[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7110-S7113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BOB DOLE AND AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, early this week Senator Dole delivered an 
important speech to the Philadelphia World Affairs Council in which he 
addressed the need for leadership in the 21st century.
  Senator McCain and I were privileged to have witnessed Senator Dole's 
first speech on foreign policy dealing with our relations with our 
Asian allies and friends. But in Philadelphia, Senator Dole called 
attention to our relationship with Europe, an area which, of course, by 
his previous service in World War II, he is infinitely familiar with. 
He talked about the need to call our attention back to leadership.
  He said our success has not been the result of luck, but of 
leadership. I think he was absolutely correct in pointing out that 
communism and the Berlin Wall did not fall. They were demolished by a 
clear vision and consistent leadership.
  I recall, Mr. President, that once when Mikhail Gorbachev came to the 
United States, he made a statement, I believe out in San Francisco, and 
he said: ``The cold war is over. Let's not

[[Page S7111]]

debate or argue about who won the war.'' That prompted a prominent 
columnist to observe that would be the equivalent of having Max 
Schmeling knocked out by Joe Louis and getting up from the canvas and 
saying, ``This fight is over. Let's not argue about who won the 
fight.'' It was worth arguing about who won the fight because of the 
demands placed upon the American people and their agreement to measure 
up to those demands itself.
  Senator Dole touched on many aspects in his speech. I am going to ask 
unanimous consent that the full statement be included in the Record. 
But he noted, for example, that when the United States was focused 
almost exclusively on Mikhail Gorbachev, he was one who reached out to 
Boris Yeltsin, who at that time was being shunned by virtually 
everybody. He realized before Gorbachev's star was eclipsed that others 
had to follow. Others recognized his demise later. So Bob Dole was in 
the forefront of not just focusing on one individual, but focusing on 
our relationship with the country.
  Mr. President, instead, we seem to have pursued a grand bet instead 
of a grand bargain. We are betting once again on an individual. We had 
stuck with Mikhail Gorbachev even as Yeltsin was coming up to the 
forefront. Now we have shifted to a fascination with Boris Yeltsin, who 
once mounted a tank in the streets of Moscow, who is now mounting tank 
assaults in the streets of the cities of Chechnya, killing thousands of 
innocent citizens, going from fighting a coup in the Kremlin to 
fomenting coups in the independent republics of the Caucasus.
  Mr. President, we need to make very clear, in terms of our 
relationship with Russia, that we intend to maintain help, maintain the 
independence of countries in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, 
some of whom will become as important to the United States as the gulf 
states have been over the years, and whose states we fought a war to 
preserve that independence.
  We need to make clear, as Senator Dole did in his speech, ``that 
Russian economic blackmail and military meddling in their former empire 
will carry costs in terms of relations with the United States.''
  Mr. President, I have a number of other points I would like to make. 
I ask unanimous consent that the text of Senator Dole's address to the 
Philadelphia World Affairs Council be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 [Remarks prepared for delivery by Bob Dole, Republican candidate for 
  President of the United States, Philadelphia World Affairs Council, 
                             June 25, 1996]

                      Leadership for a New Century

       America came of age in the middle of this century, when the 
     interests and ideals of Western democracies faced their 
     greatest moment of peril. Our rite of passage is marked by 
     neat rows of white crosses in quiet corners of Europe where 
     America left to rest so many thousands of her sons and 
     daughters. Buried with them was any belief that America could 
     prosper undisturbed by Europe's recurrent calamities. We 
     accepted then and recognize now that our security and 
     Europe's are joined, and that our alliance offers the best 
     hope for resisting any threat to the peace in Europe and to 
     the civilization we share.
       In this city, this cradle of democracy, just steps from the 
     Liberty Bell, stands the house of Thaddeus Kosciuszko, the 
     18th-Century Polish patriot whose love of liberty brought him 
     to Philadelphia as one of the first foreign volunteers in our 
     struggle for independence. Kosciuszko understood that a love 
     of liberty unites citizens from across the world. We have an 
     interest in helping Poland consolidate its hard-won freedom 
     today, just as a son of Poland once supported ours.
       America's interests in Europe are as compelling and as 
     urgent as they were before the Berlin Wall was breached by 
     the stronger forces of human yearning. Yet President Clinton 
     has persistently deferred to our allies and to the Russians, 
     subordinating American interests to the interests of a 
     dubious or ineffective consensus. That's not leadership. And 
     that has harmed the interests of all of us--Russian, Europe, 
     and American alike.
       What is urgently needed is a restoration of American 
     leadership in Europe--leadership that understands the purpose 
     and promise of America's role in Europe. Let us begin by 
     reaffirming that Europe's security is indispensable to the 
     security of the United States, and that American leadership 
     is absolutely indispensable to the security of Europe. The 
     Cold War's successful conclusion has not altered this 
     fundamental premise of our engagement in Europe.
       Let me be absolutely clear. With the end of the Cold War, 
     we should be building firm foundations for a century of 
     peace, fulfilling the promise of a new future for Europe. 
     Instead, Bill Clinton's policy of indecision, vacillation and 
     weakness is making the world a more dangerous place. And we 
     are missing an opportunity that may never come again.
       As president I will restore decisiveness and purpose to 
     America's foreign policy.
       Today's great tragedy is that this administration is 
     squandering the inheritance that America--through 45 years of 
     struggle and sacrifce--won for free peoples everywhere when 
     we won the Cold War.
       This victory for freedom in the Cold War was achieved 
     through leadership--leadership that understood the vital 
     importance of America's power and America's example to the 
     world.
       Bill Clinton and his advisors didn't understand that then. 
     They don't understand it now. It's time we had an 
     administration that did. I intend to give America that 
     administration.
       The need for change could not be more urgent.
       In an era of tectonic shifts in world affairs, we must not 
     continue to entrust American leadership to would-be statesmen 
     still suffering from a post-Vietnam syndrome. This historic 
     moment will not wait upon Administration officials who 
     believe that our Cold War mission was mistaken--not 
     principled and noble--and who are still suffering from the 
     illusion that communism merely fell instead of being pushed.
       It is time to take our foreign policy out of the hands of 
     an administration engaged in the dreamy pursuit of an 
     international order, that cherishes romantic illusions about 
     the soul of a former adversey--an administration that doubts 
     American power, questions American purpose, and cannot 
     fulfill American promise.
       It is time for a restoration of American leadership based 
     on the democratic values that are shared by our allies--and 
     increasingly by other nations as well.
       For fifty years, American statesmen from both parties--
     Democratic and Republican--have understood that the security 
     of Europe is vital to the security of the United States.
       For fifty years, Americans have understood that aggression 
     and conflict in Europe could lead to the domination of Europe 
     by a hostile power, and that if all the power in Europe were 
     in hostile hands, the United States would be directly 
     threatened.
       For fifty years, Americans have understood that the 
     economic strength and growing prosperity of Western Europe 
     were critical for our own economic success.
       For fifty years, Americans have understood that Germany's 
     full integration into the security structures of the West 
     solved a hundred-year-old problem that had made the 20th 
     Century one of the most violent in recorded human history.
       These are America's interests in Europe. They are just as 
     compelling and urgent today as they have ever been.
       Nothing better illustrates President Clinton's failure of 
     leadership than his uncertain and vacillating policies toward 
     Bosnia.
       After three years of opposing Congressional efforts to 
     enable Bosnia to defend itself--arguing that lifting the arms 
     embargo would involve America in a Balkan quagmire--President 
     Clinton committed American military forces on the ground in 
     Bosnia. Although I believe this commitment would not have 
     been necessary if we had done what I recommended from the 
     start. I made the decision to support our troops. It was not 
     popular, but I learned a long time ago that young Americans 
     risking their lives should never doubt the support of this 
     government and the American people.
       After haphazardly getting America into Bosnia, President 
     Clinton now has no idea how to get Americans out or how to 
     accomplish the mission they went to fulfill. President 
     Clinton promised to lift the arms embargo, and then changed 
     his mind. He allowed NATO to act as a subcontractor to the 
     whims of the United Nations bureaucrats and Secretary General 
     Boutros Boutros-Ghali. He refused to allow the Bosnian people 
     the fundamental right to defend themselves, and instead gave 
     a green light for the terrorists of Tehran to establish a 
     beachhead in Europe. And, at long last, under Congressional 
     pressure, he committed the United States to the arming and 
     training of Bosnia--``I give you my word''; he wrote. Yet six 
     months after the Dayton Accords, not a single bullet has been 
     delivered, and Bosnia remains outgunned.
       American Presidents from Truman to Reagan proclaimed 
     doctrines that affirm the right of self-defense against 
     aggression. Yet President Clinton still will not do what he 
     has promised since 1994; give the Bosnian people the right to 
     defend themselves. Does the ``Clinton Doctrine'' provide for 
     the right of self-defense only if it is done covertly by 
     sworn enemies of the United States?
       Unless we vigorously move to train and equip the Bosnians, 
     the U.S. and NATO will face a ``stay or fail'' dilemma in 
     Bosnia; either pull out and ignore the resulting disaster, or 
     become involved in an open-ended commitment with no clear 
     purpose, no achievable mission, and no realistic exit 
     strategy.
       Today, the credibility of NATO is on the line in Bosnia 
     and, once again, American leadership is lacking.
       Today, the Bosnian people do not have freedom of movement, 
     but war criminals do.
       Today, reports about widespread violations of the Dayton 
     Accords are suppressed by order of the Clinton 
     Administration.

[[Page S7112]]

       Today, despite the fact that conditions for free and fair 
     elections quite plainly do not exist in most of Bosnia, the 
     Clinton Administration continues to push for them anyway. The 
     whole world knows the Clinton Administration has its eye more 
     on American elections in November than Bosnian elections in 
     September.
       Let me turn now to Russia.
       President Clinton's misguided romanticism towards Russia 
     has led him and his advisors to try to fine-tune the 
     intrigues of Russian domestic politics instead of guarding 
     against the nationalist turn in Russian foreign policy that 
     has already occurred. Post-Soviet Russia has proved all too 
     willing to repeat old patterns, challenging the interests of 
     America and the West. And many of those challenges were 
     excused, ignored and even encouraged by the Clinton 
     Administration.
       Just over a week ago, President Yeltsin narrowly won the 
     initial round of Russia's first direct presidential 
     elections. The second round has been scheduled for July 3rd. 
     President Yeltsin appears to be ahead. President Yeltsin has 
     had a central role in the demise of the Soviet Union. He has 
     earned his place in Russian history. I remember going out to 
     meet him at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington in June of 
     1991. I was virtually alone at the time, but I was convinced 
     that his contributions and his potential to change his 
     country should be recognized. The next year, he and I took a 
     memorable trip to my home state of Kansas.
       Boris Yeltsin has changed Russia--its neighbors are 
     independent, its economy is open, and its people are free. 
     President Yeltsin has taken positive steps since the first 
     round of elections, such as dismissal of hard-line advisors. 
     I hope he wins next month's elections. I hope the Russian 
     people decisively reject their communist past. But whatever 
     happens, America has interests that must be protected and 
     values that should be promoted.
       I am not here to engage in a debate over ``Who lost 
     Russia.'' Russia was never ours to lose. Russia is a great 
     and powerful nation with a proud people and a vibrant 
     culture. Its future is for the Russian people to decide. But 
     I am here to ask ``Who looks out for American interests in 
     Central and Eastern Europe today?'' And if we answer that 
     question properly, we can avoid debates tomorrow over ``Who 
     lost Ukraine?'' or ``Who lost the Baltics?''
       Make no mistake: I want the Russian people to succeed in 
     their quest for enduring liberty and democracy.
       I have a vision of: a free and prosperous Russia living at 
     peace with its neighbors; a new democratic Russia entering 
     the G-7 after its reforms have been consolidated; a Russia 
     with a special relationship with an enlarged NATO; a Russia 
     willing to respect the independence and sovereignty of all 
     its neighbors; a Russia able to harness the energy of its 
     people and the resources of its territory to realize the 
     promise of its future.
       But we should have no illusions about Russia's journey: it 
     will be long, it will be difficult and it will be uncertain.
       As president, my foreign policy will strive to consolidate 
     our Cold War victory in Europe. I will replace President 
     Clinton's misguided romanticism with leadership for a 
     new century--a century that can realize the peaceful 
     promise of a new Europe . . . leadership that will avoid 
     the mistakes that led to so much bloodshed in the century 
     we are now leaving behind.
       My policy will reinforce the independence of all the states 
     of the former Soviet Union, will support the new democracies 
     of Europe, will lead to the enlargement of the North Atlantic 
     alliance, and will advance effective counter-proliferation 
     measures. In doing so, I will deal with the Russia that 
     exists today--not the Russia we all hope to see.
       Let's look at the reality.
       Russian hard-line security services have regained much of 
     their previous power. The communist-controlled Duma voted in 
     March to annul the treaty that formally dissolved the Soviet 
     Union. Too often, the privatization of state-owned 
     enterprises has served to enrich pervasive organized criminal 
     networks. The Jewish Agency, laboring mightily to aid 
     emigration from Russia, has been shut down, and ominous signs 
     of anti-Semitism are reappearing.
       Since December 1994, the world has witnessed the specter of 
     a Russian democrat, Yeltsin, permitting the bombing of cities 
     in Chechnya to appease Russian nationalists. More than 30,000 
     people have been killed, the vast majority innocent 
     bystanders. Yet, President Clinton's misguided romanticism 
     led him to compare Russian brutality in Chechnya to the 
     American Civil War. This is a comparison as naive about 
     history as it is offensive both to the memory of Abraham 
     Lincoln and the brave people in Russia who have called for an 
     end to the bloodshed.
       By remaining passive in the face of these and other 
     troubling developments, President Clinton has given a green 
     light to the most dangerous tendencies in the New Russia. I 
     will not let illusions about the Russia we hope to see 
     prevent me from seeing clearly the Russia that truly exists.
       Forces in Russia have waged a campaign of subversion, 
     intimidation and economic blackmail against other independent 
     states of the former Soviet Union--from the Baltics and 
     Ukraine to the Caucasus and Central Asia. In 1994, the 
     stirrings of Russia's neo-imperial policy were excused by 
     President Clinton in this astonishing statement: ``There will 
     be times when you are involved, and you will be more likely 
     to be invoked in some of these areas near you, just like the 
     United States has been involved in the last several years in 
     Panama and Grenada near our area.''
       Now, President Clinton may not know the difference between 
     the liberation of Grenada from communist thugs and Russian 
     intimidation of Georgia or the Baltic states, but I do.
       I will make clear the U.S. interest and desire to maintain 
     the independence of countries in Europe--from the Baltic Sea 
     to the Black Sea--and in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
       I will make clear that Russian economic blackmail or 
     military meddling in their former empire will carry costs in 
     relations with the United States. Anything less sends a 
     signal that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is 
     reversible and that the hard-fought freedom of formerly 
     Captive Nations is not our concern.
       Russian officials have conducted a campaign of threats 
     against NATO expansion, and President Clinton got the 
     message. He deferred and delayed--placing the threats of 
     Russian nationalists before the aspirations of democrats in 
     countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. It is 
     an outrage that the patriots who threw off the chains of 
     Soviet bondage are told that they must wait.
       I will stand firmly with the champions of democracy. I will 
     not grant Russia a veto over NATO enlargement. The Russians 
     should be told that NATO is a defensive alliance. It is not 
     now and has never been the NATO of old Soviet propaganda. 
     Stable and secure democracies in Central Europe will be good 
     for America, good for Europe, and, yes, good for Russia.
       My policy toward Russia will employ effective measures to 
     defend against weapons of mass destruction and ballistic 
     missiles.
       While the threat of immediate nuclear holocaust has 
     receded, the risk of accidental launch has increased. This 
     makes missile defense more feasible and more necessary. Yet 
     President Clinton is unwilling to have the United States 
     defend itself against even a single incoming nuclear missile.
       At the same time, President Clinton has been silent about 
     Russian violations of arms control treaties such as START I 
     and the Biological Weapons Convention. He has ignored the 
     Russian decision to abandon the Bilateral Destruction Accord 
     on chemical weapons. He rewarded Russian violations of the 
     conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty by giving Russia a 
     better deal.
       As President, I will not renegotiate arms control 
     agreements to indulge Russian ambitions in the Baltics, the 
     Caucasus or anywhere else.
       As President, I will link Russian adherence to existing 
     arms control treaties to the provision of U.S. assistance.
       I will end the misguided efforts to include theater missile 
     defenses under the ABM treaty--no more ``dumbing down'' our 
     missile defenses and dulling our technological edge. The 
     Clinton Administration views the ABM treaty as the 
     cornerstone of its arms control policy. I view it as an 
     historical relic that does not reflect the new realities of 
     proliferation, and seeks instead to preserve the Cold War 
     balance of nuclear terror.
       Russia also faces a growing threat from missile 
     proliferation. As President, I will engage the Russians in a 
     direct discussion about the mutual benefits of missile 
     defense and urge them to cooperate with us on this critical 
     issue.
       But one thing will be certain in my administration: the 
     American people will no longer be left vulnerable to 
     ballistic missile attack. When I am President, we will 
     deploy an effective national missile defense. We can 
     afford it. We can do it. We should begin now.
       We must also understand that the linchpin of U.S. and 
     European security is NATO. But as the world has changed, so, 
     too, must NATO change. As former Prime Minister Margaret 
     Thatcher recently said, ``Our energies must be directed 
     toward strengthening NATO, which is as important in the post-
     Cold War world as in the circumstances of its creation.'' And 
     while our allies can and should take a greater share of the 
     burden, we should not nurture the illusion that this is a 
     substitute for American leadership.
       We have the opportunity to forge a new consensus in support 
     of a common defense that includes Central and Eastern Europe.
       Fifty years ago, in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill 
     spoke his famous line: ``From Stettin in the Baltic to 
     Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across 
     the Continent.'' Today, the iron curtain has been raised, but 
     a security vacuum remains in Europe--from the coast of a 
     democratic Poland to the shores of a free Slovenia.
       As the nations of Central and Eastern Europe stretch out 
     their hand to the West, as they offer to stake the lives of 
     their people in the common defense of our democracies, the 
     Clinton Administration proudly proclaims their policy is 
     ``slow but deliberate.'' Seven years after the collapse of 
     communism, it is clear President Clinton's policy is 
     deliberately slow. If the Clinton Administration's confused 
     and timid approach had been followed in 1990, we would still 
     be studying German unification today.
       The enlargement of NATO will strengthen security, freedom 
     and peace in Europe. It will secure the gains of democracy in 
     Central Europe. It will stabilize the security of Europe in 
     which Russia also has a stake. It will ensure that security 
     concerns in Eastern Europe are addressed through NATO. It 
     will demonstrate to post-Soviet Russia that the

[[Page S7113]]

     freedom that Eastern and Central Europe gained in 1989 is 
     permanent. And it will be an unmistakable safeguard against a 
     reversal of democratic trends in Russia.
       Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic should be offered 
     full NATO membership today. Many other nations from Slovenia 
     to the Baltics rightly aspire to this goal. And Ukraine, 
     despite the great pressures of its geography, remains a 
     willing, dedicated, and welcome participant in cooperative 
     activities with NATO. As I said, NATO enlargement is a 
     process that should begin with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
     Republic--but it should not end there.
       When I am elected President, I will urge NATO to begin 
     accession talks with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, 
     and to set the goal of welcoming new NATO members at a summit 
     in Prague in 1998--the 60th anniversary of the betrayal of 
     Munich, the 50th anniversary of the communist takeover of 
     Czechoslovakia, and the 30th anniversary of the Soviet 
     invasion. There could be no more appropriate year or 
     appropriate place to declare that Central Europe has become a 
     permanent part of the Atlantic community.
       I will actively promote cooperative efforts in NATO to 
     develop and deploy Europe-wide missile defenses to protect 
     against missile attack by rogue states poised on NATO's 
     southern flank.
       I will support the integration of Central and Eastern 
     European militaries into the NATO defense structure, using 
     the Defense Export Loan Guarantee program--ignored by 
     President Clinton.
       I fully recognize the importance of friendly relations with 
     Russia. Lest we forget, in 1993 during a summit in Warsaw, 
     President Boris Yeltsin and then-President Lech Walesa issued 
     a joint declaration affirming that Poland's desire to join 
     NATO did ``not run counter to the interests of any state, 
     including Russia.'' But, as Bill Clinton dragged his feet, 
     extremist elements in Russia began to set the agenda in 
     Moscow again. We should not be surprised that hesitation and 
     vacillation fueled those who thought threats would deter us.
       As President, I will not grant Russia a veto over NATO 
     enlargement but I will offer Russia serious dialogue on long 
     term relations with NATO. NATO is a defensive organization by 
     its very nature, and its interests collide with Russia only 
     where Russia intrudes upon sovereign nations. A non-
     expansionist Russia is not threatened by an enlarged NATO.
       The hope of the world still rests, as it has throughout 
     this century, on American leadership. There is no escaping 
     the fact that only America can lead--others cannot, or will 
     not, or should not. How firmly we grasp the remarkable 
     opportunities before us in Europe will determine whether the 
     next century repeats the violence and tragedy of the last or 
     opens up a new era of peace, freedom, and security.
       The promise of the future has never been greater. With 
     strong, decisive American leadership, we can make that 
     promise a reality for ourselves and the generations to come.
       Thank you and God bless America.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, we need to make it clear, that we will not 
ignore continued Russian violations of biological, chemical and 
conventional arms control agreements.
  In contrast to an approach based on romanticism, Senator Dole 
outlined:
  An approach based on realism and a clear understanding of American 
interests.
  A strategy that will reinforce the independence of the states of the 
former Soviet Union, that will support the new democracies of Europe, 
and that will strengthen NATO and lead to its enlargement.
  A policy that will deal with Russia as it exists today, so that we 
can effectively use what leverage we have to encourage Russia to become 
the country we hope it will be--free, prosperous, respectful of and 
cooperative with its neighbors.
  But not a policy that is based on the illusion that Russia already 
has reached this stage of development.
  Mr. President, there are many important elements to Senator Dole's 
speech, and I urge all Senators to take the time to read it.
  Mr. President, I now yield my remaining 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to join my friend and colleague 
from Maine in congratulating Senator Dole on his second very important 
foreign policy/national security speech, this time concerning our 
relations with Europe. I believe that he is establishing a conceptual 
framework with a clear vision and clear idea as to what we want the 
world to look like in the next century and a clearer definition of 
those threats as they are today and as we envision them in the future.
  Although the speech was about Europe, I think it is important, 
although tragic, to note that an act of terror was committed just about 
the same time this speech was given, which is a compelling statement as 
to how fragile democracy is throughout the world and how easily acts of 
terror can be committed which take the lives of American citizens.
  Mr. President, one of the major parts of the Dole speech given in 
Philadelphia was the subject of NATO. In it he says:

       We must understand the linchpin of U.S. and European 
     security is NATO. But as the world has changed, so, too, must 
     NATO change. As former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher 
     recently said, ``Our energies must be directed towards 
     strengthening NATO, which is as important in the post-Cold 
     War world as in the circumstances of its creation.'' And 
     while our allies can and should take a greater share of the 
     burden, we should not nurture the illusion that this is a 
     substitute for American leadership.

  American leadership is what the Dole speech was all about, Mr. 
President, American leadership in a world that is fraught with danger, 
that has become much less dangerous, but a much less predictable one. 
This speech that is articulated by Senator Dole is a clear vision and a 
clear call and challenge to the American people to again recognize that 
we cannot discard the mantle of leadership which was handed down to us 
early in this century.
  Finally, Mr. President, Senator Dole said--I think it is worth 
repeating----

       The hope of the world still rests, as it has throughout 
     this century, on American leadership. There is no escaping 
     the fact that only America can lead--others cannot, or will 
     not, or should not. How firmly we grasp the remarkable 
     opportunities before us in Europe will determine whether the 
     next century repeats the violence and tragedy of the last or 
opens up a new era of peace, freedom, and security.

  Mr. President, I want to again congratulate Senator Dole on an 
outstanding speech. I commend it to all of my colleagues and the 
American people. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________