costs. Increasing the income level and the percentage of child care expenses that are deductible will help families where both parents work. But, we also recognize that families who choose to have one parent remain at home have child care expenses as well. Therefore, we extend eligibility for the DCTC to families with a stay-at-home parent. This provides greater options to more families and leaves child care choices where they should be--with the family. In order to target this credit to parents who need it the most and meet our fiscal responsibilities, the credit is phased out for higher income wage earners. Small businesses play a critical role in providing child care options to millions of working parents. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a child care center. The ``Caring for Children Act'' includes a short- term, flexible grant program to encourage small businesses to work together to provide child care services for employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of three years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $100,000 for start-up costs, training, scholarships, or other related activities. Businesses must continue to meet state quality and health standards. Businesses will be required to match federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future. ``Caring for Children'' also includes provisions to provide a tax credit of expenses up to $500,000 for employers who choose to construct, renovate, or operate on- or near-site child care facilities for their employees. And, ``Caring for Children'' includes funding to promote greater availability of the Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP) for families with children. This will allow the Department of Labor to conduct outreach to businesses to promote awareness of the DCAP program. All children deserve quality care. Although all states have health and safety standards in place, many times these regulations are not enforced. ``Caring for Children'' includes incentives for states to improve their inspection efforts and ensure that facilities are in compliance with their own state standards. The bill also authorizes funding for the Department of Health and Human Services to get more information in the hands of parents and help child care providers access child care training programs. Finally, we authorize additional funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. This program sends federal assistance to states, permitting them to allocate resources where they are most needed in the state. We maintain maximum flexibility and allow states to make decisions about how to address their own child care challenges. Child care is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. While parents continue to struggle to meet the constant demand of work and family, we must continue to do our part to expand child care options and protect our nation's most valuable resource, our children. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in this important effort.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30. If there are no requests for morning business, the Senate may recess for several hours, as the Senate awaits House action on the remaining appropriations matters. As previously announced, no rollcall votes will occur during today's session. If rollcall votes are necessary tomorrow, the votes will be scheduled within a 4-hour time span. The leader is now attempting to ascertain that 4-hour period. Also, if rollcalls will be necessary during Thursday's session of the Senate, Senators will be notified as soon as a decision is made concerning those possible votes on Thursday. The Senate is also attempting to complete its business for the first session of the 105th Congress. Therefore, many executive and legislative items are in the clearance process. Needless to say, the cooperation of all Senators -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------