Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, during the debate on the Andean Trade Promotion Act, H.R. 3009, I missed the vote on Senator Wellstone's amendment, amendment No. 129, on May 23. The vote was on a motion by Senator Baucus to table the amendment and the motion failed. The amendment inserted a new paragraph in the legislation stating that the principal negotiation objective regarding human rights and democracy is to obtain provisions in trade agreements that require parties to those agreements to strive to protect internationally recognized civil, political, and human rights. I would have voted against the motion to table. My vote was not necessary to defeat that motion.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of S. 2600, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. Before I get to the substance of the measure, I thank and praise my colleague and friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, for his extraordinary work in drafting a practical, effective solution to the terror insurance crisis. As we all know, this has been an arduous and, at times, frustrating process. Senator Dodd has proven to be not only tenacious but almost divinely patient in pursuit of this legislation. I congratulate him and thank him for the success that I am confident this bill will enjoy when it is voted on a little more than an hour from now. I wish to speak for a moment about why this is so important, perhaps as a summary as we approach the vote. Property and casualty insurance is not an optional matter for businesses in our country. Nearly every business I know of buys insurance to protect its equipment, its property, its stock, to guard against liability, and to safeguard its employees, for instance, under State workers compensation laws. Property and casualty insurance is required by investors and shareholders. Of course, it is required by banks that lend for construction of new buildings or other projects. In the event property and casualty insurance for major causes of loss is not available or is prohibitively expensive, businesses face very painful choices and, in fact, will probably end up being paralyzed. Construction projects will come to a halt, and banks will not lend. If one multiplies this across an economy, the impact will be quite severe and particularly difficult and painful at this time as our economy remains uncertain and flat. We are here today because the ability of businesses to continue buying insurance will be placed at severe risk if we fail to address the way life and risk have changed since the attacks on America of September 11. Underwriting an insurance policy obviously requires companies to assess that risk and to estimate damages in a way that is much more tangible than most of us have done, although we know our lives and our history were changed on September 11. For those in business and in the business of insurance or reinsurance, this comes down to an attempt to evaluate that risk in terms of probabilities and ultimately dollars and cents. In the case of claims for damages caused by terrorist attacks, there is obviously no easy way to do this. There are so many uncertainties, but one thing is certain, and that is that losses from terrorist attacks, as we have already painfully seen and felt, can cost tens of billions of dollars, and under worse case scenarios, possibly hundreds of billions of dollars. Insurance is a very competitive industry, but what most Americans, although most have contact with some form of insurance, may not realize is that insurance companies need and buy their own insurance. In other words, they are dependent on so-called reinsurers that help them spread the risks that they assume when they sell insurance to us and cover their losses. When reinsurers will not renew their contracts unless they contain terrorism exclusions or limitations, there are going to be an awful lot of insurance companies that will not be able to provide terrorism coverage, in most cases not at any cost but in other cases only at a prohibitive cost. That is not just a possibility today; that is a very real probability. Across the country, insurers are in danger of losing their contracts with reinsurers because of the reinsurers' unwillingness to accept the risks of possible terrorist attacks. If this happens, and the insurers are not able to include terrorism exclusions or limitations, insurers may not be able to offer any policy at any price. This is not a matter of speculation anymore. Notices have effectively gone out, discussions have occurred, letters have been exchanged between reinsurers and insurers and those who are insured, as we read in the paper today. That uncertainty on the part of the insurance industry has now come to the point where it is haunting consumers and will hurt consumers, purchasers of insurance, developers, businesses, and real estate owners. American businesses will not be able to get the policies they need at a reasonable price. They will not be able to get the financial protection they require. There is nothing we can do in Congress within the limits of our Constitution, as I read it, to require by law that insurance companies write policies that they do not want to write because of what they evaluate to be a market and financial factor, but we can and must avoid creating the conditions that force reinsurers to drop insurers and insurers to drop American businesses or charge such exorbitant rates that they may as well be dropping them off their rolls. We have to intervene in this process to create a backup, to create enough security for reinsurers to reenter the market and for insurers to continue to insure American businesses and keep them going and growing hopefully at this stage in our economic history. In recognition of this serious crisis, State regulators are already considering terrorism exclusions, as they must, consistent with their responsibilities to oversee the solvency of the insurance industry, but State laws will only patch the problems and leave businesses without the insurance they need to continue operating. They will not eliminate the crisis. It is clear, therefore, that we in Congress must act, and this sensible legislation is clearly the way to do it. This legislation will provide businessowners with the opportunity to buy insurance against terrorism claims and to do so in the private market as well. It would establish a temporary Federal backstop for insurance to cover against damages resulting from terrorist attacks, a program that would last for a year and gives the Secretary of the Treasury authority to extend the program for another year. This temporary backstop is intended to provide the insurance industry with time to assess the dramatically changed risk of claims resulting from terrorist attacks. As the industry determines how to price the risk and determine appropriate premium levels for terrorism insurance, hopefully the need for the Federal emergency backstop we are creating will lessen. I do point out that what this legislation will accomplish is not unprecedented. In fact, the Federal Government has a history of partnering, if I can put it that way, with the insurance industry to provide coverage for risks that are just too big or unpredictable or uninsurable, literally, for the industry to handle alone. I cite as examples the flood insurance programs, the crop insurance programs, or the nuclear liability insurance programs that the Federal Government is involved in as a supplement or assist or backstop to private insurance industries. Those risks are, in some ways, actually more insurable than terrorism, but in each case the Federal Government stepped in because we understood the very real risk of people having their policies dropped and being left without basic protection. In the interest of economic security and in some sense of consistency, we now have to offer the American people a similar guarantee after September 11 that insurance coverage will be offered in the case of terrorism. Again, I congratulate Senator Dodd and all those who have worked with him, as well as members of the Banking Committee, and, not surprisingly, because of the suffering endured in New York in human and economic terms, our colleagues from New York, Senator Schumer and the occupant of the chair, Senator Clinton. I thank them all for their leadership. I thank everyone for the ultimate spirit of accommodation that will, I am confident, allow this bill to pass. We need it to become law as soon as possible, and I am hopeful that today's action will be to exactly that result before it is literally too late.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of this legislation and wish to praise my Connecticut colleague, Senator Dodd, for his diligence in crafting a workable solution to the terror insurance issue. As we all know, this has been a frustrating process and Senator Dodd has proven to be tenacious in the quest to enact this legislation into law. He is performing a valuable and mostly unsung public service. Let me explain why -I believe this issue is so important and why Senator Dodd's work is so important. As part of their property and casualty insurance, many businesses have insurance against the costs that arise if their business is interrupted. If we don't pass an effective terror insurance bill, there will be a massive interruption in the business community. We can avoid this result by passing this legislation. Property and casualty insurance is not optional for most businesses. Not every business owner buy life insurance, but nearly every business buys property and casualty insurance--to protect its property, to protect it against liability, and to protect its employees under the State workers compensation laws. Property and casualty insurance is required by investors and shareholders. It is required by banks that lend for construction and other projects. We all know that home mortgage companies require the homeowners to maintain homeowners property insurance, and it's the same with business lending. Maintaining property and casualty insurance is mandated as part of the fiduciary obligation to the business. And if property and casualty insurance for major causes of loss is not available, or it is prohibitively expensive, businesses face a difficult choice about going forward with construction projects, and other ventures. If no insurance is available, banks won't lend and the business activity that is depending on the loans will stop. The impact on the real estate, energy, construction, and transportation sectors will be severe. For their part, insurance companies must be able to ``underwrite'' their policies. This means that they need to be able to assess their exposure or risk of a claim. They need to know if their exposure to claims is acceptable, excessive, or indeterminate. In the case of claims for damages caused by terror attacks, there is not way to assess their risk and no way to underwrite the policy. There are too many uncertainties. One thing that is certain, as it was not before September 11, is that losses from terrorist acts can cost tens of billions of dollars. In fact, under the worst-case scenarios, losses could easily reach hundreds of billions of dollars. There are hundreds of insurers in any given market. It is a highly competitive industry. But these insurers are dependent on reinsurers who help insurance companies spread their risk. When reinsurers will not renew their contracts unless they contain terrorism exclusions or limitations, many if not most of the insurance companies will not be able to provide terrorism coverage--at any cost. Insurance companies need reinsurance because their own capital to cover losses is finite. Even a good sized company--one that would be in the top half dozen or so commercial insurers in the U.S.--with perhaps 5 percent of the commercial lines market and capital of $7 or $8 billion--would have to ask, do we want to roll the dice on our very survival by writing terrorism coverage and covering it with our own reserves? That is not a risk that an insurance company will take. If we do not pass this legislation, therefore, insurers will take whatever steps they consider necessary to ensure they do not drive themselves into bankruptcy. The insurance industry can protect itself by reducing its exposure to terrorism claims. There is nothing we can do in the Congress--within the limits of our Constitution--to require insurance companies to write policies. They don't have to write policies. If they don't write policies, or write them only with extraordinary premiums for terror coverage, the companies may not be as profitable in the short run, but they will at least be protecting themselves against involvency. State regulators are already considering terrorism exclusions--as they should do, consistent with their responsibilities to oversee the solvency of the insurance industry. Absent exclusions, in states where they might not be approved for one reason or another, the insurers will have no choice but to limit their business. If insurance companies are permitted to write policies with no coverage for claims connected to terrorism, then businesses will have to decide if they will self-insure against these losses. Many of them will conclude that they cannot accept this exposure. Therefore, if we fail to pass this legislation, it will be everyone that the insurance companies they insure that loses. Insurance companies can protect themselves by not writing policies, or writing only policies without any coverage for acts of terror, or writing policies with extraordinary premiums. But companies that need insurance coverage may have even harsher options. So, the issue is how we enable enough insurance companies to determine that the risk of terrorist claims is a risk that they can assume. That is what this legislation is all about--defining the risk so that insurers can assess and put a price on it. This legislation is about facilitating insurance companies' ability to continue to write property and casualty insurance policies. It is about providing business owners with the opportunity to buy insurance against terror claims and doing so in the private market to the extent that is possible. This is, of course, not the first time we have faced this kind of an issue. The Federal Government has a history of partnering with the insurance industry to provide coverages for risks that are too big--too uninsurable--for the industry alone. Current examples are the flood, crop, and nuclear liability programs, and in the past we've seen partnerships on vaccine liability and riot reinsurance. From an insurability standpoint, these risks are probably more insurable than terrorism. Some might debate whether we should have passed the existing programs, or whether they are operated efficiency. But there should be no debate about the need for a terrorism program, and Senator Dodd has structured this one the right way--with retentions and loss sharing by the industry, so the incentives are there for efficient operations. Again, I congratulate my Connecticut colleague, Senator Dodd, for his diligence in working through these complicated issues and bringing this bill to the floor. We need to defeat the amendments and enact this legislation into law as soon as possible.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to express my heartfelt congratulations to a Connecticut resident, Professor Jerry M. Woodall of Yale University, for being awarded the 2002 National Medal of Technology, our country's highest honor celebrating America's leading innovators. This represents the first time that a professor from Yale has ever achieved this extraordinary recognition, and it serves to underscore Yale's deep and renewed commitment to establishing itself as one of the world's premier engineering institutions. I cannot imagine another person for whom this prestigious award is more richly deserved. Professor Woodall, who holds the position of C. Baldwin Sawyer Professor of Electrical Engineering at Yale, has conducted pioneering research in compound semiconductor materials and devices over a career spanning four decades. Fully half of the entire world's annual sales of compound semiconductor components are made possible by his research legacy. He invented electronic and optoelectronic devices seen ubiquitously in modern life, including the red LEDs used in indicators and stoplights, the infrared LED used in CD players, TV remote controls and computer networks, the high speed transistors used in cell phones and satellites, and the weight- efficient solar cell. Professor Woodall spent most of the early and mid parts of his career at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, where he rose to the coveted rank of IBM Fellow. He built the first high purity single crystals of gallium arsenide there, enabling the first definitive measurements of carrier velocity versus electric field relationships, as well as GaAs crystals used for the first non-supercooled injection laser. He and Hans Ruprecht pioneered the liquid-phase epitaxial growth of both Si doped GaAs used for high efficiency IR LEDs, and gallium aluminum arsenide (GaAlAs), which led to his most important research contribution so far the first working heterojunction. They built it from gallium aluminum arsenide mated to gallium arsenide (GaAlAs/GaAs), and it remains the world's most important compound semiconductor heterojunction. He then invented and patented many important commercial high-speed electronic and photonic devices which depend on the heterojunction, including bright red LEDs and the two classes of ultra-fast transistors, called the heterojunction bipolar transistor (HBT) and pseudomorphic high-electron-mobility transistor (pHEMT). Many new areas of solid-state physics have evolved and been realized as a result of his work, including the semiconductor superlattice, low-dimensional systems, mesoscopics, and resonant tunneling. Professor Woodall was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1989 and is a fellow of the American Physical Society (APS), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the Electrochemical Society (ECS), and AVS. He has served as president of the ECS and AVS, and on the board and executive committee of the American Institute of Physics (AIP). He has published 315 publications in the open literature and been issued 67 U.S. patents. He received five major IBM Research Division Awards, 30 IBM Invention Achievement Awards, and an IBM Corporate Award in 1992 for the invention of the GaAlAs/GaAs heterojunction. Other recognition includes a 1975 Industrial Research 100 Award; the 1980 Electronics Division Award of the Electrochemical Society (ECS); the 1984 IEEE Jack A. Morton Award; the 1985 ECS Solid State Science and Technology Award; the 1988 Heinrich Welker Gold Medal and International GaAs Symposium Award; the 1990 American Vacuum Society's (AVS) Medard Welch Award, its highest honor; the 1997 Eta Kappa Nu Vladimir Karapetoff Eminent Members' Award; the 1998 American Society for Engineering Education's General Electric Senior Research Award; and the 1998 ECS Edward Goodrich Acheson Award, its highest honor. Woodall co-founded LightSpin Technologies, Inc., a high technology startup company, and serves as its Chief Science Officer. From 1993 through 1999, he held the Charles William Harrison Distinguished Professorship of Microelectronics at Purdue University. He earned a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Cornell University and a B.S. in metallurgy from MIT. I speak with utmost sincerity in expressing my gratitude to Professor Woodall for the lifetime of contributions or, more accurately, several lifetimes' worth of contributions that he has rendered in service to our nation in enabling it to become the world leader in technology and research. Our lives and our society would be dramatically different today had we not benefitted from Professor Woodall's drive and genius, and it fills me with exceptional pride to see him recognized for his efforts. Outstanding technologists such as he create to the tools to fully realize human and societal potential, and by having someone as accomplished as Professor Woodall on its faculty, both Connecticut and Yale University will be well-situated to produce the next generation of engineering lights. On behalf of your state and your country, Professor Woodall, please accept my deepest congratulations and thanks.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Miller, I am submitting legislation that is designed to facilitate historic preservation activities at historically black colleges and universities. Specifically, this legislation would amend section 507 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to decrease the cost-sharing requirement for those seeking Federal funds for historic preservation activities at historically black colleges and universities. I am proud to say that the legislation I am submitting today is a companion bill to H.R. 1606, submitted by Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. American history has been a constant, if not always consistent, march toward an ideal. That ideal is equal opportunity for all. In every generation, it's taken the work of pioneers to open the gates of the American community to people who had previously been excluded. Pioneers have stepped forward when others would not to defiantly state, in effect, that we as a Nation will not be defined by surface characteristics. We will look deeper and try harder. The pioneers have held us to our national promise, and reminded us that America and Americanism are not about where you came from, what language you speak, what religion you practice, or what you look like, but about belief in basic ideals of responsibility, opportunity and community. Historically Black Colleges and Universities have been such pioneers for generations, and they continue today to help America become its best self. Today, America has 103 historically black colleges and universities in twenty-two States and the Virgin Islands, which educate about 300,000 undergraduate students and thousands of graduate, professional and doctoral students. In fact, 8 of the top 10 producers of African- American engineers are HBCUs. 42 percent of all the PhDs earned each year by African-Americans are earned by graduates of HBCUs. Despite playing such a central role in our economy, society, and culture, HBCUs have been physically eroding for years. In 1998, the National Trust for Historic Preservation reported that most of the HBCUs in the United States are showing serious signs of neglect. The Trust said that campus landmarks are decaying and college grounds are badly in need of attention. And a 1998 General Accounting Office report estimated that in HBCUs nationwide, there were more than 700 historic buildings in states of disrepair. That's why I am proudly sponsoring Representative Clyburn's bill to provide more restoration funding for historic sites at Historically Black Colleges and Universities throughout the Nation. These beautiful, architecturally significant structures are in most cases over a hundred years old, and were often built using the help of the students themselves. Their architectural beauty is a sign of something deeper, the fact that they have served as critical portals of opportunity for African-Americans throughout our history. That's why they deserve our strong protection and sensitive preservation. I saw this firsthand. When I visited Allen University in South Carolina in April of this year, I went to Arnett Hall, a building that had been transformed from an eyesore into a beautiful and stately facility with the help of Federal funds, thanks to Representative Clyburn. In the past, students and faculty would walk into the hall and get the message that we as a Nation were neglecting these historic treasures. Now, they absorb the message that we consider historically black colleges and universities central to our history and to our future. Thanks in no small part to these institutions, the overarching history of African-Americans in this country has been not a tragedy, as it once was, but a brilliant movement toward dignity, inclusion, freedom, and opportunity. That's the right message for African- Americans and all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Miller, I am submitting legislation that is designed to facilitate historic preservation activities at historically black colleges and universities. Specifically, this legislation would amend section 507 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to decrease the cost-sharing requirement for those seeking Federal funds for historic preservation activities at historically black colleges and universities. I am proud to say that the legislation I am submitting today is a companion bill to H.R. 1606, submitted by Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. American history has been a constant, if not always consistent, march toward an ideal. That ideal is equal opportunity for all. In every generation, it's taken the work of pioneers to open the gates of the American community to people who had previously been excluded. Pioneers have stepped forward when others would not to defiantly state, in effect, that we as a Nation will not be defined by surface characteristics. We will look deeper and try harder. The pioneers have held us to our national promise, and reminded us that America and Americanism are not about where you came from, what language you speak, what religion you practice, or what you look like, but about belief in basic ideals of responsibility, opportunity and community. Historically Black Colleges and Universities have been such pioneers for generations, and they continue today to help America become its best self. Today, America has 103 historically black colleges and universities in twenty-two States and the Virgin Islands, which educate about 300,000 undergraduate students and thousands of graduate, professional and doctoral students. In fact, 8 of the top 10 producers of African- American engineers are HBCUs. 42 percent of all the PhDs earned each year by African-Americans are earned by graduates of HBCUs. Despite playing such a central role in our economy, society, and culture, HBCUs have been physically eroding for years. In 1998, the National Trust for Historic Preservation reported that most of the HBCUs in the United States are showing serious signs of neglect. The Trust said that campus landmarks are decaying and college grounds are badly in need of attention. And a 1998 General Accounting Office report estimated that in HBCUs nationwide, there were more than 700 historic buildings in states of disrepair. That's why I am proudly sponsoring Representative Clyburn's bill to provide more restoration funding for historic sites at Historically Black Colleges and Universities throughout the Nation. These beautiful, architecturally significant structures are in most cases over a hundred years old, and were often built using the help of the students themselves. Their architectural beauty is a sign of something deeper, the fact that they have served as critical portals of opportunity for African-Americans throughout our history. That's why they deserve our strong protection and sensitive preservation. I saw this firsthand. When I visited Allen University in South Carolina in April of this year, I went to Arnett Hall, a building that had been transformed from an eyesore into a beautiful and stately facility with the help of Federal funds, thanks to Representative Clyburn. In the past, students and faculty would walk into the hall and get the message that we as a Nation were neglecting these historic treasures. Now, they absorb the message that we consider historically black colleges and universities central to our history and to our future. Thanks in no small part to these institutions, the overarching history of African-Americans in this country has been not a tragedy, as it once was, but a brilliant movement toward dignity, inclusion, freedom, and opportunity. That's the right message for African- Americans and all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Sara Moss for being honored by the New York Lawyers' Division of the Anti-Defamation League for her strong commitment to public service and an exemplary dedication to human relations. The mission of Anti-Defamation League is to expose and combat the purveyors of hatred in our midst, responding to whatever new challenges may arise. The Human Relations Award is presented to an individual who has demonstrated distinguished service, outstanding leadership and a personification of the highest ideals of our democratic society. Ms. Moss possesses all of these qualities and more. One need only look at the many examples in her life to be convinced. In addition to maintaining a successful career as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Pitney Bowes, she has continued to demonstrate a strong commitment to public service and pro bono work, especially when involving issues related to women and minorities. In particular, Ms. Moss has used her position with Pitney Bowes to provide legal counsel to a wide variety of service organizations, including a social service agency, a women's learning center, a non-profit day care provider, a sexual assault crisis center, and a substance abuse and rehabilitation center. She has received many awards for her service, including the Minority Corporate Council Diversity Award and the Pro Bono Partnership Outstanding Contribution Award. Ms. Moss is a fine example of the embodiment of our living democratic ideals, and I congratulate her on receiving this distinguished recognition of her contribution to improving human relations. I wish her continued success in her commitment to public service and hope that her example will demonstrate the importance of active civic involvement on the behalf of our communities.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my severe disappointment in the Senate's failure to invoke cloture on the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act--also known as the Hate Crimes bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, but I am not proud of what the Senate did to that bill today. One of the things we try to do in this Chamber, as lawmakers, is to adopt laws that express and encode our values as a society--to, in some sense, put into law our aspirations for the kind of people we want to be. Clearly, one of the bedrock values, one of the fundamental values, of America is equality--equality of treatment before the law, equality of opportunity but, beyond that, a broader notion of tolerance in our society. It is part of what brought generations of immigrants to this country--the idea that they would be judged on their personal merit, not on anything related to their personal status or characteristics. Starting with our Declaration of Independence--our nation's documentary explication of the values underpinning our experiment in self-government--our country's leaders have laid out a vision of a nation born and bred in notions of tolerance and equality. We know for a certainty that our nation did not live up to that vision when it was first articulated, but in each successive generation we have tried hard to meet the ideals we set out for ourselves. And in each successive generation we have come a bit closer to meeting that goal. Sometimes, obviously, we do not achieve those aspirations and we are intolerant toward one another. Then the law has not only the opportunity but the obligation to step in and to try to create incentives or deterrents toward the worst forms of intolerance, even hatred. That is what this bill is about. Clearly, over the decades our Nation has built a strong and proud history of protecting the civil rights of Americans who are subject to racial, religious, gender-based, or disability-based discrimination in the workplace, in housing, in life. In more recent times, many of us here in the Chamber have worked to try to extend some of those protections to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. This bill stands solidly in that tradition and is just one more step on our nation's path to make its vision of itself a reality. Like the civil rights laws of which we are all so proud, this bill proclaims that there is certain conduct that is unacceptable to us as a nation. This bill takes Federal criminal jurisdiction and extends it to the prosecution and punishment of those who are accused of having caused bodily injury or death based on an animus, a hatred that comes from feelings about the victim's race, religion, nationality, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. In other words, this is another way for our society to express our disdain, to put it mildly, at acts of violence committed based on a person's race, religion, nationality, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. It is also a way, as is traditionally the province of criminal law, not just to speak to the common moral consensus of our society about what is right and what is wrong--that, after all, is what the law is all about--but also by punishing those who are proven to have committed the wrongs and to deter others in the future from committing those same acts that society generally finds abhorrent. Current law expresses this but in a way that is limited. It permits Federal prosecutions of hate crimes resulting from death or bodily injury if two conditions are met: First, the crime must be motivated by the victim's race, religion, national origin, or color. Second, the perpetrator must have intended to prevent the victim from exercising certain specific federally protected rights. Of course, I support this law and the goals that it embraces: The Federal prosecution of people who inflict serious harm on others because of the color of the victim's skin, the sound of the victim's voice, a foreign accent, or the particular place in which the victim worships God. In short, these are crimes committed because the victim is different in some way from the perpetrator. Such crimes, I conclude, should be eligible for federal prosecution. But the current federal law is too limited to address many of the hate crimes that are deserving of federal prosecution, and we need for the law to more fully express some of the principles I talked about at the outset: equality, tolerance, doing everything we can to stop the most abhorrent acts of violence against people based on their characteristics. I think we ought to add to the list of prohibited bases of these crimes, crimes committed against someone because of gender, because of sexual orientation, and because of disability. Adding these categories--gender, sexual orientation, disability--seems to me to be an appropriate extension of the basic concept of equal protection under the law. As the law now stands, it also imposes a requirement, a bar to prosecution relating to race, color, religion, and national origin that we ought to change, which is that the law is only triggered if the victim is prevented from exercising a specific type of federally protected activity. There are obviously crimes that are committed based on hatred that are triggered in cases other than the prevention of the exercise of a specific federally protected activity, thus, the provision of this bill that would eliminate this obstacle and, therefore, broaden the ability of Federal prosecutors to pursue crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred. It would still, however, require prosecutors to show a connection to interstate commerce. Just as importantly for those concerned that this bill unnecessarily intrudes upon State prerogatives, the bill also includes language requiring the Justice Department, prior to indicting a defendant for a hate crime, to certify not just that there is reasonable cause to believe that the crime was motivated by improper bias, but also that the U.S. Attorney has consulted with local law enforcement officials and determined one of four things--that the state doesn't have or won't exercise jurisdiction to prosecute the crime, that the State has asked for federal prosecution, that the State does not object to federal prosecution or that the State has completed its prosecution and the Justice Department wants to initiate a subsequent prosecution. This process ensures both that we will avoid an unnecessary overlap between the exercise of State and federal jurisdiction and that those in local law enforcement, closest to the alleged crime, will have the first opportunity to pursue those committing these heinous crimes. At the same time, it makes clear that in cases where federal prosecutors determine that federal prosecution is essential to vindicate federal values, this statute will be available to them. This certification process should lay to rest the concerns some of my colleagues have who fear that Federal prosecutors will interfere with State efforts to bring perpetrators of hate crimes to justice. At a time when so much else is going on here in the Capitol with the high profile issues of this session, this bill brings us back to America's first principles of equality and tolerance and challenges each of us to think about the appropriate and constructive role that the law can play, understanding that the law can't control the hearts of people in this country. Ultimately, we have to count on people's own sense of judgment and tolerance and, hopefully, the effect that other forces in their lives will have on them to make them fair and tolerant, such as their families, their schools, their religions, their faith. But this bill is here to say in the cases when all of those other sources of good judgment and values in society fail to stifle the hatred that sometimes does live in people's hearts and souls, to say that this is unacceptable in America and to attach to that statement the sanction of law, hoping that we thereby express the higher aspirations we have for this great country of ours as it continues over the generations to try to realize the noble ideals expressed by our founders in the Declaration of Independence, but also to put clearly into the force of law the punishment that comes with law when one goes so far over the line to commit an act of violence based on hatred, hoping thereby that we will deter such heinous acts from occurring again in the future. The Senate had a chance today to bring us one step closer to making the law more closely reflect our founding vision. The Senate should have taken that step. It is a truly deep disappointment that it did not do so. This will not, though, be our last chance. The bill's opponents will not be able to hide behind procedural posturing forever. This bill will come back again this year to the Senate and when it does, I believe that we have no choice but to pass it. Our values as a nation will allow for no less. I thank the distinguished Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I regret I was not able to vote on S. Res. 272. My airline flight back to Washington, DC was delayed for many hours because of adverse weather conditions. I express my support for this measure and applaud its passage. A national referendum to support a more democratic process based upon 10,000 signatures to the Cuban National Assembly is laudable. I ask that the record show that I would have voted in favor of S. Res. 272 and I support its passage. My vote did not affect the outcome because the resolution passed overwhelmingly.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today in recognition of the dauntless history, honor, and tradition of the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, U.S. Marines, whose lineage traces back nearly 60 years of valiant service to our great Nation. The contribution of the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion is embodied in the sign placed on top of the Battalion Mess Hall at Camp Reasoner which reads: ``We Lead the Division--Where the Division Goes We've Been!'' While enjoying brief periods of respite, it was formed in September 1942. It was sent immediately to the Pacific Theater and participated in World War II campaigns at Bougainville, Solomon Island, Guam, and Iwo Jima. It was reactivated in March 1952 and deployed to Camp Gifu, Japan and later to Camp Hauge, Okinawa. Being reactivated again in April 1958, it was assigned to the 3rd Marine Division, Fleet Marine Force. During Vietnam the unit was highly decorated with four Medals of Honor, 13 Navy Crosses, 86 Silver Stars, and many Purple Hearts awarded to Marines and Sailors. Additionally, the unit itself was awarded President Unit Citations, the Navy Unit Commendation, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, and earned other praise and recognition, as well. While the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion has existed under different designations, its adherence to whatever mission assigned is without question. We cannot take lightly their meritorious service to our Nation. Nor, can we ever forget their admirable and routinely valiant actions both individually and collectively. They were not only pivotal to a successful combat effort, but to establishing and maintaining the legacy for which the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion may be justifiably proud. I join in expressing the respect, admiration, and grateful appreciation of our nation as members of the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion Association gather for their reunion next month in Arlington, VA.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I was not able to vote on the Helms-Frist amendment (Number 3725) to the Supplemental Appropriations bill. I was unavoidably detained. I would like to express my support for this measure and applaud its passage. I co-sponsored the defeated Durbin amendment that would have provided an additional $500 million towards the global fight against AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. I was disappointed that it did not pass tonight. In the absence of the Durbin provisions, I agree with the Senator from Tennessee that we must at least provide the additional $100 million called for in the Helms-Frist amendment. I ask that the record show that I would have voted in favor of the Helms-Frist Amendment and I support its passage.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the amendment introduced by Senators Durbin and Specter with cosponsorship by several colleagues and myself. The amendment would increase the amount of money in this emergency appropriations bill for several purposes related to combating the most pernicious infectious diseases confronting humankind today. The amendment would raise the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund to Combat AIDS, Turberluclosis and Malaria, increase the resources of our Centers for Disease Control for prevention, treatment, control of, and research on HIV/AIDS, and provide funds for child survival, maternal health, and other programs to combat tuberculosis and to address the consequences of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The United States of America contributed last year to the Global Fund and correctly urges other developed countries to participate actively and generously in that global initiative. Nevertheless, I feel we can and must do more to overcome the debilitating effects of these diseases on societies that are struggling. The dimensions of the global HIV/AIDS crisis are overwhelming. At current rates of infection, it is estimated that 100 million people will have had HIV/AIDS by 2005. More than 36 million people are currently infected with the virus and 22 million people have already died from it, more than the number of soldiers killed in all major wars of the twentieth century. Thirteen million children worldwide have lost one or both parents to AIDS, and that number is expected to triple to 42 million by 2010. In 10 African countries life expectancy has dropped by more than 20 years, which is almost entirely as a result of AIDS deaths. In China, the number of people with HIV increased by 69 percent in 1999 and another 37 percent in 2000, according to official statistics, and nearly 80 percent of those testing positive for infection are between 20 and 40 years of age. In Russia, Ukraine and throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States, HIV increased five times between 1997 and 1998; in 1999, the region recorded the highest increase in HIV infection in the world. The AIDS pandemic is having a disastrous impact on economic growth rates, public services and private companies, impoverishing millions of families and orphaning children and rolling back hard-won social gains in human development, including life expectancy, income and education. It is unprecedented in its destructive impact on regional development, because it kills so many adults in the prime of their working and parenting lives, it decimates the workforce, fractures and impoverishes families, orphans millions, and shreds the fabric of communities. In its wake it leaves desperation--one of the greatest threats to peace within and between peoples and nations. In the face of this challenge, the United States should not treat the major global initiative against infectious disease as a bargaining table at which to challenge other governments' commitment and generosity. We should lead by example. It is in our national interest and consistent with the humanitarian values of America that we contribute substantially to the global fight against infectious disease. I hope all my colleagues will vote to do so by adopting this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in 1943, the chairman of a famous American electronics company said, ``I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.'' Good guess. Industry has repeatedly exceeded expectations like that one, and helped the American economy as a whole exceed expectations New questions are now reverberating from Silicon Valley to Pennsylvania Avenue. How do we catch the next great wave of innovation and ingenuity to unleash the next great boom of productivity and opportunity? How do we find new ways to translate our enormous technological prowess into real economic progress for the American people? I rise today to introduce what I believe will be a roadmap to revitalization. It's premised on the extraordinary promise of high- speed Internet to help us return to high-intensity growth; by revolutionizing the way we communicate and live our lives. Its goal is to highlight the challenges we face in tapping the transformative potential of broadband technology, to spur agreement on a national strategy for accelerating its development and deployment, and ultimately to help bring on what we all hope will be the broadband boom. Our country's last big boom was fueled by the most reliable, resilient, and renewable source of energy around: America's creative genius. Government paved the road, first with R&D funding, then in the 1990s with sound budget policies, but it was our innovation industries that made it happen. In fact, the information technology sector, which made up only 4 percent of GDP, was responsible for a remarkable 30 percent of all economic growth between 1995 and 2000. Today, America's high-tech industries, which have survived the big bust that followed the big bang of the 1990s, haven't lost their edge. Information technology and the innovation economy, for example, are still among our greatest national resources. But as we've emerged from recession, many businesses across the country have been increasingly concerned about our recovery. How strong will it be? How long will it last? Many in Washington have recognized that broadband can and must be a big part of the solution. But most policymakers have been focusing on short-term obstacles to the next small jump in speed. I think we need a larger and longer vision here. We need to look over the horizon and ask what it will take to usher in advanced broadband that will make speeds of 10 to 100 megabits per second available all across the country, so that we can truly unleash the tremendous economic potential of this technology. The science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke once said, ``Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'' Well, the next generation Internet passes that test. It has the ability to levitate productivity, make millions of jobs appear, and transport our economy into the future. And there won't be any sleight of hand involved. Sometimes, there won't even be wires attached. In education, for example, universities, school districts, and private companies have already started rolling out impressive applications of advanced broadband. We're not just talking about streaming video with questions sent through instant messenger. Broadband can transform the very nature of instruction, right at the time when schools need more flexible and more powerful learning tools to meet higher standards. In healthcare, the possibilities are equally exciting: hospitals without walls, instantaneous remote monitoring of patient vitals, comprehensive informatics databases that are available to professionals everywhere. We even saw the first remote surgery pioneered last fall, when two surgeons in New York operated on a patient in Strasbourg, France. Indeed, advanced broadband's ability to both increase economic opportunities and improve society in so many fields, from law to finance, from entertainment to agriculture, and from homeland defense to international defense, are just astounding. These days, computing power is expanding at an incredible rate. But networking speed is way behind computing speed. Industry can't make the best use of the computing potential that's available without the pipes that bring it home to consumers and businesses--including and especially small businesses. While we have some good arteries, we don't have the capillaries to carry data all the way. I stand here today to say that we in government can't let this potentially fertile field of technology lie fallow. We need to make the most of this moment, in which the high-speed Internet is on the cusp of catalyzing a quantum leap in our economy. Which is to say, we need to lead, and seed. Unfortunately, the case for making broadband deployment a priority of a national economic strategy has yet to be understood adequately by government. The broadband buck is still stuck on the government's desk, and with it, thousands of new opportunities and millions of new jobs. Decisions are piling up: on spectrum, competition, rights management, spam, privacy, child protection, and more. These are important issues that need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved comprehensively, with an overarching vision. Last week I released a white paper entitled Broadband: A 21st Century Technology and Productivity Strategy and today I introduce the National Broadband Strategy Act of 2002. The white paper analyzes the challenges. The legislation will compel us to meet them, requiring the Administration to develop a national broadband strategy within six months of passage. Taken together, and working in conjunction with insightful leaders and groups in the tech community, I am confident these measures can spark the development and implementation of a coherent, cross-agency strategy to eliminate obstacles, create incentives, and encourage industry innovation. In the upcoming months, I'll follow up this report and legislation with proposals on how to reach truly advanced broadband, the speed I mentioned before, upwards of 10 megabits per second. There is no focus on this need now, and that's where government particularly needs to lead and seed. The follow-up legislation I'll propose in the coming months will call on the FCC to develop a regulatory framework to meet the challenges of the next generation Net: propose tax credits for the deployment of advanced broadband, encourage research and development on advanced broadband infrastructure that will enable this technology to reach into all the corners and crevices of the country, and present a program to incentivize research and development on major applications in areas where government plays a central role, including education, healthcare, and e-government. The public sector cannot and should not manage this effort. Our future will fortunately be in the hands of thousands of individual innovators. Nor should the government be choosing winners and losers. To benefit consumers, government must be pro-broadband, but technology neutral about how business gets there, by encouraging innovation and maximizing competition. Government must clear the path so that business innovators can march forward. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. I request unanimous consent that the introductory materials to my whitepaper and the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I note to my colleagues that the full text of the whitepaper is available on my web site, http://lieberman.senate.gov.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in 1943, the chairman of a famous American electronics company said, ``I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.'' Good guess. Industry has repeatedly exceeded expectations like that one, and helped the American economy as a whole exceed expectations New questions are now reverberating from Silicon Valley to Pennsylvania Avenue. How do we catch the next great wave of innovation and ingenuity to unleash the next great boom of productivity and opportunity? How do we find new ways to translate our enormous technological prowess into real economic progress for the American people? I rise today to introduce what I believe will be a roadmap to revitalization. It's premised on the extraordinary promise of high- speed Internet to help us return to high-intensity growth; by revolutionizing the way we communicate and live our lives. Its goal is to highlight the challenges we face in tapping the transformative potential of broadband technology, to spur agreement on a national strategy for accelerating its development and deployment, and ultimately to help bring on what we all hope will be the broadband boom. Our country's last big boom was fueled by the most reliable, resilient, and renewable source of energy around: America's creative genius. Government paved the road, first with R&D funding, then in the 1990s with sound budget policies, but it was our innovation industries that made it happen. In fact, the information technology sector, which made up only 4 percent of GDP, was responsible for a remarkable 30 percent of all economic growth between 1995 and 2000. Today, America's high-tech industries, which have survived the big bust that followed the big bang of the 1990s, haven't lost their edge. Information technology and the innovation economy, for example, are still among our greatest national resources. But as we've emerged from recession, many businesses across the country have been increasingly concerned about our recovery. How strong will it be? How long will it last? Many in Washington have recognized that broadband can and must be a big part of the solution. But most policymakers have been focusing on short-term obstacles to the next small jump in speed. I think we need a larger and longer vision here. We need to look over the horizon and ask what it will take to usher in advanced broadband that will make speeds of 10 to 100 megabits per second available all across the country, so that we can truly unleash the tremendous economic potential of this technology. The science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke once said, ``Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'' Well, the next generation Internet passes that test. It has the ability to levitate productivity, make millions of jobs appear, and transport our economy into the future. And there won't be any sleight of hand involved. Sometimes, there won't even be wires attached. In education, for example, universities, school districts, and private companies have already started rolling out impressive applications of advanced broadband. We're not just talking about streaming video with questions sent through instant messenger. Broadband can transform the very nature of instruction, right at the time when schools need more flexible and more powerful learning tools to meet higher standards. In healthcare, the possibilities are equally exciting: hospitals without walls, instantaneous remote monitoring of patient vitals, comprehensive informatics databases that are available to professionals everywhere. We even saw the first remote surgery pioneered last fall, when two surgeons in New York operated on a patient in Strasbourg, France. Indeed, advanced broadband's ability to both increase economic opportunities and improve society in so many fields, from law to finance, from entertainment to agriculture, and from homeland defense to international defense, are just astounding. These days, computing power is expanding at an incredible rate. But networking speed is way behind computing speed. Industry can't make the best use of the computing potential that's available without the pipes that bring it home to consumers and businesses--including and especially small businesses. While we have some good arteries, we don't have the capillaries to carry data all the way. I stand here today to say that we in government can't let this potentially fertile field of technology lie fallow. We need to make the most of this moment, in which the high-speed Internet is on the cusp of catalyzing a quantum leap in our economy. Which is to say, we need to lead, and seed. Unfortunately, the case for making broadband deployment a priority of a national economic strategy has yet to be understood adequately by government. The broadband buck is still stuck on the government's desk, and with it, thousands of new opportunities and millions of new jobs. Decisions are piling up: on spectrum, competition, rights management, spam, privacy, child protection, and more. These are important issues that need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved comprehensively, with an overarching vision. Last week I released a white paper entitled Broadband: A 21st Century Technology and Productivity Strategy and today I introduce the National Broadband Strategy Act of 2002. The white paper analyzes the challenges. The legislation will compel us to meet them, requiring the Administration to develop a national broadband strategy within six months of passage. Taken together, and working in conjunction with insightful leaders and groups in the tech community, I am confident these measures can spark the development and implementation of a coherent, cross-agency strategy to eliminate obstacles, create incentives, and encourage industry innovation. In the upcoming months, I'll follow up this report and legislation with proposals on how to reach truly advanced broadband, the speed I mentioned before, upwards of 10 megabits per second. There is no focus on this need now, and that's where government particularly needs to lead and seed. The follow-up legislation I'll propose in the coming months will call on the FCC to develop a regulatory framework to meet the challenges of the next generation Net: propose tax credits for the deployment of advanced broadband, encourage research and development on advanced broadband infrastructure that will enable this technology to reach into all the corners and crevices of the country, and present a program to incentivize research and development on major applications in areas where government plays a central role, including education, healthcare, and e-government. The public sector cannot and should not manage this effort. Our future will fortunately be in the hands of thousands of individual innovators. Nor should the government be choosing winners and losers. To benefit consumers, government must be pro-broadband, but technology neutral about how business gets there, by encouraging innovation and maximizing competition. Government must clear the path so that business innovators can march forward. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. I request unanimous consent that the introductory materials to my whitepaper and the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I note to my colleagues that the full text of the whitepaper is available on my web site, http://lieberman.senate.gov.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President. I am very pleased to support final passage of H.R. 327, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute proposed by Senator Voinovich and me and Senators Bond, Bunning, Carnahan, Carper, Cleland, Collins, Conrad, Dayton, Jeffords, Kerry, Leahy, Lincoln, Miller, and Thompson. America's small businesses are a critical part of the nation's economy and a key driver of new job growth. Small businesses face particular challenges in complying with government information- collection requirements. H.R. 327 contains several provisions to help small businesses in this area. This bill aids small businesses in understanding and complying with Federal information-collection requirements, mandates a study of how to streamline information- collection requirements for small businesses and how to strengthen the dissemination of information by the Federal Government, and directs that certain data be compiled about enforcement activities involving small entities. Last year, Senator Voinovich introduced S. 1271, which is a companion bill to H.R. 327, on behalf of himself and Senators Lincoln and Leahy. The bill now has 13 additional cosponsors: Senators Bond, Bunning, Carnahan, Carper, Cleland, Collins, Conrad, Dayton, Jeffords, Kerry, Lieberman, Miller, and Thompson. The Governmental Affairs Committee reported out S. 1271 on November 14, 2001, and the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on December 17, 2001. The House had earlier passed H.R. 327, and, following Senate action on S. 1271, I worked with Members of the Senate and the House--primarily, Senator Voinovich and Representatives Burton, Waxman, Ose, and Tierney--to try and resolve differences between the House and Senate bills. These discussions were successful, resulting in a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on consensus legislation, and Senator Voinovich and I and other Senators are offering this consensus legislation as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 327 for final passage by the Senate. I thank Senator Voinovich and his staff for their leadership and hard work on this legislation in the Senate, and also Representatives Burton, Waxman, Ose, and Tierney and their staffs for their leadership and hard work in the House and for working with us to reach consensus on this valuable legislation to help small businesses. Senator Voinovich and I have prepared a section-by-section description of this consensus amendment, including a summary of the purposes and legislative history of this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is an alliance of free, democratic nations, unique in human history for its characteristics and its success. Today, the alliance's principled strength not only protects the peace and freedom of the transatlantic community, but contributes to building a world that is ever more free, more democratic, and more prosperous. For years, physical defense of member nations' home soil, as defined under Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, has been the core of our alliance. Since the end of the cold war, NATO has constantly reconsidered the landscape of threats to security and freedom and has responded to that changing landscape by defining new missions and new capability needs. In Bosnia and then Kosovo, NATO applied appropriate force just outside its immediate borders for the common good of stability in Europe. And it did so successfully with partner forces from non-NATO European states. Partner states are learning from NATO and striving to emulate the alliance's standards of military professionalism, transparent civilian control of military power and resources, and the legal and civil foundations of popular legitimacy. Many of those partner states aspire to full membership in the alliance. I believe that opening membership to a large number of nations will make NATO an even more potent protector of transatlantic and global security from threats including terrorism, a better facilitator of regional conflict resolution, and a more influential incubator of democracy. Senator Warner reminds us, correctly, that the alliance is so successful because it provides history's standard for rigorous and professional military planning and execution. But NATO is also the flagship institution in America's post-WWII success in widening the circle of democracy, stability, and prosperity across the transatlantic region. The achievement of ``Europe, whole, free and at peace'' will likely be remembered as the greatest legacy of American foreign policy in the 20th century, because it is the foundation for greater opportunity in this century, as well as greater collective security. I believe that any democratic European nation that meets NATO's criteria and can be a net contributor to the security of the alliance should be admitted. I support welcoming into NATO at the Prague summit as many candidate nations as meet these criteria. Let us focus for a moment on the alliance's adaptation to new missions. The awful events of September 11th prompted NATO to invoke Article V and respond to attacks on American soil by supporting a war against an enemy half a world away from the United States. Technology has collapsed geographical distinctions to the point that today, a plot conceived anywhere in the world can pose just as serious a threat to NATO members' security as an aggressive military movement across a European border. Clearly, NATO accepts this new reality and must embrace a more expansive geographical understanding of its mission. This evolution in alliance thinking is realistic and healthy. The aspirant states embrace this mission, too. Declaring their intent to act as de facto allies of the United States, partner states have offered enhanced information sharing, overflight rights, transit and basing privileges, military and police forces, medical units and transport support to U.S. efforts. Most of the aspirant states are participating in some fashion in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, working well with our forces under Central Command. The North Atlantic Alliance has before it a summit meeting in Prague this November, at which all the crucial issues--adapting methods of operation, refining NATO's mission, committing to achieve the necessary capabilities, and enlargement--require our engagement. I trust that the administration is working with allies to achieve a consensus on enlargement before the Prague Summit. And I take the administration at its word that it will consult the Congress and especially the Senate regularly about summit issues, as it has done in the February 28 hearing of the Armed Services Committee and at staff level in the months before. In due course, the Senate will deliberate over the individual accession agreements that the alliance may negotiate with aspirant states. Our scrutiny of those candidates and their commitments will provide them with added impetus to raise democratic and military standards and be the best allies they can be. The Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, which I cosponsored here in the Senate, is our political signal that the Senate welcomes consideration of new members and holds fast to the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace, a vision which Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have articulated. It also authorizes part of the investment our Nation is making in states that share our vision. The bill will do the following: reaffirm Congressional support for continued NATO enlargement; designate Slovakia as eligible to receive U.S. assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994; and, endorse the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) levels for the Baltic states, Slovenia, Romania, and Bulgaria that the administration sought for the current fiscal year. In the Armed Services Committee on February 28 we had a thorough airing of questions about the aspirant states. NATO Supreme Commander General Ralston's testimony in particular illustrated that there is practical work going on with all of them and that they expect further scrutiny of their preparedness. The aspirants know they each have a case to make. They are busy in the Congress and expert community explaining their progress and asking what they need to do more or better. In terms of money and military-to-military cooperation, we are already doing what this bill conveys, both bilaterally and in NATO. And so I urge my colleagues to join Senator Helms, the other cosponsors and myself in sending this signal that America values the NATO alliance, that we value the security arrangements and political principles NATO so crucially advances, and that we value friendly states that share our values and vision.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise to join with my colleague from New Jersey who just addressed the Senate in regard to a proposal that he, Senator McCain, Senator Grassley, and I introduced some time ago which would create an independent commission to investigate the horrific attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, a day that truly also will live in infamy, a day of extraordinary suffering, of heroism, of anguish, of insecurity, of ultimately unity and strength for the United States of America. The idea of this commission which Senator McCain, Senator Torricelli, Senator Grassley, and I introduced was to build on the precedents of history, particularly the other day of infamy, Pearl Harbor, which was followed both by congressional investigations and by an independent commission to review what happened and what could have been done, if anything, to prevent the attacks from happening, and what did we learn from Pearl Harbor and all that surrounded it that would enable us to raise our defenses so that nothing such as that would ever happen again. Sadly, history has turned in a way to put us in a similar position to where the previous generation of Americans was at the outset of World War II. We were attacked on September 11, 2001, with an inhumane brutality and a cunning lack of respect for human life that was shocking. The other reality that was unsettling, of course, was that in the literal sense, the American government, the great national security apparatus that we have established, intelligence, foreign policy, and law enforcement, failed to protect the American people from the attacks against us on September 11 of last year. Perhaps there was nothing more that could have been done to prevent them. We understand that in an open society such as ours, a society premised on freedom as our highest value, if we are dealing with an inhumane enemy, lacking in regard for their own lives, let alone the lives of Americans, then there is only so much that can be done to stop such attacks. Yet we have had the gnawing question: Was there something that could have been done to prevent the attacks of September 11? Understanding that hindsight is always clearer than foresight, is there something we can learn from what happened on September 11 to strengthen ourselves, to raise our guard, to do whatever is humanly possible to make sure that nothing like those terrorist attacks ever happens again to the American people? That was the purpose that my three colleagues and I had in introducing this bill to create an independent, nonpolitical citizens commission to conduct the broadest possible review of what happened on September 11: why did it happen and what can we do to make sure it never happens again? In the last couple of weeks, there have been a series of revelations, beginning with FBI disclosure of warnings, memos last year, in which agents of the FBI had reason to be concerned about activity of people in this country, particularly at the flight training schools, wondering whether that might be related to a potential terrorist attack, linking it particularly in some minds to Osama bin Laden, who we knew had already struck us in foreign places. Add to this now the disclosure that President Bush received, as part of a daily intelligence briefing, indication that the Central Intelligence Agency had similar words from a different point of view; the FBI and CIA apparently never coming together in one place to reach the critical mass that would have engendered the kind of action that looking back, painfully now, we wish someone had taken. The reason why my colleagues and I introduced this bill creating an independent commission, it seems to me, is based on the revelations and disclosures of the last few weeks and are now even more significant and more compelling. Our anxiety about what happened and whether something could have been done by people working for the U.S. Government to have prevented the horrific acts of September 11, and the suffering that resulted therefrom becomes even more gnawing today. I note the presence of one of the three cosponsors of this legislation, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. I indicate to my colleagues that I soon intend, I hope with my cosponsors, to find an early opportunity to submit our proposal for an independent commission to review the events of September 11, and what was learned from them, as an amendment to a bill in the Senate. I think the moment is here. I received a call about 2 weeks ago from some of the survivors and some of the families of victims of September 11 who had heard about the commission proposal. They are coming actually the first or second week of June--I do not remember the exact date--to lobby Members of the Senate and House to adopt such legislation so that the questions that gnaw at them because of the losses they have suffered of a spouse, of a child, of a relative, a friend, will, to the best of our ability, be answered. This commission proposal, I am pleased to say, received a hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. It was reported out by the committee. I do think, in light of these events, that the greater knowledge we have now of what may have been known before September 11, it becomes even more urgent to move forward on it, and it is why I hope to soon join with my cosponsors in offering it as an amendment to a pending bill. I understand, of course, that the Intelligence Committees of the Senate and House are proceeding with investigations related to the attacks of September 11. I respect those committees. I support the investigations they are conducting. But the idea in the commission proposal we have made is broader than that. In the first instance, it is an independent, nonpartisan, nonpolitical citizens commission that would conduct this investigation and would have the credibility that would go with that. Secondly, its purview is beyond intelligence, beyond whatever failures may have occurred in the intelligence apparatus in the U.S. Government. It will go to law enforcement. It will go to the military. It will go to foreign policy. It will go to America's communications policy. I think, in that sense, it will supplement and complement the critical work the Intelligence Committees are doing. Again, I go back to, unfortunately, the comparable event which was the attack against Americans at Pearl Harbor. There was not just one investigation by one or two committees of Congress; there were congressional investigations and there were independent citizen commission investigations. That is what I think the events of September 11, and particularly the disclosures of the last few weeks, cry out for today if we are to learn in the fullest sense the lessons of recent history and apply them so we can better secure the future of the American people. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Of course, I thank my dear friend and colleague from Arizona. Let me respond briefly to his thoughtful and thoroughly appropriate comments. First, to restate: the proposal I am talking about for an independent commission was made some time ago. We held a hearing on it in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and it has been reported out and essentially is ready for action by the Senate. We have said all along we respect and support the work the Intelligence Committees are doing. As in previous cases, such as Pearl Harbor, post-Pearl Harbor, the country would benefit from an independent citizen commission inquiry--not accusatory but investigatory--which would have the power to obtain information which would have the authority to go into classified, secret session because of the matters being considered. This would likely extend beyond the intelligence function to law enforcement, to foreign policy, to military policy, to immigration policy--anything that might have affected and contributed to the attack of September 11. My point today is that the leaks, the disclosures of the last couple of weeks, both from the FBI and now the indication of the CIA briefing to the President, just reinforces within me the fact that we need such an independent commission. In fact, in some ways it may argue even in a different more forceful sense for such a commission. If we don't have a comprehensive, public, official investigation, I fear leaks related to September 11 and the tragedy that occurred will continue for months, for years. We ought to try as best we can through the intelligence committee investigations and through such an independent commission to answer all the questions that can possibly be answered. That is what I intend, I believe, with my colleagues: To offer this as an amendment at an early time. I respond to the points the Senator from Arizona makes about the most recent disclosures on briefing to the President. They are quite on point. It is very important not to overreact to them. For the record, I have not in this case received any of the classified briefings. I speak based on publicly available sources in the media. Those are the reports of the various FBI memos that went into Washington and now this report of the CIA briefing of the President. What truly troubles me and gnaws at me is not the President's behavior because, of course, if he had any indication in the briefing that an attack was imminent, he would have acted as Commander in Chief. My concern is about the quality of the information working its way up to the President as Commander in Chief. More particularly, was there any point of connection between what we now know are the FBI memo's concerns about Moussoui's conduct in Minnesota at the flight school, the agent in Phoenix who had broader concerns, very acute, and unfortunately turns out to be right to the point, did those intersect on anyone's desk with the information that the CIA had which was the basis of a longer briefing to the President last summer in a way that would have led anyone to reach a more specific conclusion that they could have taken to the President? I agree, there ought not be an overreaction. My reaction is, as I stated, as to whether all the systems underneath the President, as Commander in Chief, worked together as we would want them to, to be able to alert him to what was about to happen. And in a more direct sense, was this in any measure preventable? I even ask the question with a sense of humility because I know the difficulty in an investigation of this kind. It is that which motivates me, and I am sure would motivate a commission and Intelligence Committees more than any second-guessing on the President's behavior. I know we have used our time. I thank my colleague. I look forward to talking to him off the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the policy of the United states at the 54th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission. This resolution affirms and renews our long-standing commitment to end the practice of commercial whale- hunting, as well as the killing of whales for profit under the false rubric of ``scientific whaling.'' It constitutes a powerful statement to the rest of the world that we have not, and will not, grow complacent in fighting to preserve the existence of these remarkable beings. Our present action draws urgency from the fact that the single most important safety net for ensuring the survival of whale species is under threat of unraveling. When the International Whaling Commission, IWC, voted to establish a global moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982, the decision represented a profound acknowledgement on the part of the international community of its abysmal and repeated failure to manage whale stocks in a responsible manner. Such was the egregiousness of our collective whaling legacy that nothing short of a complete ban on commercial whaling was determined to stave these creatures away from the path to extinction. Sadly, the thirty years since the enactment of the moratorium have only served to vindicate the wisdom of the IWC's landmark decision. One needs only look to the history of duplicitous efforts undertaken to skirt the strictures of the moratorium to see this. Most blatant among these efforts has been the practice by certain countries to exploit the exemption for scientific whaling in order to hunt whales for ostensibly scientific, but essentially commercial, purposes. This disingenuous behavior directly contradicts the purpose and spirit, if not the letter, of the moratorium. Regrettably, the lack of regard shown by these nations for obligations that were assumed freely and voluntarily does not inspire one with faith that they would act any more responsibly should the door to commercial whaling ever be opened. Less apparent, but no less discouraging, is the unwillingness by some nations to vigorously monitor and prosecute the illegal trading of whale meat. Whether the absence of rigorous policing measures is the result of conscious intent or uninformed negligence, the outcome is the same. Unscrupulous operators are provided with incentives to disregard the law and afforded with the knowledge that they may do so with impunity. The lax enforcement of existing laws calls into further doubt the international community's prospective will and capacity to enforce quotas on catches if commercial whaling were resumed. In light of the evidence refuting the notion that a uniform commitment to act responsibly and in accordance with international mandates currently exits or would crystallize in the foreseeable future, it would be a grave and reckless mistake for the moratorium to be lifted now. This is why we must endeavor to shore up support for the moratorium prior to the IWC's 54th Annual Meeting, and to prevent the entry of any nation that seeks to have a voting voice in the IWC without agreeing to abide by the decisions of that same body. I note with particular concern Iceland's pending application to rejoin the IWC with a reservation that would leave it with complete discretion in choosing whether or not to engage in commercial whaling. It is well-established that Iceland's motivation in rejoining is to expand the voting block for revoking the moratorium. In applying with the reservation, however, Iceland aims to have all the privileges of membership free and clear of any concomitant burdens and responsibilities. But no nation should be allowed to have its cake and eat it too. It would be fundamentally unfair to the other IWC members to give Iceland a role in defining the limits of their behavior when Iceland itself would not have to play by the same rules. More importantly, Iceland's admission would establish a dangerous precedent whereby other nations would be encouraged to circumvent international treaties by withdrawing from them and then re-joining with specific reservations against onerous obligations. In view of our concerns over the deleterious consequences of Iceland's re-entry, nineteen of my Senate colleagues and I previously sent a bipartisan letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell urging him to assume a leadership role in opposing Iceland's application. The time is ripe, however, for us to make a more public and formal declaration of our position, and to provide our Administration with the encouragement and support it needs to take bold action at the next IWC meeting and the next conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in endangered Species. I ask you to joint in registering our strong opinion on this important and worthwhile cause.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, this amendment that I offer strikes 27 words in the bill. These words are not many in number, as legislating goes, but they embrace, in their exclusion, a very important series of principles that are at stake. So let me read the words to you that would be struck. And I quote: No retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of these rights or the right to establish domestic labor standards and levels of environmental protection. I say, respectfully, to those who put these words in the bill, and reported it out of the Finance Committee, that these words are a mistake because they essentially cancel out this provision, this section in which they appear, which is one of the 13 principal trade negotiating objectives in this bill before us, and the only one dealing with labor and environmental protections. In effect, because of this language that this amendment would strike, this becomes the only objective in the bill that the bill itself says, in effect, ``we, the United States, will never enforce these portions of an agreement.'' And that is the section relating to domestic labor standards and levels of environmental protection. I do not understand why we would place such a self-defeating provision in legislation, to create a standard and then to frustrate any potential for realizing and implementing it. If this bill stated that we would not enforce an agreement we reach on trade and services, for instance--which happens to be the second principal trade negotiating objective in the bill--I am sure we would hear an outcry. And I would be part of that outcry. If we said in advance we would never seek to enforce an agreement that we might reach on intellectual property protections or anti- corruption obligations or electronic commerce or agriculture, there would naturally be an outcry. So there is no reason why we would want to enter into agreements on any of these subjects while telling our trading partners in advance that we are not concerned about whether they are actually going to honor the commitments they make to us--in this case regarding labor and environmental protections. But that is precisely what we do in this part of this proposal that I would strike with this amendment. We say, in the pending bill, that we will never seek to enforce these labor and environmental standards, the agreements made by the parties to agreements. I find this not only illogical but inappropriate and wrong. Let me be clear, I am not here to propose that we only seek to enforce labor and environmental protections and not seek to enforce any other protections. This amendment proposes that we should have the power to enforce all of the provisions of these trade agreements that would come before Congress under the legislation before us, to enforce them equally, including labor and environmental protections. They should not be placed in a second class of objectives as stated in the bill. The pending bill already includes a clear statement in support of the equal enforcement principle I am advocating. That is the 12th principal negotiating objective. It states that we should ``seek provisions that treat United States principal negotiating objectives equally with respect to--the ability to resort to dispute settlement under the applicable agreement, the availability of equivalent dispute settlement procedures, and the availability of equivalent remedies.'' Then let me read it again. The words I am striking with this amendment hope to say ``no retaliation'' may be authorized based on the exercise of these rights; that is, ``the right to establish domestic labor standards and levels of environmental protection.'' My amendment simply conforms the rest of the bill to the objective stated in the 12th principal negotiating objective; that is, the availability of equivalent remedies: equal enforcement, equal standing, and no discrimination against the labor and environmental provisions of an agreement. I have an additional reason to strike the statement in the bill that ``no retaliation'' may be authorized based on ``the right to establish domestic labor standards and levels of environmental protection.'' This enforcement exemption goes even further than the exemption I have just described. I read the language as exempting any labor and environmental standard a country chooses to set from any potential retaliation under this bill. That includes labor and environmental commitments of the country we might be negotiating with and that that country has specifically agreed to include in a trade agreement. It says, I fear, that any standard is fine with us, even if it conflicts with a standard that has specifically been set, negotiated, agreed to in the trade agreement that would be the subject of consideration by the Senate under the rules established by this TPA proposal. If countries can establish any domestic standards they wish to and no retaliation can be used regardless of what they do, they will be able to use that language to violate any commitment they have made or be able to bend and break every international standard without fear of consequences. For example, they will have an excuse to lower domestic standards to enhance their trade competitiveness, something nearly every trade agreement bars. This exemption makes a mockery of labor and environmental protections in trade agreements. It is an invitation to abuse, to sham agreements, and to evasion. That is why I move to strike it. The labor and environmental protections at issue are very mainstream. They express broadly held American values and broadly accepted American policies. Let me read to you some of the core labor standards set by the International Labor Organization. One is the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. Another is the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor. These aren't extreme requirements, these are basic humanitarian requirements, in some sense even beyond the normal conflict of labor/ management or often the conflict of labor/management negotiations. Third is the effective abolition of child labor. Does anyone wish to stand in this body, or anywhere else in America, and say we should not make clear that the powers of retaliation that are available for all the other principal trade objectives stated in the bill should not be available against a country that is guilty of child labor abuses? Finally, the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. Again, this is the fourth of the core labor standards set by the International Labor Organization, obviously accepted-- enshrined, in fact--in amendments to our Constitution. It was certainly enacted explicitly in our time in a specific series of laws that have made real the promise of equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment which we would naturally not want to stand idly by and see violated in countries with which we were negotiating agreements. Is there any reason we would not want to enforce those values in a trade agreement? Is there something protectionist about those values? Is there some reason we would want to invite countries to violate those standards with impunity and provide no enforcement mechanism or remedy should they do so? I would ask the same about the environmental protections here. Is there some reason we would not want to support clean air and clean water in countries with which we are negotiating, some reason we would want to tolerate exposing workers, for instance, to destructive, dangerous toxic chemicals when that country in an agreement has made commitments not to tolerate these low environmental standards? In its current form, this provision I wish to strike with my amendment cancels out the very provisions on labor and environmental protections it seeks to legislate as one of the 13 principal trade negotiating objectives. It does so uniquely, putting this non- retaliation language only in this particular section dealing with labor and environment and not in any of the other 13 principal trade negotiating objectives. The issue I wish to raise with my amendment is simple. The question is, will we seek, whether we want to preserve within our Government the power to stand by our word and compel countries that are trade negotiating partners with us to stand by their word, to keep their promises when it comes to labor and environmental commitments, promises that they will have negotiated and made in the agreements we would sign and bring before the Congress for ratification? Or are we going to allow these agreements to be rendered meaningless and unenforceable, even before we enter into them? The amendment I propose this afternoon says we will hold our trading partners to the commitments they make in trade agreements. We are not legislating to reach out and tell them exactly what to do within their countries. We are saying, if they make an agreement with us regarding environmental protection or labor standards, they have to keep that promise. We will expect them to do no less. This is a critical part of the proposal before us, making trade agreements that are not only in the interest of commerce and economic growth but that are consistent with some of our most fundamental values and certainly consistent with a wide range of our laws adopted at the Federal, State, and local levels. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask my friend from Montana if he would be certain that I have an opportunity, before the vote, to respond to the Senator from Texas.