Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 247 are printed in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds more.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this debate about the proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge has been simmering for a long time, and it has finally been joined in this Chamber over the last 2 days. It has been a good, spirited debate. I have great respect for those who are proponents of drilling, particularly my two colleagues and friends from Alaska. I never question their sincerity. We have a good- faith difference point of view. Let me try, if I can, for a few moments to summarize what I believe are our arguments against drilling and then talk about where I hope we go after we have voted on these cloture motions. First, we are talking about 5 percent of the North Slope in Alaska. Ninety-five percent is now open for oil exploration and development. A lot of it is happening now. A lot of it is planned. This 5 percent is the heart of a thriving, beautiful ecosystem described by someone as the American Serengeti. The question is, Do we want to disrupt it, develop on it, some would say destroy its natural state--I would say that--for the oil that we could get out of it? And would that development for oil affect the health of that beautiful part of Alaska? I contend and we have contended in this debate that the development of the refuge as proposed in the pending amendments would irreversibly damage this natural treasure. The U.S. Geological Survey recently produced a 78-page report encapsulating 12 years of research which, in my opinion, concludes that very fact of irreversible damage to this natural treasure. For what? As we have said over and over, maybe oil coming out of there in 10 years and how much, will it break our dependence on foreign oil? By the Energy Department's own estimate, in 2020, if we allow drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge, our dependence on foreign oil would drop from 62 percent to 60 percent, still painfully dependent. The only way to break our dependence on foreign oil is to break our dependence on oil and develop new homegrown sources of energy and conserve. Second, what effect would the drilling have on prices? We are all worried about gas prices going up now. The development of the refuge for oil would do nothing to affect oil and gas prices. Drilling would have no impact, even under the inflated estimates for petroleum potential that are cited by the proponents of the amendment because the price of oil is determined on the world market no matter from where it comes. As we approach these votes, I am confident that the cloture motions will not succeed. I thank my colleagues for listening to the debate and moving in this direction which I think reflects the opinions of the American people. The question is, What do we do then? I hope we will set aside this divisive amendment and join around the underlying bill which does offer progress, a balanced energy plan for America, including some development within our American sovereignty, our land, but also has the kind of incentives we need for new technologies and conservation, which is the only way for this great Nation to remain great and not dependent on foreign sources of oil. I say to my colleague from Wyoming that we in New England actually believe we do contribute to the energy supply. My guess is about 50 percent of the energy in the New England States comes from nuclear powerplants right in our region. I know in Connecticut, we have two plants functioning. Forty-five percent of our electricity comes from those plants. More hopefully, New England has become a center for technology development using the brilliance of American ingenuity and innovation and capitalism to create new sources of energy. One of our great companies, United Technologies, is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in fuel cell technology--clean, efficient, and ours.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes to speak.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Nearly 100 years ago, President Teddy Roosevelt, a great American, great conservationist, great Republican--this really is not a partisan issue--said that the conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of national life. It is a century later, but there is still a lot of wisdom in T.R.'s statement. I hope we will heed it, defeat these motions for cloture, and then move on to work together side by side for the kind of balanced progressive energy program that is in the underlying bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Minnesota for what is, for him, a characteristically truthful, passionate, and in some senses, courageous statement. But it is typical of his service here. I thank him and all the others of our colleagues who have joined in this filibuster to stop the drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge. I must say for myself, in the 13 years now that I have been in the Senate, I cannot remember the last time I said I would participate or proclaim to participate in the leadership of a filibuster. But I have done that in this case because I remember what Senator Byrd instructed us on some time ago--that the purpose of the filibuster, which is to say the requirement for a supermajority to proceed with 60 votes, is to prevent us from allowing the passions of the moment to sweep through Congress and become law and do lasting damage to America's values and interests. If there ever was an example of how the temporary passions of a moment, if responded to in law, could do permanent damage to our great country, its values, and interests, quite literally, then this debate over the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is exactly that. I rise to oppose the amendments before us and oppose the motion for cloture. This proposal has been before us for a long time. I remember discussing it in my campaign for the Senate in 1988. It has risen and fallen over the years, but the basic heart of it remains wrong. It is to develop one of the most beautiful places in America, the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge, known as the American Serengeti, inhabited by 135 species of birds and 45 species of land animals. The plain crosses all five different ecoregions of the Arctic. To take this magnificent, unspoiled piece of nature and develop it for what? For a very small amount of oil no sooner than a decade from now, which will not do what all of us say we want to do, which is to break our dependence on foreign oil. And it will provide no price relief to American consumers of gas and oil. The fact remains that drilling in the refuge would not produce a drop of oil for a decade--far beyond the time of the current crisis in the Middle East which some have tried to use to gain support for this proposal to drill; and, even then, after the decade, far too little to change in any meaningful way our dependency on foreign oil. Even if we did allow the drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge, this administration's own Energy Department concluded that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would only reduce our dependence on oil by 2 percent 20 years from now. That is in the year 2020 or thereabouts. We would depend on foreign sources of oil for 60 percent of the oil we use instead of 62 percent. Is that 2 percent worth destroying this beautiful piece of America? The fact is, even if the oil were coming out of ANWR, notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary, it would be priced at world prices. So there wouldn't be any relief given to America's consumers if we allowed the drilling for oil. No, the only way for us to remove our economy from the troubles in the Middle East that are going on now or that may go on in years ahead is to end our dependence on foreign oil. As my colleagues have said over and over again, we don't have much oil left within American control and within America's land--3 percent of the world's reserves of which we use 25 percent every year. It is just not there. Therefore, if we want to break our dependence on foreign oil, as mighty a nation as we are militarily and economically, if we want to truly remain strong and invulnerable to pressure from nations that are weaker than we are but have oil within their land, then we have to break our addiction on oil. We have to develop new sources of energy. We have to conserve more. We have to use the gifts of ingenuity and technology that have created so many miracles in our time to help us power our society and our economy in a way that is not only cleaner than oil but, most important to the moment, is within our control and our possession. Surely, we can do it. As part of doing this, I say, as so many others who oppose drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge have said, we are not opposed to all development of America's energy resources. Far from it. While we must move beyond our dependence on fossil fuels, we cannot do it immediately, requiring us to continue to pursue supplies of oil, and particularly to pursue supplies of fuel. In fact, may I say as a Democrat that I am proud that the Clinton administration actually leased more land for energy development than either the Reagan or previous Bush administrations. But those decisions were evaluated, such as the decisions we shall make and should make in the future, which is to determine the environmental impact of that exploration--to hold the test up. How much energy will we get? What damage will it do to our environment? By that test, the Arctic Refuge does not pass. Let me show my colleagues a map of the North Slope of Alaska. Here is this very small area of the Coastal Plain. That is what our colleagues from Alaska want to be able to drill. Compare it to all the rest of this that is now open and, in many cases, already leased for oil exploration. This is a very small part of that area. There is very active exploration and drilling going on in the rest. We are not asking to take out every possibility of development in enormous swaths of land. The fact is, companies have made promising new discoveries at the locations in blue that I have just indicated. For example, last winter Phillips announced major discoveries of three significant oilfields in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The oil companies have plans to drill up to 59 exploration wells over the next 5 years. None of that is going to be affected by our desire to stop these amendments, which aim to get into that last very special and important area to preserve. What about that small green section in the corner of the map that I pointed to? The so-called 1002 area of the Arctic Refuge is the small biological heart of the ecosystem. Again, we are not asking for the entire North Slope to be protected. We only ask for the small piece of land that serves as the most essential and vital habitat in the region. Much to the contrary of what has been argued, the area is not even the most promising of the North Slope for exploration for oil. Let me quote from comments of an oil industry consultant in a recent New York Times article: There is still a fair amount of exploration risk here: You could go through eight years of litigation, a good amount of investment, and still come up with dry holes or uneconomic discoveries. Listen to the comments of a spokesman for BP Alaska: Big oil companies go where there are substantial fields and where they can produce oil economically. Does ANWR have that? Who knows? We owe it to the American people to determine whether the measure before us is responsible and responsive to our energy needs or whether it is simply a distraction that threatens to bring down the 400-plus pages of good energy policy contained in the underlying bill. To determine that, I think we need only to ask a very businesslike, very American question: What do we gain and what do we lose? I can tell you what we would gain in less than a minute. It would take days to catalog what we would lose. We are prepared, if necessary, to take those days to stop this authorization to drill in the Arctic Refuge. What we would gain I have talked about. It would take at least 10 years, and then there would be, at best, a 6-month supply of economically recoverable oil--a yield that would be spread over 50 years. What are the costs? The visible damage would be substantial: an environmental treasure permanently lost, hundreds of species threatened, international agreements jeopardized, oil spills further endangering the Alaskan landscape, and an increase in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The unseen damage of drilling would be just as real: a nation--our Nation--lulled into believing it has taken a step toward energy independence, when it has done no such thing; a nation believing it is extracting oil using so-called ``environmentally sensitive'' methods when it will not--all in all, the American people misled in both meanings of that term, not appreciating the reality, and also a failure of leadership by those of us who are privileged to serve here in Washington. Finally, this plan would violate some of our most treasured American values. I speak particularly of the values of conservation. This plan presents a false promise of job creation, a false promise of economic stimulus, a false promise of energy independence, and a false promise of environmental sensitivity. The first claim my colleagues make is that drilling in the Arctic is a necessary part of a balanced, long-term energy strategy. But, I say respectfully, calling drilling in the Arctic Refuge part of a strategic energy plan is like calling oil a beverage. It is literally and figuratively hard to swallow. This ill-considered plan will do nothing to wean us from our dependence on foreign oil. But we do have such a proposal which would take aggressive and strategic steps in pursuit of new sources of energy and better conservation; and that is the underlying bill fashioned by Senator Bingaman, Senator Daschle, and others working with them. It would provide us with the resources we need in the short term by measures such as expediting the natural gas pipeline from Alaska and providing the resources necessary to process the many lands already leased for exploration. I want to share with my colleagues a few words on the question of the effect that drilling in the Arctic might have on jobs because that is an argument that has been made. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will actually create fewer jobs than dozens of the smarter alternatives that would create new industries using American technology that will be encouraged by the underlying bill. The much quoted study claiming that the Arctic drilling would result in 750,000 jobs has since been widely discredited. Even its authors have acknowledged its methodology was flawed. The real job creation figure, in my opinion, is much closer to 45,000. Those jobs are short term, most of them in construction, as opposed to the permanent jobs that would be created by new energy industries, new energy technology industries created all over America. In order to try to settle this question, the Joint Economic Committee looked at the question and found that the proposal would result in modest employment gains, peaking at an estimated 65,000 new jobs nationwide in the year 2020. That would be an increase in projected employment by less than one-tenth of 1 percent over that time-- certainly nothing to sacrifice a national treasure for, particularly when we have so many better, new energy alternatives that will create so many more longer lasting jobs. I would like to say a word about the oil prices impact from drilling in the Arctic because American consumers are sensitive and, appropriately, accustomed to being concerned about the effect of world political and economic events on oil pricing and gasoline pricing and may be deceived into thinking that if we drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge, we will be protected from international oil price fluctuations. Drilling would have no impact on U.S. oil prices, even under the inflated estimates for petroleum potential that are cited by drilling advocates because the price of oil is determined by broad, global supply and demand, not by the presence or absence of an individual oilfield. Let's look, for example, at the case of Prudhoe Bay. In 1976--the year before the largest oilfield ever discovered in North America entered production--a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude oil sold for $12.65 and standard gasoline averaged--I take a deep breath here-- 59 cents a gallon. That was 1976. Two years later, with Prudhoe Bay now adding more than 2 million barrels a day to domestic supply, in 1978, West Texas Intermediate crude had increased by more than 15 percent to $14.85 a barrel and gasoline averaged 63 cents a gallon. It went up. During the next 2 years, as Prudhoe Bay production increased, oil prices also skyrocketed to $37.37 per barrel, while gasoline nearly doubled to $1.19 a gallon-- all because of world oil prices. This obviously does not demonstrate a relationship between Alaskan oil and gasoline prices that will be paid around the world. In closing, I want to get back to what this all says about our values and the choices we have to make. The question is, Are we willing to destroy a habitat that is home to so much beauty and wildlife and deprive future generations of visiting and experiencing this magnificent part of our country in return for what will slightly--2 percent out of 62 percent--reduce our dependence on foreign oil two decades from now and will not affect the price the American people will pay for gasoline and oil? I think the answer has to be no. Wilderness and the oil industry cannot peacefully coexist, certainly not in this case. So we are forced to make a choice. I have made mine. I believe the American people agree. Why? Because conserving our great open spaces is fundamentally an affirmation of our core American values. Conservation is not a Democratic or Republican value; it is a quintessentially American value. What lesson does it teach the generations that come after us if we go ahead with this terrible mistake of drilling in the Arctic Refuge? That we, as Americans, did not value our national heritage? That we did not conserve it for future generations of Americans? That we sold it for, essentially, effectively, the equivalent of a barrel of oil? The ethic of conservation tells us it is not only sentimentally difficult to part with beautiful wilderness, it is practically unwise, because in doing so we deny future generations a priceless piece of our common culture. Let me close with the words of a great President, a great American, a great conservationist, and a great Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. In 1916, he said this: The ``greatest good for the greatest number'' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us [to] restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wildlife and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method. That is a quote from the great T.R. They live and breathe with as much wisdom today as they did in 1916. In addition to all of the pluses and minuses and balances and statistics, they are the ultimate reason why we should reject these amendments to allow for the drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, amendment No. 2926 will ensure that the Election Administration Commission studies State recount and contest procedures, so that we lessen the chance that what happened in Florida during the November 2000 election will occur elsewhere. That election revealed many problems in our Nation's voting procedures, the bulk of which are being addressed in this historic legislation. When states fully implement the provisions of S. 565, I am confident that Americans will have good reason to have greater confidence that their Federal elections are fair, efficient, and accurate down to the last vote. But, we also have to be concerned about what occurs after those ballots have been cast, especially in cases when an election is excruciatingly close. In November 2000, we all found out what can happen in our electoral democracy when recounts are required or when elections are contested to determine who won and who lost. In broad terms, the system that was designed by our Founders and has evolved over the years is a brilliant one. But given the sheer size of this country, the complexity of many State regulations, and the various ways and means of voting, we must ensure that the system we cherish is brought fully up to speed with the times in which we live. Even after we say good riddance to chads and butterflies, we will certainly continue to have close Federal elections, and elections in which the first count has to be verified for one reason or another. Therefore I believe we will not have completed the job of election reform until we make sure that we--governments at all levels, as well as the public--better understand how States determine when votes should be recounted, how votes should be recounted, and who should do the recounting. We must not allow this window of reform to close without first enduring that we know whether or not State recount and contest procedures are adequate, so that in the future it is voters, without the intervention of the courts, who determine the winners of our elections. In 2000, of course, it was Florida--surrounded on three sides by water and on all sides by media scrutiny--that became the poster state for recount procedures gone awry. But in frames, we must acknowledge that if other States had been placed under the same microscope as Florida, the same problems would have been revealed. Florida was not the only state that was totally unprepared to deal with a neck-and-neck election. The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired so ably by Presidents Carter and Ford, made several observations about this issue that were evident to the whole world watching events in Florida, but which could apply to many other States as well. The commission found that recount and contest laws are not designed for statewide challenges. They noted that state deadlines did not mesh well with the federal schedule. Each county in Florida made its own decisions about what, when, or whether to recount. And, perhaps most surprising to all of us involved, in performing recounts, the definition of a vote varied from county to county, and from official to official within the counties. I do not want to recount, relieve, or rehash all of the painful debates from that election. There is no point to be served now re- enacting the legal battle that transfixed our country and the world. But in our ongoing quest to form a more perfect union, we have to ask ourselves whether we can improve the procedures for future recounts, and how we can put in place procedures that are clear to voters, and I might add candidates, well before the election. If on the first Monday in November we are all on the same page as to what constitutes a vote on each type of voting equipment and for every kind of voting method, what recount and contest procedures are, and other critical questions, things will be much less confusion and frustrating to all Americans come the first Tuesday in November. In perfect hindsight, I think we would all agree that it is not one's benefit for us to rely on the courts or others to tell us the rules as we go along. The amendment would simply require the new Election Administration Commission being created by this legislation to systematically examine the State laws and procedures governing recounts and contests in Federal elections, determine the best practices, and, report to the President and Congress whether or not state procedures are adequate. The commission would also study whether or not states have adopted uniform definitions for what constitutes a vote on each kind of voting machinery they use, and whether or not there is a need for more consistency in State recount and contest procedures. This amendment recognizes that, as is appropriate under our system of government, administration of Federal elections will still remain primarily the purview of the States. However, be directing the Election Administration Commission to study State recount and contest laws and procedures and promote best practices, I hope we can help to ensure that the events in Florida following the November 2000 election are never repeated. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for working with us and accepting this amendment, and I urge its adoption by the Senate.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of this historic election reform legislation, which of course comes before the Senate at a time when our Nation is responding to new challenges at home and abroad. I want to thank Senators Dodd and McConnell and other Senators for their hard work to create this bipartisan bill, and I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for working together and ensuring that this legislation is being considered at this time. Our efforts to address this issue together demonstrate to the American people that a matter as critical as election reform can and should be driven by the national interest, not by partisan, parochial or political interests. After all, the integrity of self-governed democracies starts with the right of citizens to vote, and when that right is not shared equally, the strength of our democracy is diminished. We must recognize and celebrate the fact that American history has been a story of continual progress in this regard. Generation after generation, voting booths have been opened and voting rights extended to groups of citizens once disenfranchised. That wonderful process of growth has, over the generations, built a broader and better America that has become a brighter beacon of equality and opportunity to people around the world. But we can never stop forming, in the words of our Constitution, a more perfect union, and to that end we must realize that haphazard or bureaucratic disenfranchisement still occurs in America today as a result of arcane or confusing voting systems. We must realize that millions of Americans who are eligible to vote still encounter unnecessary barriers to casting their vote, and to having their votes counted. That disenfranchisement, whenever and however it occurs, is a blemish on the sanctity of our system, and it is a blemish that only we--the democratic representatives of the people--can help to heal. The provisions in this legislation will help guarantee access and accuracy in the voting booth and ballot box by making sure that the fundamental right to vote of all citizens is protected, that the ballots of all registered voters are counted, and that only those persons who are eligible to vote can do so. We can all agree that the November 2000 election--which I seem to recall reading a thing or two about in the newspapers--exposed serious flaws in our federal election process, and I am happy to say that this legislation has an answer for most of the flaws exposed. Experts estimate that in November 2000, some 2.5 million Americans had their ballots for President discarded for any number of reasons. In some cases, the cause was faulty voting equipment, in others confusing ballots. This legislation will wisely require States to adopt voting systems which permit voters to verify their ballot choices and correct errors before their vote is cast. It requires states to adopt systems that address the needs of disabled voters, and of voters with limited English proficiency. And to make sure that these provisions have teeth, the bill sets Federal standards for voter error rates and requires states to meet or beat those benchmarks. In the 2000 election, many citizens who believed they were eligible to vote were simply turned away from the polls. This legislation will make sure that all citizens who show up to vote have the right to cast provisional ballots, so that their votes can be tabulated if and when their eligibility is verified. According to reports, in the 2000 election, other citizens were denied the right to vote because registration lists were simply not accurate. This legislation will require each State to create computerized, statewide voter registration lists and to coordinate those lists with other databases to ensure that the lists are as up-to- date and as error-free as possible. The November 2000 election also made it painfully clear that states were being forced to bear the total financial burden for federal elections, and many states lacked the funding necessary to implement more efficient voting systems. This legislation authorizes $3.5 billion to help states and localities meet the requirements for upgrading voting systems, to improve accessibility for disabled and special needs voters, and to implement new procedures to increase voter turnout, educate voters, and identify, deter, and investigate voter fraud. Mr. President, the revolutionary idea at the core of American democracy is that our government's power is derived from the consent of the governed. In other words, small-r republican government depends upon the small-d democratic right to vote. Two hundred years ago. Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``The will of the people . . . is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect is free expression should be our first object.'' Today, the best way for us to protect the free expression of the will of the people is to build an election system that all Americans can count on, by ensuring that all their votes and only their votes are counted. This legislation furthers our progress toward that noble goal. It deserves our strong support.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Reverend Dr. Carl F. Schultz, Jr., Senior Pastor of the First Church of Christ, Congregational, in Glastonbury, CT. Dr. Schultz will be retiring on June 9, 2002, after 43 years of ministry, 34 of which have been with First Church of Christ. This is a significant milestone for Dr. Schultz and his congregation, for he has been the longest serving pastor in the more than 300-year history of First Church of Christ in Glastonbury. Since 1968 when Dr. Schultz joined this congregation, the church has greatly expanded it facilities, programs, and outreach. Under his leadership, First Church of Christ has expanded its sanctuary, classroom and office space and raised more than a million dollars for building improvements, a new pipe organ, and television production facilities which have allowed the church to broadcast its services. Dr. Schultz has been very active in the Glastonbury community through his service with the Glastonbury Pastoral Counseling Center, the Glastonbury Conference of Churches, the Glastonbury Clergy Association, and as Chaplin to the Police and Fire Departments. He has also served in several capacities with the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ, lending his knowledge and expertise to the growth of the church throughout the State. On the national level, Dr. Schultz has been a delegate to the General Synod of the United Church of Christ on several occasions, and last, but certainly not least, in 1994 and 1999, at my invitation, he served as Chaplain for a day here in the U.S. Senate, offering a prayer to start our day as we serve here in the Nation's Capitol. For his devoted service to the members of his congregation, the First Church of Christ, Congregational, and for the many contributions he has made to the citizens of our state, the people of Connecticut thank Dr. Schultz and wish him well in his retirement. On a personal level, I consider Dr. Schultz and his dear wife, Della, to be my friends, and I pray that his retirement may be a time of rebirth and new life for them both. May God bless him and his family in the years to come.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is with profound pride--and I suppose I should add provincial pleasure--that I join Senator Dodd and all of our colleagues from Connecticut in the House of Representatives in introducing this resolution, which is the legislative equivalent of wagging our tails and howling like huskies at the Capitol dome. We are very proud to salute the 2002 national champion University of Connecticut women's Huskies basketball team, who, on March 31, capped a 39-to-0 season--a perfect season--the ninth undefeated run in the whole history of college basketball, with a victory over Oklahoma in the title game. I suppose we should pay some respect and give some sense of congratulations, even in defeat, to our former colleague, David Boren, who is now the president of the University of Oklahoma. This fantastic season leads me to repeat a pressing question that opponents of the UConn women's basketball team must have been asking all year, which is: Who let the Huskies out? I think the answer might be the great Coach Geno Auriemma and his superb staff, who not only coached but led, inspired, and mentored this extraordinary group of women to this extraordinary season. This marks the third time that UConn women have leapt above the rim of college basketball and the first time in NCAA history that any school has gone unbeaten on two separate occasions. Mr. President, you may remember--and I certainly do--a similar swell of pride when Rebecca Lobo and Jenn Rizzotti and company ran the table on the way to the national championship in 1995. For years to come, student athletes around the Nation will be striving to approach the perfection of this program, and we in Connecticut are so proud of it. As Senator Dodd indicated, five of these great basketball players won All-American notice. They poured in more points than any other team in the Nation and racked up an NCAA record average margin of victory of more than 35 points a game--a remarkable achievement. But the true measure of the team, as Senator Dodd indicated, can't be distilled in numbers or records. You have to look at the humans involved. The legendary Geno Auriemma, one of the winningest coaches in college basketball history, once again brought together a great group of talented and hard-working young women and imbued that team not just with the skills but with the team spirit and the togetherness that we saw on the court perfectly and gracefully executed time and time again. Senator Dodd referred to the four seniors who are legendary and will remain legendary in Connecticut for a long time to come: Sue Bird, Asjha Jones, Tamika Williams, and Swin Cash; and a great sophomore sensation, Diana Taurasi. They became an unstoppable combination. I will say with pride that the surge of success is starting to feel happily familiar to us, and we are very grateful for that. Over the last 4 years, the UConn women's team has gone 136 and 9, made three Final Four appearances, and claimed four Big East tournament titles in 4 years, along with the Huskies men's basketball team, which this year earned its 15th consecutive trip to national post-season play on the way to the Elite Eight. The two make a truly triumphant tandem, that Huskies men or women have now won the national college basketball championship in 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2002. This is a great program, and we owe a particular thanks and expression of pride to the athletic director of the University of Connecticut, Lou Perkins, to coaches Geno Auriemma and Jim Calhoun, and to all their staffs. Mr. President, this may give you some small sense of why Connecticut residents are as loyal to our Huskies as huskies are to their owners. We love the way this team came to play. We love the way they brought out the best in our State. If I may say so, as Americans, every day we pledge allegiance to the red, white, and blue; but during basketball season in Connecticut, we have a special place in our hearts for the white and blue alone. We are proud that the rest of the Nation is catching on. A record crowd of nearly 30,000 fans turned out at the Alamodome in San Antonio to watch the Huskies win the national title. That growing popularity is helping women's college basketball ascend to truly new heights. I am proud to join with Senator Dodd and our colleagues in the House in introducing this resolution and in congratulating the UConn players and coaches on their singular accomplishment and asking the Senate to do the same. We are filled with pride over the honor the Huskies have brought to Connecticut. Two years ago, when Senator Dodd and I were here and I was honored to give a similar speech saluting the UConn men's Huskies, I closed with the UConn cheer. I believe if I don't do it today, there will be objections raised under various Federal statutes. So here it is: U-C-O-N-N, UConn, UConn, UConn. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, can the sponsors clarify section 301 of the bill concerning the conversion of campaign funds to personal use, and in particular whether any change from current law was intended concerning the ability of candidates to transfer excess campaign funds to their parties?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin for his extraordinary leadership and for his very gracious words, which I appreciate personally. With the vote on final passage of the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan bill about to occur, we are fast approaching the end of an incredible odyssey, one that, while perhaps not as long as that of the mythical Odysseus, has certainly been every bit as challenging, suspenseful, and epic. Time and again, the efforts to reform our campaign finance system have faced ruin as its proponents have been forced to sail between their own versions of Scylla and Charybdis, required to resist their own special calls of the Sirens. But, due to the incredible tenacity and profound principle of our leaders in this struggle, Senators McCain and Feingold, Congress has found the strength to reach our own Ithaca here today, and to finally try to clear our house of suitors seeking special favors at the expense of the greater good. For that extraordinary leadership, I thank Senator Feingold and I thank Senator McCain. They have made an enormous difference. I must say, in some senses I joined this odyssey--though I had been interested in it before--but I joined it with a new sense of commitment in 1997, when the Governmental Affairs Committee conducted its year- long investigation into campaign finance abuses in the 1996 Federal elections. With the passage of time, the shock of that investigation's revelations have started to fade. But it is critical that we remember them because they represent precisely what is most wrong with the system we plan to change and precisely what helped to begin in full force the effort that is about to reach a successful conclusion. We should not forget the cast of characters that we all became familiar within those investigations, hustlers such as Johnny Chung-- remember the name--who compared the White House to a subway saying: You have to put coins in to open the gates. Or Roger Tamraz, who told us that he didn't even bother to register to vote because he knew that his huge donations would get him so much more than the vote would. These men were on the margins. Though they never got what they wanted for their money, their stories and the many more like them contributed to the cynicism too many Americans have about their elected leaders and the skepticism they have about their own ability to influence their Government. Johnny Chung, Roger Tamraz, and all the rest may have been unusual in the unsophisticated bull-in-a-China-shop way in which they tried to play the system. But their essential insight, if I can call it that, that big dollar donations buy the access that enables you to get what you want, is one that does pervade our political culture. That insight is shared and acted upon daily by the mainstream special interests whose soft money donations have exponentially dwarfed those of the 1996 investigation's and 1997 election's most colorful characters, who use the access they buy to try to mold the Nation's policies and agenda in their own image. The result has been a system that often leaves the average person disempowered, disinterested, and disengaged from our political process where the average person's annual income, in many cases--mostly doesn't even approach the cost of the ticket to our political parties' most elite fundraising events. This causes the average people, the majority, to continually question why their leaders are taking the actions they take. It causes those of us in public life to work, too often, under a cloud of suspicion, with our citizenry wondering whose interests are being served. The demise of the Enron Corporation in the last several months is but the most recent example of this phenomenon. It is, I know, regularly stated that Enron is a corporate scandal but not necessarily a political one. That at this moment is quite literally true. It is too early to conclude whether anyone in Government did anything inappropriate or illegal for Enron. But I do know that a company with an ultimately insecure and unethical business model run by individuals of shakier business ethics yet, repeatedly found an open door to the offices of the politically powerful--in no small part, I presume, because of the millions of dollars of political donations the company made. So this is not Enron's political scandal alone. It is all of ours. That is probably why the Enron scandal may have given this noble effort the final boost it needed to make it to Ithaca. All of us have been hurt by it. Politicians are under suspicion, legitimate legislative causes have been tarnished only because Enron once supported them, and the American people whose confidence in the integrity of our system has been shaken. Fortunately, the Senate is about to act to make the system better. None of us is under any illusion that the enactment of this bill will make our system pristine, or eliminate totally the impact of money on politics. As has often been said, money, like water, always seems to find a new place to flow through our political system. But this bill will have an impact. It will be a very good one. That impact will result from the closing of the large soft money loophole that has been allowed to open up in the post-Watergate campaign finance reform laws. Before yielding the floor, I would like to point with pride to one other part of this bill. This bill includes an amendment that Senator Thompson and I have been working on since shortly after the conclusion of the Governmental Affairs Committee's 1997 investigation. That amendment resulted from our frustration that some of the worst actors in the 1996 scandals, individuals who clearly broke the law and were convicted for breaking it, escaped without significant punishment. The reason? The criminal provisions of our campaign finance laws just are not strong enough. Our amendment remedies that by authorizing felony charges for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, expending FECA's statute of limitations, and directing the U.S. Sentencing Commission to promulgate a specific guideline for sentencing for those who violate our campaign finance laws. The combination of these changes will put teeth into our campaign finance laws and ensure that those who willfully violate them will not again escape without serious consequences. Finally, I thank Senator Feingold for his reference to the so-called 527 legislation that we worked on together and passed in the Senate. It is a sad irony that on this very day, when we are about to pass the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan bill, the House Ways and Means Committee has adopted a version of 527 which really guts it. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will not accept that undermining of that important campaign finance law. In sum, for too long we have watched our Nation's greatest treasure, our commitment to democracy, be pillaged by the ever escalating money chase. It is time to say enough is enough. It is time to restore political influence to where our Nation's founding principles say it should be: with the people, with the voters. That is what this proposal will do. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I would like to ask the sponsors a question concerning section 214 of the bill, which deals with coordination. Some concern has been expressed about this provision by outside groups that participate in the legislative process through lobbying and grassroots advertising and also participate in electioneering through their PACs, or currently, through sham issue ads. Can the sponsors explain what is intended by section 214, and answer the concerns expressed by some of these organizations?

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the anniversary on March 20 of the independence of Tunisia, an Arab republic and friend of the United States for forty-six years. Americans of my generation recall the principles advanced by Tunisia's first leader, Habib Bourguiba, in setting the country on its historic course, liberty, modernity and religious tolerance. Today, under President Zine Abidine Ben Ali, the country continues its substantial progress toward establishing an export-oriented market economy, raising real per capita income, combating poverty, educating its girls and boys equally well, and improving the standard of living for all its citizens. As we applaud these achievements, we also wish the Tunisian people and their leaders perseverance and success in building a society of justice, civil rights, and pluralistic, participatory democracy. This body and the American people today can thank Tunisia for its steadfast support during its membership on the United Nations Security Council in 2001. In the weeks and months after September 11, the Security Council adopted several resolutions that embodied U.S. objectives for combating global terrorism and freeing Afghanistan from the yoke of a repressive regime that granted safe haven to al-Qaida. Tunisia, the sole Arab member state on the Council at that time, worked closely and constructively with the United States in that crucial diplomacy. So, on this, the 46th anniversary of Tunisia's independence, we recognize an international friend and express our commitment to continued cooperation and mutual progress over the years to come. We are fortunate to count Tunisia among our friends and partners in North Africa, the Middle East, and on the global stage.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Dennis Leaf, a congressional fellow with my office, be given floor privileges for the consideration of the energy bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Senate has begun a very important debate in the last few days on our national energy policy. This is a debate that will literally affect the lives and the quality of the lives of every single American, as well as affect our national security, our independence in carrying out our foreign and defense policies, and the quality of the environment and the natural resources from which we derive such pleasure as Americans. So this is a very important and timely debate. It has been 10 years since we last passed major energy legislation. We are starting with a bill hundreds of pages long, and hundreds--or at least 100--amendments may find their way onto it. We are going to be debating some very big opportunities and some very big problems, as well as many other smaller issues associated with the bill. I saw Senator Bingaman on the floor. I congratulate him and Senator Daschle for their superb leadership, along with that of the occupant of the chair, in developing the energy legislation that we are debating. The bill before us out of the Energy Committee coordinates the work of many of the committees of the Senate, including the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee which I am privileged to chair, which has contributed a section of this bill. Senator Bingaman and Senator Daschle have brought before us a very well-balanced national energy policy, which does have some incentives for the development of remaining energy resources in the United States, but makes a turn and acknowledges and acts on the acknowledgment that our energy future is in new technologies being applied to create new sources of energy- efficient, environmentally protected sources of energy. Of course, that will include renewables as well. Mr. President, this great country became an industrial power for many reasons, including, of course, the skills and ingenuity of our people. But the availability of inexpensive and abundant sources of energy also contributed to the remarkable growth and success of the American economy during the industrial age. Prior to the mechanization of our society, we relied on wood, water, and horses for much of our energy need. ``King Coal'' powered the early part of our industrial development and still plays a critical role. Hopefully, it will continue, with the application of new technologies, to play a critical role in generating electricity for our homes, schools, offices, and our factories. From the time oil was discovered in Pennsylvania in 1859, the petroleum industry has grown enormously--at first, displacing whale oil for lighting and, eventually, powering the world's transportation systems. Enormous deposits of oil spurred development of oil fields in many parts of our country, including Texas, Oklahoma, and California. The 1930s witnessed the enormous expansion of hydropower in various parts of our country, including, of course, the Tennessee Valley and the northwest section of America. In the middle part of the 20th century, we began to harness the atom and develop nuclear power, which was going to be, in the view of many at that time, ``too cheap to meter.'' In other words, it would be so inexpensive you would not even be able to keep track of it to base costing on. Nuclear power continues to be a significant part of our energy mix. In a State like mine, it is most significant. We have two plants up and operating that have been decommissioned. I hope we can find a way forward to build a next generation of safe nuclear powerplants. The oil price shocks of the 1970s brought home to us our dependence on foreign markets for oil, on which so much of our country and its economy have become dependent. With those shocks came an understanding of the ability of foreign countries to seriously disrupt our economy and our lives through higher prices, bringing higher inflation, and unemployment. We began to think and do more about reversing this trend by pursuing energy efficiency and developing alternative sources of energy, including renewable energy. Yet we have remained largely dependent on--some would say addicted to--fossil fuels, which has exacerbated our dependence. We have also found out along the way that our energy has a cost beyond that of discovering, producing, and transporting product to market. It has health and environmental costs. The smokestacks of our powerplants, factories, and the tailpipes of our cars and trucks spew out millions of tons of pollutants in great quantity, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, mercury, and carbon dioxide. Our citizens --especially our youngest and our oldest--are subject to a variety of diseases associated with their lungs, particularly, including fine particles and ozone. There is quite a remarkable article in the press today about a study that has been completed--I believe it appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association--which draws a powerful and unsettling link between certain pollutants and higher degrees of disease and, in fact, projected numbers of premature deaths. That is, people would have lived longer had they not been inhaling the emissions from power plants and some of the rest of our society. Our lakes and streams have suffered under the assault of acid rain. Our bays are being choked by nitrogen loadings that come from cars and powerplants. People throughout the country cannot eat fish out of lakes nearby because of mercury contamination. The great vistas of our national parks are despoiled by haze created by motor vehicles, powerplants, and the fossil fuels they are burning creating emissions. We are heating up the planet through greenhouse gases. We face potentially catastrophic consequences over time associated with sea level rise and increased threats from airborne diseases that migrate north toward our country or within our country as we heat up the planet's atmosphere as a result of the use of fossil fuels. We cannot continue to use the atmosphere as a dumping ground for waste coming out of smokestacks and tailpipes on a business-as-usual basis. It is our responsibility as stewards of the Earth that we are blessed to inhabit as temporary residents, trustees for the generations and generations that will follow us over the centuries ahead, to establish a framework, a system for meeting our energy needs without harming public health or destroying the environment in the process. We must consider both of those important policy factors as we go forward with this energy legislation. Energy policy and environmental policy are, if you allow me to put it this way, like a gas pedal and a brake pedal. They only make sense when they are used together and used sensibly. As we consider energy legislation, we have a clear choice between developing an innovative and independent new energy policy or continuing the same policy--a policy that will continue our energy dependence, deprive us of national independence and compromise the health of our people and the openness and condition of our environment. We all know that America needs a lot of energy. It takes energy to move our cars and trucks, to cool our refrigerators, and power the terrific technological tools that drive our innovative economy. The challenge is--and it is a challenge--how do we get that energy in a way that does not do the kind of damage I have just described? The biggest challenge is in transportation. Cars and trucks are responsible for two-thirds of all petroleum use in the United States. That overreliance not only harms public health and the environment, but also hastens global warming. The overreliance forces us on a course of foreign policy dependence because it entangles us in unstable regions and forces us to deal in a much less demanding way than we otherwise would with regimes that do not reflect our values, human rights, religious tolerance, openness, and democracy. Some people think we can drill our way out of this imbalance, but we have to do the math, and the math is powerful. We have 3 percent of the oil reserves left within our control, yet we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. Two-thirds of the world's oil lies in countries in the Persian Gulf, even though we have developed other sources of energy and oil from Latin America, from Africa, and increasingly from central Asia. We cannot just drill our way out of the problem. The more oil we use, the more dependent we will be on oil that other countries have and own. That is one of the lessons we have to learn from world events and consider as we go forward on this energy legislation. America's strength is not in our oil reserves. That is the painful fact. America's strength is in our reserves of innovation and technical know-how. An energy strategy that is good for America will exploit those reserves of innovation and technical know-how to produce smart energy-saving technology and cleaner modern fuels. Unfortunately, many would have us extend our dependence on oil, and because other countries overwhelmingly control the oil reserves, that means extending our dependence on foreign oil. They have even, in addition, proposed the despoiling of some of our most precious places in the process. And for what? We will obviously will have a debate, as we have had before, on the question of whether to drill in that remaining 5 percent of the North Slope of Alaska. If we opened up, God forbid, the Arctic Refuge to oil exploration, there would be, as we have said over and over, a blip of oil to meet the enormous need we would have. It just does not do it for us. We should say no to oil development in the Arctic Refuge. We should protect a most unusual, unique, magnificent, inspiring piece of America, piece of God's creation, which is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have to go in a new direction. We need to spur aggressive development of both new and proven energy sources and technologies, which would include natural gas, the subject of the amendment before the Senate now. We should encourage hybrid vehicles. Some of those are out and selling very well. There are waiting lists of people who want to buy them and cannot get them rapidly enough. We must pave the way for renewables, fuel cells, and other barely imagined technologies. I am convinced we have the brain power and the economic power to develop them if we put our mind and will to it. Of course, we should develop our remaining oil deposits that can be developed without hurting the environment, and there are some remarkable new technologies that will help us do that. Fuel cells are a particularly promising technology, and I hope we in Government will work with industry and others to develop a credible business plan, that is what I would call it, for fuel cell technology development, a business plan that would have clear goals and timetables by which we would develop and deploy fuel cells. I support the progressive tax incentives for alternative fuels and clean and renewable energy that are part of the package that came out of the Finance Committee. I thank and commend Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley on crafting a responsible and forward-looking set of incentives to transform our energy mix and make us more independent and efficient. The bill before us does open doors to innovation. It sets up a new framework for the kinds of innovative energy policy we need. That really should be the commitment of our generation, a single-minded, all-out drive to protect our security by developing a new framework for energy use in our country. We have to start with energy efficiency standards. Over the last 20 years, we have made magnificent efficiency gains which lay a firm foundation for future progress. Increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks by just 3 miles per gallon, well within our reach technologically, would save 6 billion gallons of gasoline per year. As I understand it, by the best estimates, that is about two times the oil that would come out of the Arctic Refuge if we drilled. That 3-miles-per-gallon increase in fuel efficiency would also save Americans $9 billion a year in annual spending. Imagine that, $9 billion in savings. The increase would also reduce carbon emissions by 15 million tons a year, that much less contributing to the pollution of our air and the warming of our planet. We can clearly do, in my opinion, better than 3 miles per gallon. That obviously will be the topic of debate that will occur on the amendment on this bill regarding so-called CAFE standards. We were all shocked in the 1970s by the steep increase in the price of oil as a result of the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and 1974 and the Iranian revolution in 1979. Gas prices were approaching a dollar a gallon, and we thought the price would only continue to rise. We made some real efficiency gains in our economy and in our transportation fleet, but the price of oil collapsed in 1986. Despite a few price spikes along the way, gasoline is now not that much over a dollar a gallon, making it cheaper, certainly when adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1980. New sales of vehicles are increasingly characterized by sport utility vehicles and light trucks--great vehicles, but our overall fuel efficiency has therefore and thereby declined. We are caught in a policy bind. We have less expensive fuel, providing little incentive to conserve, and industry remains opposed to increased fuel efficiency standards. So gas prices remain low, our fuel efficiency averages are declining, and therefore we continue to increase our reliance on imports of oil. I hope this legislation before us will provide the opportunity to break that gridlock and that we will support increased fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles. I believe people who oppose the increases in fuel efficiency may well underestimate the resourcefulness and ingenuity of our researchers and/ or industry. For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is developing a most promising new technology for economically reducing gasoline engine vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. It could reduce smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions from gas engines by 90 percent, and it has the potential to increase engine efficiency by 25 percent and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent. We should take advantage of the many advances that have been made under the aegis of the Partnership For a New Generation of Vehicles, a private-public partnership between the Federal Government and the automobile industry to improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. The advances we have made in these hybrid technologies that have already come out of that partnership are dramatic. The administration has embraced fuel cells fueled by hydrogen, and I welcome that, but the results are still some time away. That is why we need to make advances in fuel economy sooner, as well as later. We must also reform our energy system to give renewables and alternative energy fair access to the market, both by ensuring they can make a physical connection to the grid and by enacting tax credits that will ensure the market is open and welcoming to them; in other words, to give consumers and businesses a tax credit for use of some of the renewable and alternative energy systems coming on board, including fuel cells. We should also require electricity generators, I believe, to account for a portion of their output through renewable energy sources, and I support the inclusion of a renewable portfolio standard in this bill. I understand many existing industries are resistant to change because change involves risk. Fortunately, many companies are ready to accept some risk because they know there is reward in that, that nothing ultimately ever stays the same. Many businesses have developed new technologies and are willing to do so even more if given a clear, lasting signal from our Government as to what we are going to ask and in which direction we are going. If Government leads by establishing clear goals, objectives, and incentives, as this bill does, progress will follow. Government can act as an innovation spur, not an innovation barrier. I know there are some who will argue the energy bill is not the place to address climate change. I disagree. I see climate change as probably the biggest long-term environmental challenge that we as Americans and everyone else on the planet face. Some would argue climate change is separate from energy, but I respectfully disagree; they are inextricably linked. The overwhelming majority of greenhouse emissions come from producing and consuming energy, whether in our powerplants, our factories, or our cars and trucks. I particularly salute the pioneering bipartisan work done by Senators Byrd and Stevens to promote research and development on climate change, to require an office in the White House which will have the responsibility of developing and overseeing the implementation of hopefully a national climate change policy. I am proud to say the Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously passed the Byrd-Stevens legislation and it has become part of the energy bill we are debating. The provision does not create any mandatory programs to address climate change--that debate has been reserved for another day--but it puts a strategic planning and research and development foundation in place so we can understand the nature of our problem and begin to work aggressively on solutions. In particular, the Byrd-Stevens legislation would create a comprehensive effort within the executive branch that would provide creative thought, the creative thought that global warming requires, including a new White House office to develop a peer reviewed strategy to stabilize the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to safe levels. Now that is an objective on which I hope we can all agree. In fact, the Senate has already agreed on that goal because it is the stated objective of the 1992 Rio Treaty on Climate Change, which this body ratified. Finally, I again compliment the comprehensive nature of the Byrd- Stevens provision. In crafting a climate change strategy, the White House office would be instructed to consider four key elements: Emissions mitigation, technology development, adaptation needs, and further scientific research. Very often in our debate on this issue all four of these topics do not make it into the discussion, but they must. To quote Senator Byrd, his bill is meant to complement, not replace, other mitigation measures by creating a process by which we receive expert evaluation of the challenge we face. I hope this legislation will be the tree off which other critical climate change measures will branch. This is a challenge of great import to us and to all who will follow us on the planet. As Senator Stevens starkly reminded our Governmental Affairs Committee at a hearing last year, we can already see some deeply unsettling signs of climate change in the Arctic. Permafrost is melting, glaciers are disappearing, boreal forests are moving north, and the migrating habits of many species are being disrupted. The provision these two leading Senators, Messrs. Byrd and Stevens, authored is an important first step in examining and reacting to the climate change crisis. To me, it is one every Member of the Senate ought to be able to support, and I hope because it is part of this legislation before us that all will. I am thankful for the opportunity to make this opening statement. I repeat what I said at the beginning: This is a bill whose importance to every single American and to our country in general cannot be overstated. I look forward to the debate. I hope we can find common ground to achieve what I believe is our commonly held goal, which is to make America more energy independent than it is today. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, who, in addition to having the privilege of sharing its name with my beautiful wife, have worked tirelessly over the past 90 years, leaving an indelible mark on Israel and the American Jewish community. From a small group of women who first gathered in February 1912, Hadassah has grown into the largest women's and largest Jewish membership organization in the United States. Today, comprised of 1500 chapters and more than 300,000 members, who can be found in every congressional district nationwide, Hadassah remains committed to the worthy mission of its founders: promoting education, health care, and social justice to Israel and American Jewish women and their families. Today, I take a few moments to pay tribute to this institution on its 90th anniversary by sharing with my colleagues a little bit about its founder. Henrietta Szold was born in Baltimore, MD on December 21, 1860. The eldest of eight children, her father, Rabbi Benjamin Szold, raised Henrietta to be a scholar. After graduating high school, she taught French, German, botany, mathematics, and other subjects at the Misses Adam's School for Girls in Baltimore. At the same time, she taught bible history classes for adults and youth Sunday school classes at her father's synagogue. In 1893, she moved to Philadelphia to become the secretary-editor of the Jewish Publication Society. In 1902, after the death of her father, she moved to New York City with her mother where, in 1907, she joined the Hadassah Study Circle, a women's Zionist group. In 1909-1910, Henrietta and her mother visited what was then known as Palestine--a trip that would change her life. Over the course of 6 months, she was moved by what she witnessed, especially the absence of basic medical care. Her mother suggested that Henrietta get her study group involved in health work in Palestine. Greatly affected by her mother's suggestion, Henrietta posed this idea to her group and, in February 1912, the Hadassah Chapter of the Daughters of Zion adapted this mission, dedicating themselves to the improvement of health care in Palestine and the promotion of Jewish education in the United States. Because they initially met on Purim, the group took the name of the holiday's central figure, Queen Esther, who's Hebrew name is ``Hadassah.'' Today, Hadassah's achievements in advancing health care are evident throughout Israel. Hadassah Medical Organization supports the most advanced medical center in the region, comprised of two hospitals, 90 outpatient clinics, and numerous health centers. Each year, the organization provides health care to over 600,000 patients a year and participates in global outreach programs to developing countries. In the United States, Hadassah has taken on a broad range of initiatives on behalf of women and the Jewish community. From the Women's Health department's ``Check It Out'' breast cancer detection and awareness campaign to the family programs sponsored by the Jewish Education department Hadassah provides the American Jewish community with countless services and educational opportunities. Furthermore, the Government Relations Unit provides members and the general public with education and promotes widespread civic participation on public policy matters such as American-Israeli relations, church-state separation, and women's health. Additionally, Hadassah funds and maintains four other major programs in Israel and the United States: Hadassah Israel Education Services which gives Israeli citizens vocational and technical training; Youth Aliya which provides disadvantaged Israeli and immigrant youth with education and housing; Young Judea, which helps American teenagers build connections to Israel and Jewish life through clubs, camps, and programs in Israel; and the Jewish National Fund which works to preserve Israel's ecology and natural resources. Nine decades after a group of 38 women first met in New York City to establish a social action group, Hadassah has grown into a nationwide organization providing much needed services and support to Israelis and the American Jewish community. I am pround to wish them congratulations on their 90th anniversary and extend my appreciation for all their important work, which can best be summed up in the traditional words, ``Mazel tov.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment now be set aside.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, in response to my friend from Missouri, I suppose I should start by saying I admire his respect for checks and balances, and there are some partisan workers at polling places, but the problem highlighted by the GAO study and by the commission headed by Presidents Carter and Ford was the simple inability for a lot of local jurisdictions around the country to find an adequate number of people to staff the polls, not partisan positions, and there is a way in which there is enough political battle, partisan battle, that goes on to excess that when one gets to the polling place, they would like to believe there were some people there whose responsibility simply was to protect their right to vote and make sure their vote was counted, and those are the nonpartisan officials in every election jurisdiction across this country. So that is what these Federal employees would be able to do. I assure my friend from Missouri this is not going to be a Federal invasion of the local election process. This is very much a voluntary issue, which is, if local election officials want someone living in their town, their neighbor presumably, maybe even their friend, though a Federal worker, perhaps even a trusted friend, to work in the polling place, then that would give the Federal employee the opportunity to take the day off with pay. They would not receive any pay from the localities. This would actually be a help to the local governments. They would get not only first-class, nonpartisan poll workers but would not have to pay for them. That is what this is all about. I thank Senator Dodd for the time he has given me. I will move in a moment to set the amendment aside, but I do want a recorded vote, so I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. My statement will take, at most, 10 minutes. I think the understanding, I say through the Chair, is that I would make a statement on behalf of DC voting rights and withdraw it and then proceed to an amendment, which may engender debate on the floor. Amendment No. 2890 Madam President, I have amendment No. 2890 at the desk.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, very briefly, this amendment responds to a problem that exists with implementing the election laws of our country which will be greatly strengthened if we pass the bill that is before the Senate now. That problem is the shortage of nonpartisan poll workers, documented by the GAO and the commission headed by Presidents Carter and Ford. This amendment builds on a successful program started, at least one I know of, in Los Angeles County and in the State of California to allow civil servants--not political appointees but civil servants--to take election day off at the request of local election officials, to work as nonpartisan poll workers while continuing to be paid for their Federal employment, receiving no compensation from the election officials of local jurisdiction. I have the feeling I have sufficiently described what I believe is a very meritorious amendment. I urge its adoption.