Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, 219 years ago this month, a small army camped at the gates of a small port in Virginia. And turned the world upside down. This collection of often poorly fed, poorly paid, and poorly armed men made a sacrifice from which we all benefit today. In October 1781, a few thousand American and French soldiers laid siege to Yorktown, forced the surrender of Cornwallis and his British regulars, and won American independence. Although we often remember the victory at Yorktown, too often we lose sight of the heroic efforts that made it possible. Too often we forget that this victory was the culmination of a miraculous campaign--when two nations, two armies, and two great men put aside their differences and worked together for a common purpose. It is my opinion that no single monument or battlefield would do justice to the scope of this event. That is why I, along with my colleagues, Senators Dodd, Kerry, Biden, Roth, Schumer, Moynihan, Sarbanes, and Chafee, am privileged to call for a national commemoration of the events leading to our victory at Yorktown and the end of the American Revolution. We have been strongly supported in this effort by the work of dedicated volunteers across the country--members of the Sons of the American Revolution in all of our states. I would especially like to acknowledge the help of Albert McJoynt and Win Carroll, for their work with my staff on this important project. The Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Road is 600 miles of history, winding from Providence, Rhode Island to Yorktown, Virginia. In the opinion of my colleagues and I, it is well worthy of designation as a National Historic Trail. Let us document the events in the cities and towns all along the road to Yorktown and the birth of this great nation of ours. Let us celebrate the unprecedented Franco-American alliance and the superhuman efforts of Generals George Washington and Jean Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, Comte de Rochambeau to preserve that alliance in the face of seemingly unsurmountable odds. Let us create a National Historic Trail along whose course we can pause and remember these men and women, their travels, and sacrifices--from the journey's beginning when Rochambeau led the French army out of Newport and Providence, Rhode Island, into New York where he joined Washington's troops, and through a cross section of colonial America to its culmination at the gates of Yorktown. The story of the alliance and the march is like many in our history-- full of heroic characters, brave deeds, and political intrigue. Hollywood should take note: it would make for a blockbuster--and uplifting--adventure. The story unfolds through seven states and countless towns and stars the men and women of the march who left their mark wherever they went. Each of the towns on the trail makes its own unique contribution to the tale of the journey. Hartford and Wethersfield, in my own state of Connecticut--where the two generals met and through a translator planned their strategy. In Phillipsburg, New York, the French and American armies first joined together and faced off against the British in New York City. Here, Washington and Rochambeau planned their high risk strategy--abandoning established positions in the north and racing hundreds of miles south to surprise and trap an unsuspecting British army. In Chatham, New Jersey, the French made a show of storing supplies and building bread ovens in order to disguise their march towards Cornwallis in Virginia, to confuse the British. They moved on through Princeton and Trenton, New Jersey--sites of previous colonial victories against great odds. But the march itself is only part of the story. The unprecedented alliance between France and America was cemented during this journey. Elite troops from one of the great European powers stood with the ragtag but spirited Continental Army to face and defeat the British Empire. Men who shared no common language and had in many cases been enemies in previous wars, shared clothing and food and cultures in order to achieve their goal. And as a proud member of the Armed Services Committee I am pleased to say this was a successful Joint and Coalition operation. The trail goes through Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--then capital of the colonies. Here Washington and Rochambeau stopped their men outside town, had them clean off the dirt of the trail and marched them through town with drums beating and flags unfurled before the Continental Congress and the people of Philadelphia. The grandeur of their new European ally helped restore the spirit of America during this very uncertain time. A few days later in Chester, Pennsylvania, Washington, the normally reserved commander-in-chief, literally danced on the dock when he learned the French fleet had arrived in the Chesapeake and trapped the British at Yorktown. For the first time, it seemed that victory for the colonies was possible. The armies marched on to Wilmington, Delaware and Elkton, Maryland, where American troops were finally paid for some of their efforts, using money borrowed by the bankrupt Continental Army from General Rochambeau. There are two central characters to this drama, without whom the march, siege, and victory would have never happened--Rochambeau and Washington. French ministers hand-selected the celebrated and experienced Rochambeau for the unique ``Expedition Particuliere'' because of his patience and professionalism. Lieutenant General Rochambeau had a distinguished military career. More importantly, he understood the need for America to play the leading role in the war. With dignity and respect, he subordinated himself and his men to Washington and his patchwork forces. While avoiding intrigue and scandal, he overlooked improprieties and affronts, and provided needed counsel, supplies, and money to Washington and his men. He is undoubtedly one of the key forces helping Washington to victory at Yorktown, and has rightly been called ``America's Neglected Founding Father.'' Our nation's capital region also played its part in this story. Troops camped in Baltimore near the site of today's Camden Yards. Some crossed the Potomac near Georgetown, while others camped in Alexandria, Virginia. Along the way, General Washington made a triumphal return to Mount Vernon, and hosted a celebration for his French allies. All along the route, towns were touched and thrilled by the passage of the army and events swirling around them. Within this national commemoration, we should let each tell its own story in its own way. The force that held it all together throughout the march and on to victory was General Washington. This was not a new role for him. Before the war, Washington was one of the wealthiest men in the colonies and one of its few military heroes. Only he, with his public standing and incredible resolve, could have held together the fledgling Continental Army, the divided loyalties of the American people, a meddling Congress, disloyal generals, and an international alliance, for the six years leading up to the Yorktown Campaign. He overcame his own distrust and doubt and invited his old enemies, the French--who had held him prisoner in an earlier war--to field a European army in the colonies while he was working with all his energy to evict another one. Over the years, he had used his own money and credit to pay and feed his men. And he carefully balanced the need to combine his new nation's independence with delicate European sensibilities to forge a winning alliance. In these months in 1781, he took a grand risk and won the war. Although the march is not his most famous hour, in many ways it is his finest. The armies marched on through Williamsburg, Virginia until they reached positions outside Yorktown in late September. Washington and Rochambeau and their troops went on to win this battle and the war. The rest is history. We should work today to ensure that this history, in all its rich detail, is not forgotten. We have the support of many state and local and private and public historic preservation groups in our efforts to establish this trail. We should use their momentum and enthusiasm to make it a reality. This bill begins that process, by directing the Secretary of the Interior to perform a resource study on the establishment of this trail, in coordination with their activities and other Congressionally mandated programs. In a time when it seems we have few heroes, let us take the time to better remember the heroes of our past. Those who sacificed so much for our freedom today deserve no less.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, 219 years ago this month, a small army camped at the gates of a small port in Virginia. And turned the world upside down. This collection of often poorly fed, poorly paid, and poorly armed men made a sacrifice from which we all benefit today. In October 1781, a few thousand American and French soldiers laid siege to Yorktown, forced the surrender of Cornwallis and his British regulars, and won American independence. Although we often remember the victory at Yorktown, too often we lose sight of the heroic efforts that made it possible. Too often we forget that this victory was the culmination of a miraculous campaign--when two nations, two armies, and two great men put aside their differences and worked together for a common purpose. It is my opinion that no single monument or battlefield would do justice to the scope of this event. That is why I, along with my colleagues, Senators Dodd, Kerry, Biden, Roth, Schumer, Moynihan, Sarbanes, and Chafee, am privileged to call for a national commemoration of the events leading to our victory at Yorktown and the end of the American Revolution. We have been strongly supported in this effort by the work of dedicated volunteers across the country--members of the Sons of the American Revolution in all of our states. I would especially like to acknowledge the help of Albert McJoynt and Win Carroll, for their work with my staff on this important project. The Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Road is 600 miles of history, winding from Providence, Rhode Island to Yorktown, Virginia. In the opinion of my colleagues and I, it is well worthy of designation as a National Historic Trail. Let us document the events in the cities and towns all along the road to Yorktown and the birth of this great nation of ours. Let us celebrate the unprecedented Franco-American alliance and the superhuman efforts of Generals George Washington and Jean Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, Comte de Rochambeau to preserve that alliance in the face of seemingly unsurmountable odds. Let us create a National Historic Trail along whose course we can pause and remember these men and women, their travels, and sacrifices--from the journey's beginning when Rochambeau led the French army out of Newport and Providence, Rhode Island, into New York where he joined Washington's troops, and through a cross section of colonial America to its culmination at the gates of Yorktown. The story of the alliance and the march is like many in our history-- full of heroic characters, brave deeds, and political intrigue. Hollywood should take note: it would make for a blockbuster--and uplifting--adventure. The story unfolds through seven states and countless towns and stars the men and women of the march who left their mark wherever they went. Each of the towns on the trail makes its own unique contribution to the tale of the journey. Hartford and Wethersfield, in my own state of Connecticut--where the two generals met and through a translator planned their strategy. In Phillipsburg, New York, the French and American armies first joined together and faced off against the British in New York City. Here, Washington and Rochambeau planned their high risk strategy--abandoning established positions in the north and racing hundreds of miles south to surprise and trap an unsuspecting British army. In Chatham, New Jersey, the French made a show of storing supplies and building bread ovens in order to disguise their march towards Cornwallis in Virginia, to confuse the British. They moved on through Princeton and Trenton, New Jersey--sites of previous colonial victories against great odds. But the march itself is only part of the story. The unprecedented alliance between France and America was cemented during this journey. Elite troops from one of the great European powers stood with the ragtag but spirited Continental Army to face and defeat the British Empire. Men who shared no common language and had in many cases been enemies in previous wars, shared clothing and food and cultures in order to achieve their goal. And as a proud member of the Armed Services Committee I am pleased to say this was a successful Joint and Coalition operation. The trail goes through Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--then capital of the colonies. Here Washington and Rochambeau stopped their men outside town, had them clean off the dirt of the trail and marched them through town with drums beating and flags unfurled before the Continental Congress and the people of Philadelphia. The grandeur of their new European ally helped restore the spirit of America during this very uncertain time. A few days later in Chester, Pennsylvania, Washington, the normally reserved commander-in-chief, literally danced on the dock when he learned the French fleet had arrived in the Chesapeake and trapped the British at Yorktown. For the first time, it seemed that victory for the colonies was possible. The armies marched on to Wilmington, Delaware and Elkton, Maryland, where American troops were finally paid for some of their efforts, using money borrowed by the bankrupt Continental Army from General Rochambeau. There are two central characters to this drama, without whom the march, siege, and victory would have never happened--Rochambeau and Washington. French ministers hand-selected the celebrated and experienced Rochambeau for the unique ``Expedition Particuliere'' because of his patience and professionalism. Lieutenant General Rochambeau had a distinguished military career. More importantly, he understood the need for America to play the leading role in the war. With dignity and respect, he subordinated himself and his men to Washington and his patchwork forces. While avoiding intrigue and scandal, he overlooked improprieties and affronts, and provided needed counsel, supplies, and money to Washington and his men. He is undoubtedly one of the key forces helping Washington to victory at Yorktown, and has rightly been called ``America's Neglected Founding Father.'' Our nation's capital region also played its part in this story. Troops camped in Baltimore near the site of today's Camden Yards. Some crossed the Potomac near Georgetown, while others camped in Alexandria, Virginia. Along the way, General Washington made a triumphal return to Mount Vernon, and hosted a celebration for his French allies. All along the route, towns were touched and thrilled by the passage of the army and events swirling around them. Within this national commemoration, we should let each tell its own story in its own way. The force that held it all together throughout the march and on to victory was General Washington. This was not a new role for him. Before the war, Washington was one of the wealthiest men in the colonies and one of its few military heroes. Only he, with his public standing and incredible resolve, could have held together the fledgling Continental Army, the divided loyalties of the American people, a meddling Congress, disloyal generals, and an international alliance, for the six years leading up to the Yorktown Campaign. He overcame his own distrust and doubt and invited his old enemies, the French--who had held him prisoner in an earlier war--to field a European army in the colonies while he was working with all his energy to evict another one. Over the years, he had used his own money and credit to pay and feed his men. And he carefully balanced the need to combine his new nation's independence with delicate European sensibilities to forge a winning alliance. In these months in 1781, he took a grand risk and won the war. Although the march is not his most famous hour, in many ways it is his finest. The armies marched on through Williamsburg, Virginia until they reached positions outside Yorktown in late September. Washington and Rochambeau and their troops went on to win this battle and the war. The rest is history. We should work today to ensure that this history, in all its rich detail, is not forgotten. We have the support of many state and local and private and public historic preservation groups in our efforts to establish this trail. We should use their momentum and enthusiasm to make it a reality. This bill begins that process, by directing the Secretary of the Interior to perform a resource study on the establishment of this trail, in coordination with their activities and other Congressionally mandated programs. In a time when it seems we have few heroes, let us take the time to better remember the heroes of our past. Those who sacificed so much for our freedom today deserve no less.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss provisions (Section 934) in the fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5408) aimed at supporting efforts within the Department of Defense to develop a set of operational concepts, sometimes referred to as `Network Centric Warfare', that seek to exploit the power of information and U.S. superiority in information technologies to maintain dominance and improve interoperability on the battlefield. I am reiterating points here that I made in a longer and more detailed statement this past summer on June 20 on this legislation. The concept of Network Centric Warfare calls for a military that links sensors, communications systems and weapons systems in an interconnected grid that allows for a seamless information flow to warfighters, policy makers, and support personnel. I am very pleased to see that our House and Senate Conferees have made a strong statement as to the importance of this emerging theory of warfare. They have joined a chorus of voices, including experts from the Naval War College, Office of the Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to push for an acceleration of DoD efforts to analyze, understand, and implement the concepts of Network Centric Warfare. In fact, Joint Vision 2020 set the goal for the Department of Defense to pursue information superiority in order that joint forces may possess superior knowledge and attain decision superiority during operations across the spectrum of conflict. After extensive discussions with a variety of Agency and Service officials, I believe that although there are many innovative efforts underway throughout the Department to develop network centric technologies and systems, as well as to develop mechanisms to integrate information systems, sensors, weapon systems and decision makers, these efforts are too often underfunded, low-priority, and not coordinated across Services. In many cases, they will unfortunately continue the legacy of interoperability problems that we all know exist today. To paraphrase one senior Air Force officer, we are not making the necessary fundamental changes--we are still nibbling at the edges. The legislation in Section 934 of H.R. 5408 explores many of the facets of this novel Joint vision of a networked force and operations. Section 934 (b) clearly states the policy of the United States with respect to Network Centric Warfare. The legislation makes it the goal of Department of Defense to fully coordinate various efforts being pursued by the Joint Staff, the Defense Agencies, and the military departments as they develop the concepts of Network Centric Warfare. The legislation then also calls for DoD to provide two reports to Congress detailing efforts in moving towards Network Centric forces and operations. The conference language reflects the fact that both the Senate and the House had compatible provisions on Network Centric Warfare in their respective bills. The final conference language essentially reflects the more detailed Senate version; it consolidates the wording while retaining the intent and each key element of the Senate bill's proposals. Therefore the points I made in a more extended statement this past summer remain applicable to the final provision, and what follows is merely a reiteration and elaboration from that statement. At this point I also particularly want to note my appreciation for the strong support, cooperation, and contributions on this provision from my friends and Committee colleagues, Senators Roberts and Bingaman. Section 934(b) calls for a report focusing on the broad development and implementation of Network Centric Warfare concepts in the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are asked to report on their current and planned efforts to coordinate all Dod activities in Network Centric Warfare to show how they are moving toward a truly Joint, networked force. The report calls for the development of a set of metrics as discussed in Section 934(c)(J) to be used to monitor our progress towards a Joint, networked force and the attainment of fully integrated Joint command and control capabilities, both in technology and organizational structure. These metrics should allow Congress and DoD to evaluate technology development and acquisition programs that are related to Network Centric concepts and enable policy makers to set priorities and to make difficult resource allocation decisions. The legislation also requires the Department to report on how it is moving toward Joint Requirements and Acquisition policies and increasing Joint authority in this area to ensure that future forces will be truly seamless, interoperable, and network-centric, as described in Section 934(c)(G). These Joint activities are critically necessary to achieving networked systems and operations. Unless we move away from a system designed to protect individual Service interests and procurement programs, we will always be faced with solving interoperability problems between systems. For example, strengthening the Joint oversight of the requirements for and acquisition of all systems directly involved in Joint Task Forces interoperability would provide a sounder method for acquiring these systems. We need to move away from a cold war based, platform-centric acquisition system that is slow, cumbersome, and Service-centric. As part of this review, DoD should examine the speed at which it can acquire new technologies and whether the personnel making key decisions on information systems procurement are technically training or at least supported by the finest technical talent available. The report should, as part of this review, evaluate how to ensure that Service acquisition systems are responsive to the establishment of Joint interoperability standards in networking, computing, and communications, as well as best commercial practices. As described in Section 934(c)(I), the report must also address the need for coordination of Service and Agency Science and Technology (S&T) investments in the development of future Joint Network Central Warfare capabilities. In moving towards a more Joint, networked force we must continue to ensure that we provide our nation's warfighters with the best technologies. The review should evaluate where we must increase our investments in areas such as sensors, networking protocols, human-machine interfaces, training, and other technologies, especially in the face of constrained S&T budgets. The Secretary of Defense should explain how S&T investments supporting network centric operations will be coordinated across the Agencies and Services to eliminate redundancy and how and where investments will be made to better address critical warfighting technology needs. This is more important than ever as we develop our next generation of weapon systems--better coordination and establishment of common standards in the technology development stages can only help to alleviate future interoperability problems. Any investments in S&T for a network centric force must also address the role of the operator in a network centric system. The report must pay attention to the training of our combat and support personnel so that they can make the best use of information technologies, as well as investing more in research on learning and cognitive processes so that our training systems and human-machine interfaces are optimized. The recommendations on investments in the report should also accommodate the incredible pace of change in information technologies that is currently driven by the commercial sector. Dodd must analyze the commercially driven revolutions in information technology and modify the investment strategy to best leverage those developments through cooperative R&D and utilization of dual-use technologies. Section 934(d) describes the second report, which requires an examination of the use of the Joint Experimentation Program in developing Network Centric Warfare concepts. Network Centric Warfare is inherently Joint, and the Commander in Chief of Joint Forces Command is in the best position to develop new operational concepts and test the new technologies that support it. The report calls for a proposal on how the Joint Experimentation Program and the results of its activities are to be used to develop these new operational concepts, especially with regards to the design of optimal force structures for Joint operations. The Joint Experimentation process should also be used to develop Joint Requirements, Doctrine, and Acquisition programs to support network centric operations. It should serve to identify impediments to the development of a joint information network, including the linking of Service intranets, as well as redesigning combat support functions to leverage new network centric operation concepts. The review should evaluate each of these issues. This of course does not detract from the critical role that existing Service experimentation programs will play in developing new technologies and doctrine to make our fighting forces more efficient and interoperable, which should be a part of this analysis. This legislation will help focus the Pentagon and Congress' attention on the need to move our military into a more information savvy and networked force. We ask that these reports set forth the needed organizational, policy, and legislative changes necessary to achieve this transformation for decision makers in the military, Administration, and in Congress. The realities of the information technology revolution will force our future military operations to be network centric. We must act now to ensure that we stay ahead of the curve in technology and, more importantly, in thinking. I look forward to receiving plans and proposals to help get us there efficiently and effectively.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Glastonbury Youth and Family Services on its thirtieth anniversary. For a generation, this agency has provided a much needed service to the families of Glastonbury, Connecticut. The children of Glastonbury are the future leaders of our state and nation, and it is critical to our continued success that they obtain the social and educational skills necessary to compete and succeed in the twenty-first century. The many programs offered by Glastonbury Youth and Family Services helps ensure that the town's children are exposed to the very best role models both inside and outside of the home. Because of the hard work and dedication of the parents, children, and workers in this program, the future of Glastonbury is very bright indeed. Glasonbury Youth and Family Services has already helped open doors for countless young people, and I am confident that the children of the community will continue to benefit from its services far into the future. Mr. President, I ask that you and all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Glastonbury Youth and Family Services on this very special anniversary.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to describe a distressing situation that 23 Connecticut oyster farmers found themselves in earlier this summer, and to offer my thanks to Mr. Cochran and Mr. Kohl for helping Mr. Dodd and myself correct an injustice to these hardworking individuals. In early June, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) informed twenty-three Connecticut oyster farmers by letter that they must repay approximately $1.5 million total in federal disaster aid payments that were granted due to a federal error. I am pleased to say that Mr. Dodd's and my amendment to forgive that repayment was included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill. The oyster industry is important to Connecticut's economy--prior to 1997, Connecticut's annual oyster crop was second only to Louisiana's. However, between 1997 and 1999, our oyster industry was devastated by a disease known as MSX, resulting in massive losses. The market value plummeted from a 1995 high of $60 million to just $10 million. In the face of this severe loss to the oyster industry, the Connecticut Farm Service Agency (FSA) approved and distributed modest disaster payments to the oyster farmers in 1999. The payments were made pursuant to the 1998 Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program (CLDAP), which is administered by the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). With this critically needed assistance, the oyster farmers began to rebuild their livelihoods. Earlier this year, long after the funds had been invested and for purely technical reasons, USDA determined that the payments were made in error because most Connecticut oyster farmers grow their oysters in open beds rather than controlled environments. On June 2, 2000, USDA sent each of the 23 farmers a letter stating that they must repay the disaster assistance that they received the previous year. The oyster farmers were understandably frustrated and distressed by the message. I note, Mr. President, that only a small portion of oyster farming nationwide is done within controlled environments, and that production in a controlled environment was not a prerequisite for disaster assistance following damage to Florida and Louisiana oyster farms by Hurricane Andrew. USDA has acknowledged that it bears responsibility for the error in disaster aid payments. However, USDA strongly believes that it would have ``no legislative authority to waive ineligible disaster aid payments'' without specific Congressional direction. Consequently, the Connecticut delegation has worked closely with USDA legal counsel to draft legislation exempting the oyster farmers from repaying the ineligible disaster aid. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives included such an amendment in the House Agriculture Appropriations bill; the Congressional Budget Office scored the amendment as neutral. Today, I am pleased that the Senate has also recognized the injustice of holding hardworking oyster farmers responsible for federal error by including an amendment to forgive these payments in the Senate Agriculture Appropriations bill. Again, I thank Mr. Cochran and Mr. Kohl and their staffs for assisting Mr. Dodd, myself, and especially the Connecticut oyster farmers in correcting an unfortunate situation. disaster assistance

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in paying tribute to our departed friend and colleague, Paul Coverdell. The Senate today is a very sad place, it is a shaken place, because of the suddenness of Paul's death. It is also a day on which I think we, by this tragic event, are reminded that underneath the headlines and the great debates and the partisan divides and all the rest of the sound and the fury, ultimately this institution, as so many others across America, is 100 people coming to work every day, trying to get a job done. It is the hundreds and hundreds of others who work with us here, our staffs and support personnel, who constitute what to me has always seemed to be a small town. Today we are saddened and we are shaken by the loss of one of the prominent people in this small town of ours on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC, United States of America, Senator Paul Coverdell. My wife said to me once: Remember that being a Senator is just your job; it's not you. It's a great job. It's an honor to hold it. It is an extraordinary opportunity. But ultimately there is a ``you'' there. That personal side of all of us comes home today as we confront, and try to absorb and deal with, the death of our friend, our colleague, our coworker, Paul Coverdell. It reminds us, of course, of the limits of human understanding and human capacities. As great as we are as a species, as high as we have gone, as exciting as the reaches of technology are today, ultimately we reach a point of human limitation. It is the point where we meet up with faith in God that, hopefully, transcends those limits, capacities, and doubts and moves us forward. Thinking about Paul Coverdell's death and his life, there are two quite disparate thoughts that came to my mind--but both of them, I think, fit him. I remember when I first came to Washington--this is an old expression--somebody said to me: Remember that there is no limit to what you can accomplish in Washington if you are not looking for credit. In so many ways that have been testified to here on the Senate floor today, that wisdom fits the career of Paul Coverdell. He was a quiet and gentlemanly person, not looking for headlines but committed and anxious to be part of making this place work. The second sentiment is something I heard from my own beloved mother, and I will bet everybody heard it from their mother, which is, when I was growing up, she always said to my sisters and me: You know, it never hurts to be kind to people. You gain nothing by being harsh. That, too, is a very apt description of Paul Coverdell: a very fine human being, a very kind human being. In the normal interactions of this extraordinary place where we work together trying to get things done, Paul always had a smile, always a kind word. Even in the partisan moments we all are involved in on the floor, they never seemed to become personal with him. That, in both senses, is the way it should be. It is, of course, sad but always true: We tend to appreciate people more when they are gone and speak more openly of them when they are gone. I think that is the case of this quiet, strong, decent, productive man. I have a sense, in listening to the comments made, of the critical role he played in this Chamber within the Republican caucus, to transcend the divisions that exist in any group of people, particularly any group of political people, and the critical role he played helping the Senate majority leader in trying to keep the place moving and getting some things done. I can testify, of course, to the fact that Paul was clearly a proud Republican loyal to his party. He was not hesitant to reach across party lines to look for support for something in which he believed or to offer support to someone on our side of the aisle for something in which he believed and felt was right and necessary. I had the greatest opportunity to work side by side with Paul Coverdell as a cosponsor of the pioneering, progressive, very important education savings account proposal he made which would have taken the basic idea of higher education savings accounts and expanded them to cover K-12 education to help parents support the improvement of their children's education. There is nothing we can do in this Chamber that is much more important than facilitating a better education for all of our children. It was easy to work with Paul. He was obviously very bright, he was understanding, and he was energetic and steadfast. It is an idea I hope those of us on both sides who support it will carry on because it is a good idea, but it is also a tribute to him. I was thinking, earlier this year on a proposal that became associated with the Clinton administration; namely, the aid package to Colombia to deter and diminish the problem of drugs coming in from that country, Paul stepped forward and gave sturdy, steadfast, effective support which ultimately resulted in its adoption with bipartisan backing of a problem that is obviously complex and indeed cannot but help us as we go forward. We all think of Nancy today and Paul's family. We extend to them our condolences, and we hope, of course, that they are strengthened and, in some measure, comforted at this difficult time by good personal memories of their time too short with Paul, and I am sure they are strengthened and comforted by the pride they should feel and the extraordinary record of public service that was Paul Coverdell's life, and hopefully given ultimate strength by their faith in God. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh. Blessed be the name of the Lord. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment along with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and Senator Leahy of Vermont. I ask unanimous consent Senators Dodd and Leahy be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3811, which I filed at the desk.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill that I think is critical for the energy security of the Northeastern United States. My amendment would fund the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, which was created by the President on Monday, July 10. The President created this reserve under his Congressionally authorized authority under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The Northeast region of the country is heavily dependent upon home heating oil--instead of natural gas, as is the case in much of the rest of the country--for heating homes and other buildings during cold months of the year. As heating oil is refined from crude oil that is produced both domestically and abroad, the price of heating oil is subject to the same market whims that we have seen and continue to see in gasoline and other petroleum products. The difference, however, is that when a family runs out of heating oil, they literally run out of heat. This is a dangerous situation in the Northeast, where people may face days at a time of icy-cold weather. This part winter in the Northeast, we got a taste of market whims as we saw the prices of home heating oil soar, and as we hovered dangerously close to heating oil supply shortages. The price of home heating oil rose from an average in New England of $1.18 per gallon to about $1.79 per gallon in three weeks. Some residents were paying over $2.00 for a gallon of heating oil. Lower-income residents were faced with buying heat for their homes versus food for their tables. In this instance, we saw high crude oil prices and low stocks of heating oil converge with extremely cold weather, leading to the price shocks that so disrupted the Northeast. We saw a similar situation in 1996, when prices of heating oil soared. I want to offer my amendment to ensure that this type of problem does not happen again. My amendment would appropriate four million dollars to maintain the Northeast heating oil reserve that the President has created. The President has directed that the reserve be filled with home heating oil by conducting oil exchanges with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Therefore, there is no initial cost to filling the reserve. However, this funding is critical for maintaining the reserve. The reserve itself is an integral piece to ensuring that if we do encounter exorbitant prices and short supplies again, we will be able to count on our own reserves of heating oil to get us through the crisis. I would like to exercise my prerogative to modify my amendment by striking the section of the amendment that begins on line 8 on the first page and ends at the end of the document--this section describes an appropriate trigger mechanism for releasing home heating oil from the regional reserve. In addition, I would like to change the amount of funding requested from eight million dollars to four million dollars. Finally, I would like to specify that the offset for these funds will come from unobligated funds from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Petroleum Account in the amount of three million dollars and from the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves in the amount of one million dollars. Senator Dodd joins me in offering this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the extremely distinguished occupant of the chair. I also thank my friend from Oklahoma. I will try to respond to his graciousness by being brief. Amendment No. 3811

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we think this amendment is critical for the energy security of the Northeastern United States. Last winter, in the Northeast, we were really whacked by oil market whims, as we saw the prices of home heating oil soar, and we hovered dangerously close to heating oil supply shortages. In New England, the price of home heating oil rose from an average of $1.18 a gallon to about $1.79 a gallon in just 3 weeks' time. Some residents of my State were actually paying over $2 for a gallon of heating oil, which meant they were spending almost $500--some of them--to fill their tanks. Of course, lower income residents and fixed- income residents, including thousands of elderly, were faced with the tough choice of buying heating oil for their homes or food for their tables. This burdensome situation was caused by high crude oil prices, resulting from low crude oil supplies and low stocks of home heating oil converging with a downward turn in the weather that led to these price shocks that so disrupted the Northeast. There were a series of meetings and much concern last winter. I think one of the best ideas that emerged was to build on the strategic crude oil reserve that we have and to create a regional Northeast home heating oil reserve in which the Government would possess home heating oil, which at times of crisis could be moved out into the market to increase supply and therefore reduce price. I recall that one of the places that this idea was discussed was at a bipartisan meeting of Members of Congress from the Northeast with the President at the White House. He said he would take this under advisement. In fact, President Clinton did act to create a Northeast home heating oil reserve earlier this month, pursuant to his congressionally authorized authority under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This amendment, which Senators Dodd and Leahy and I offer, would appropriate $4 million to maintain the Northeast heating oil reserve that the President has now created. The President has directed that the reserve be filled with home heating oil by conducting oil exchanges with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Therefore, there is no initial cost of filling the reserve. However, the funding that is made possible by this amendment is critical for maintaining the reserve. The reserve itself is an integral piece of ensuring that if we do encounter exorbitant prices and short supplies again this winter, we will be able to count on our own publicly owned reserves of heating oil to get us through the crisis. In fact, the following Energy Information Agency report, unfortunately, indicates that the industry at the current time is way below the desirable level of building up inventories of home heating oil, which means that if this continues as we head toward the winter and the weather turns cold, people in our region of the country are going to be suffering economically and physically. So that is the intention of offering this amendment. I do want to indicate that I am exercising my prerogative as sponsor of the amendment to modify the amendment by striking the section of the amendment that begins on line 8 on the first page, and ends at the end of the document. This section describes an appropriate trigger mechanism for releasing the home heating oil reserve. In addition, I want to change the amount of funding requested from $8 million to $4 million. Finally, I would like to specify that the offset for these funds would come from unobligated funds from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve petroleum account in the amount of $3 million, and $1 million from the Naval Petroleum Reserve and oil shale reserves. Amendment No. 3811, As Modified Mr. President, I send to the desk, therefore, a copy of the amendment as it emerges after the modifications that I have just announced, which is effectively a $4 million appropriation for this regional reserve the President has created.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment which I have cosponsored with the Senator from Pennsylvania, using the 5 minutes that have been generously allocated to me by the Democratic leader. I am proud today to join with a distinguished and diverse coalition of Senators--Senators Santorum, Abraham, Hutchinson, and DeWine; and my fellow Democrats, Senators Kohl, Kerry, Torricelli, and Landrieu--in offering this amendment which we believe is a groundbreaking package to help low-income Americans into the economic mainstream. This is a truly bipartisan approach to bring economic revitalization to American communities and families. The truth is that we could not have broken this ground if we did not first find common ground. For that we are grateful for the leadership of President Clinton and Speaker Hastert, who reached across the partisan divide to make this project a top priority. I think the amendment that we offer today is a model of cooperation and innovation. It combines much of the President's new markets initiative with the Republican-initiated American Community Renewal Act, and blends them into a progressive new synthesis for stimulating investment, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity in poorer parts of our country. This bill encompasses the range of the Clinton-Hastert plan with a few key additions which we think will make an outstanding package even better. One important addition is aimed at fixing America's asset liability or, to be more precise, closing the growing gap in asset ownership in this country which separates millions of low-income Americans from their fair shot at the American dream. We believe that one of the best ways to help close this gap is to promote the use of individual development accounts, known as IDAs. Banks and credit unions that offer these special savings accounts match the deposits dollar-for-dollar, and in return account holders commit to use the proceeds to buy a home, upgrade their education, or start a business, in other words, to build assets. The only problem with IDA programs that I see is that there are not enough of them. This addition to the Clinton-Hastert proposal will now provide the support to make that happen. Another important addition to this package, that, again, reflects bipartisan cooperation in support of economically distressed communities, is the full funding of the existing 20 second round empowerment zones. We believe this amendment reaffirms and reinforces some old American ideals, including strengthening communities, rewarding work, and encouraging responsibility. I would say, in developing this package, and in offering it as an amendment today, it is our primary objective to continue working in a bipartisan manner. To that end, Senator Santorum, and I, along with the other cosponsors, recognize the need to continue a dialog on the charitable choice expansion provisions in this package. Specifically, we are prepared to work to narrow the scope of the expansion to a limited number of appropriate programs, building on the charitable choice precedent that Congress established in TANF, the welfare-to-work programs, in welfare reform. I also understand that some of my colleagues, and others, have expressed concern about the provision that would allow groups receiving Federal money to require their employees to adhere to the ``religious tenets and teachings of the organizations'' provisions. I understand their concerns and look forward to working with them as this bill, hopefully, receives independent consideration. There is too much good in this proposal that has broad bipartisan support that will be fundamentally helpful to poor people in communities in America to have the proposal fail for one or two relatively small parts of it. So I say to my colleagues that we are committed to working with Members from both sides of the aisle, with the administration, and with those community-based and faith-based organizations in the field, working in these communities, to come up with an agreement that can be passed and signed into law by the President this year. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on June 6, 2000. we lost a very courageous, brilliant, and dedicated American, Natalie Davis Spingarn. A noted writer, public servant, and leading advocate for cancer patients, Natalie was also a good friend who I miss greatly. She suffered many health problems over the years, but she lived her life with purpose, grace, and humor. Natalie built on her own experience as a cancer patient to lead the cancer survivor movement and to work for improved care and services for cancer patients. I met Natalie in 1963, when she was the press secretary for the late Senator Abraham Ribicoff and I was a summer intern. Natalie made a great impression on me then and, quite a few years later, Natalie served as a senior intern in my Senate office where she contributed her wealth of experience and knowledge to my efforts in the area of health policy. Natalie was a trusted adviser, who endeared herself to my staff and me with her wisdom, energy, compassion, and wit. Mr. President, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a wonderful article about Natalie Spingarn that appeared on June 7 in The Washington Post. Natalie was a frequent contributor to the Health section of the Post, and I know she would be proud to see Bart Barnes' tribute reprinted in the Congressional Record. The tribute follows: Author Natalie Davis Spingarn Dies (By Bart Barnes) Natalie Davis Spingarn, 78, an author and former federal official who for 26 years had written books and articles about her recurring bouts with cancer, died of pancreatic cancer June 6 at the Washington Home Hospice. Mrs. Spingarn, who initially was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer in 1974, was a leader in the cancer survivorship movement, a writer on health care policy and a patients' advocate with cancer patient support organizations. Her writings included a 1988 ``Cancer Patient's Bill of Rights,'' ``Hanging in There: Living Well on Borrowed Time'' and ``The New Cancer Survivors: Living With Grace, Fighting With Spirit,'' which was published by John Hopkins University Press last year. ``The biopsy is positive. You have cancer,'' she wrote in ``The New Cancer Survivors,'' commencing her account of the experience shared by an estimated 8.2 million Americans who have a history of cancer. ``Spingarn distills the diversity of the cancer survivor experience, finding the commonality among them,'' wrote Frances M. Cisco, a 12-year survivor of breast cancer and the president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, in an April 18 review of Mrs. Spingarn's book published in The Washington Post. ``With compassion, insight and occasional humor, Spingarn pulls the reader into the world of what she terms `the new breed of cancer survivors.' These are not passion victims but confident individuals, ready to speak up to seek out what they need to lead quality lives.'' Mrs. Spingarn, a former staff assistant to Abraham A. Ribicoff, both during is tenure as secretary of health, education and welfare and as a Democratic senator from Connecticut, was an officer of the War on Poverty in th late 1960's and early 1970's. She was also a freelance writer who had written articles for The Washington Post and other organizations. She was active in Democratic Party politics and had been a D.C. delegate to two Democratic National Conventions. During the 19689 presidential campaign of Hubert H. Humphrey, she traveled with the vice president as a speech writer. Mrs. Spingarn, a resident of Washington, was born in New York and graduated from Vassar College. She began her professional career as a reporter on the New York newspaper PM shortly after college, then came to Washington with her husband after World War II. She joined Ribicoff as his executive assistant at HEW in 1961 and remained with him after his 1962 election to the Senate. In 1967, she returned to HEW as assistant director for communications and training at the center for community planning, which was established to coordinate urban efforts in the War on Poverty. She remained on that job through the early 1970s. Later, she was a public affairs assistant at the Department of Education and a D.C. General Hospital commissioner. She was a White House volunteer in the Clinton administration. In the years after her breast cancer was diagnosed in 1974, Mrs. Spingarn wrote increasingly about issues related to cancer treatment and care. She reviewed several books on health care for the Health section of The Washington Post, and she wrote first-person accounts about her own treatment and care. She had a family history replete with cancer. Her grandmother died of cancer. Both her sisters had breast cancer, and one died of pancreatic cancer. A son survived a bout with lymphoma. In 1977 and 1979, Mrs. Spingarn experienced new diagnoses of cancer. ``In my work, I write usually about health policy matters. . . . In my life I am a patient, a role which takes time--too much time,'' she wrote in The Washington Post in 1980. ``I am living still in my Washington hospital bed. . . . A nurse comes in to check on me. . . . `What's the matter with you?' she wants to know . . . my disease seems to her my fault. She makes no move toward me, even to inquire if I need anything, and observes that I should have talked to the doctor about avoiding its spread . . .'' In 1981, she wrote about her search for a holistic means of dealing with cancer. ``I had flirted with the idea that my emotions might affect my cancer pain during a period a few years ago when I suffered especially nagging backaches. I had discarded clumsy back brace, which made me sweat and my clothes balloon. Doctors and a pain clinic had only given me more pills . . . the latest had made my hands tremble.'' In the ensuing years, Mrs. Spingarn would write of needs for long-term care and increased mental health services for cancer patients, rules and regulations that often appeared to be contradictory and cause unnecessary hardship, and waste, fraud and inefficiency that many patients routinely encounter. She won an award at the John Muir Medical Film Festival for a film, ``Patients and Doctors: Communication Is a Two-Way Street,'' and she served on the boards of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship and the International Alliance of Patient Organizations. Survivors include her husband, Jerome Spingarn of Washington; two sons, Jonathan Spingarn of Atlanta and Jeremy Spingarn of Norwood, Mass.; a brother; a sister; and two grandchildren.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will read a few excerpts, because I think they uniquely speak to the ramifications of the problem. Gordon Wood explained: ``We Americans have a special need to understand our history, for our history is what makes us a nation and gives us our sense of nationality. A people like us, made up of every conceivable race, ethnicity, and religion in the world, can never be a nation in the usual sense of the term. . . . Up until recently almost every American, even those who were new immigrants possessed some sense of America's past, however rudimentary and unsophisticated. Without some such sense of history, the citizens of the United States can scarcely long exist as a united people.'' Theodore Rabb, Professor of History at Princeton, and Chairman of the National Council for History Education, quoting historian Kenneth T. Jackson, added: `` `Our binding heritage is a democratic vision of liberty, equality, and justice. If Americans are to preserve that heritage and bring it to daily practice, it is imperative that all citizens understand how it was shaped in the past . . .' Indeed, the office of citizen cannot be properly filled in today's democratic society without an understanding of American history.'' Stephen H. Balch, President of the National Association of Scholars, concluded: ``More than most nations, America is defined by shared memories. Great deeds, stirring moments, inspiring heroes, hard-won victories, occasional defeats, and, most significantly, lofty ideals-- declared, attacked, and ultimately vindicated--map our collective identity. ACTA's study, `Losing America's Memory,' thus strongly suggests that were also in danger of losing America itself. Its findings should be a wake-up call for our educators who have been clearly shirking their responsibilities.'' And David McCullough issued this succinct condemnation: ``The place given to history in our schools is a disgrace, and the dreadful truth is very few of those responsible for curriculum seem to care, even at the highest level of education.'' These wise men have more than convinced me that this is a national problem deserving national attention. In that spirit, Senator Gorton and I today are introducing a resolution that we hope will help call public attention to America's growing historical illiteracy and ideally begin to mobilize a national response. This bipartisan resolution, which is cosponsored by Senators Byrd, Gordon Smith, and Cleland, reaffirms the value we place on our truly exceptional history and makes an appeal to begin work immediately on rebuilding our historical literacy. Our call goes out primarily to America's colleges and universities to recommit themselves to the teaching of history, particularly America's national history. Specifically, it urges college trustees, administrators, and State higher education officials around the country to review their curricula and reinstate requirements in U.S. history. It also encourages students to select colleges with history requirements and to take college courses in history whether required or not. We also cannot ignore the role of our public schools in contributing to this historical ignorance, so we must ask educators at all levels to redouble their efforts to bolster our children's knowledge of U.S. history and help us restore the vitality of our civic memory. This point was reinforced at our press conference by Mount Vernon Director James Rees, who noted with despair that George Washington's presence in elementary school curricula has been gradually disappearing. As an example, he related that the textbook being used today at the elementary school he attended contained 10 times fewer references to the father of our country than the textbook he used in his youth. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting and adopting this resolution and making an unequivocal statement. As we prepare to celebrate the Fourth, I can think of no finer birthday present to the Nation, no better way to honor the anniversary of America's independence, than for us first to remember what moved that determined band of patriots to lay down all for liberty, what has sustained our democracy for these many years, and for us to act so that our children and those who follow them will never forget. Exhibit 1 Losing America's Memory--Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century [Issued for Presidents' Day, February 21, 2000--Prepared by Anne D. Neal and Jerry L. Martin, American Council of Trustees and Alumni] ``If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.''--Thomas Jefferson. ``[W]e cannot escape history.''--Abraham Lincoln. introduction Who are we? What is our past? Upon what principles was American democracy founded? And how can we sustain them?-- These are the questions that have inspired, motivated, perplexed since the beginning. And they are questions which still elude our full understanding. Yet they underscore a belief that a shared understanding, a shared knowledge, of the nation's past unifies a people and ensures a common civic identity. Indeed, the American system is uniquely premised on the need for an educated citizenry. Embarking on the experiment of a democratic republic, the founders viewed public education as central to the ability to sustain a participatory form of government. ``If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,'' Thomas Jefferson said, ``it expects what never was and never will be.'' But the importance of a shared memory appears to have lost its foothold in American higher education. As we move forward into the 21st century, our future leaders are graduating with an alarming ignorance of their heritage--a kind of collective amnesia--and a profound historical illiteracy which bodes ill for the future of the republic. There is a widespread, though unspoken assumption that, if not all citizens, at least college graduates--certainly those from the elite institutions--have a basic understanding of this country's history and founding principles. Colleges themselves rarely, if ever, test this assumption. The American Council of trustees and Alumni (ACTA) decided to do so. What do seniors at the nation's best colleges and universities know and not know about the history of this nation? What grade would they receive if tested? ACTA commissioned the Roper organization--The Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut--to survey college seniors from the nation's best colleges and universities as identified by the U.S. News & World Reports annual college rankings. The top 55 liberal arts colleges and research universities were sampled during December 1999. (For a list, see Appendix A.) The questions were drawn from a basic high school curriculum. In fact, many of the questions had been used in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests given to high school students. How did seniors from our nation's top colleges and universities do? They flunked. Four out of five--18%--of seniors from the top 55 colleges and universities in the United States received a grade of D or F. they could not identify Valley Forge, or words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution. Scarcely more than half knew general information about American democracy and the Constitution. Only 34% of the students surveyed could identify George Washington as an American general at the battle of Yorktown, the culminating battle of the American Revolution. Only 42% were able to identify George Washington as ``First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.'' Less than one quarter (23%) correctly identified James Madison as the ``father of the Constitution.'' Even fewer--22% of the college seniors--were able to identify ``Government of the people, by the people, and for the people'' as a line from the Gettysburg Address--arguably one of the three most important documents underlying the American system of government. Over one-third were unable to identify the U.S. Constitution as establishing the division of power in American government. Little more than half (52%) knew George Washington's Farewell Address warned against permanent alliances with foreign governments. What do they know? They get an A+ in contemporary popular culture. 99% know who the cartoon characters Beavis and Butthead are. 98% can identify the rap singer Snoop Doggy Dogg. Beavis and Butthead instead of Washington and Madison; Snoop Doggy Dogg instead of Lincoln? How did it come to this? Students and parents are paying $30,000 a year at elite institutions. For what? What Happened to American History? To find out what our nation's top colleges and universities demand of students in the area of American history, ACTCA conducted a study of graduation requirements at the same 55 colleges and universities surveyed by the Roper organization. These are the institutions, such as Harvard and Amherst, which set the standard for all the rest. (See Appendix B.) For each school, the most recent undergraduate course catalog or Internet course listing was used to define the graduation requirements and to determine what history or American history courses are required of students before they graduate. The results are worse than could have been imagined. Students can now graduate from 100% of the top colleges without taking a single course in American history. Novelist Milan Kundera once said that, if you want to destroy a country, destroy its memory. If a hostile power wanted to erase America's civic heritage, it could hardly do a better job--short of actually prohibiting the study of American history--than America's elite colleges and universities are doing. More shocking still is that, at 78% of the institutions, students are not required to take any history at all. The best that can be said is that they are permitted to take history to satisfy other requirements in such areas as social sciences or diversity. Only the fact that many students find history useful and interesting saves the subject from extinction. It is not surprising that college seniors know little American history. Few students leave high school with an adequate knowledge of American history and even the best colleges and universities do nothing to close the ``knowledge gap.'' The abandonment of history requirements is part of a national trend. In 1988, the National Endowment for the Humanities publicized the first troubling indication that America was losing its historic memory. NEH issued a report concluding that more than 80% of colleges and universities permitted students to graduate without taking a course in American history while 37% of those institutions allowed students to avoid history altogether. Now, thirteen years later, as outlined in Appendix B, standards have fallen further--100% do not require American history, and 78% require no history at all. The problem is not limited to history. In 1996, the National Association of Scholars issued another seminal report, The Dissolution of General Education, which concluded that, during the last thirty years, the commitment of American higher education to providing students with a broad and rigorous exposure to major areas of knowledge has virtually vanished. In its stead, students pick and choose from a smorgasbord of courses that are too often on narrow, specialized topics. As the widely-acclaimed study by the Association of American Colleges, Integrity in the College Curriculum, concluded in 1990: ``As far as what passes as college curriculum, almost anything goes.'' Is it any wonder that students end up with an understanding that is equally narrow, fragmented, and less than the sum of its parts? In the country that gave birth to Jefferson's conception of an educated citizenry, colleges and universities are failing to provide the kind of general education that is needed for graduates to be involved and educated citizens. Why Does American History Matter? Other than our schools, no institutions bear greater responsibility for the transmission of our heritage than colleges and universities. They educate almost two-thirds of our citizens, including all our school teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, and public leaders. They set the admissions and curricular requirements that signal to students, teachers, parents, and the public what every educated citizen in a democracy must know. What happens in higher education thus relates directly to what happens in K-12. If colleges and universities no longer require their students to have a basic knowledge of American civilization and its heritage, we are all in danger of losing a common frame of reference that has sustained our free society for so many generations. As ACTA chairman and former NEH chairman Lynne V. Cheney observes, in Telling the Truth, ``[I]t is from our colleges and universities that messages radiate--or fail to radiate to schools, to legal institutions, to popular culture, and to politics about the importance of reason, of trying to overcome bias, of seeking truth through evidence and verification.'' If our graduates leave school without knowing the foundations of American society, children they teach will certainly do no better. It is sometimes said that historical facts do not matter. But citizens who fail to know basic landmarks of history and civics are unlikely to be able to reflect on their meaning. They fail to recognize the unique nature of our society, and the importance of preserving it. They lack an understanding of the very principles which bind our society--namely, liberty, justice, government by the consent of the governed, and equality under the law. As Lynne Cheney has also written, ``Knowledge of the ideas that have molded us and the ideals that have mattered to us functions as a kind of civic glue. Our history and literature give us symbols to share; they help us all, no matter how diverse our backgrounds, feel part of a common undertaking.'' What Should Be Done? Immediate steps must be taken to ensure that the memory of our great nation and its remarkable past is passed on to the next generation. The following actions should be taken by colleges and universities, students and their families, alumni and donors, state and federal governments, and accrediting agencies. By colleges and universities Colleges and universities should make improving students' historical memory and civic competence an urgent priority. Boards of trustees and state agencies with higher education oversight should take steps to ensure that institutions of higher education have adequate requirements in American history and history in general. Faculty, whose personal interest often draws them to specialized topics, should teach what students need to know, not what faculty desire to teach. The most direct solution is a strong core curriculum, with a broad-based, rigorous course on American history required of all students. The course should include the breadth of American history from the colonial period to the present, and the long struggle to defend liberty against all foes domestic and foreign and to expand democratic rights at home and abroad. Students should be required to study the great civic documents of the nation, beginning with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist papers, and the Gettysburg Address. Such a course gives students a sense not only of where the country has been, but what it has meant. By students and their families The first challenge for students and their families is selecting a college. Some colleges have strong core curricula that ensure that every graduate will be well-grounded in the full range of basic subjects, including American history. Most have loose cafeteria-style requirements that let the students choose for themselves. Some no longer even offer traditional, broad-based courses in American history. Before selecting a college, students and their families should look at catalogues, examining requirements and course descriptions and ideally accessing course syllabi on the web. College is a big investment, and it deserves as much research as any other major purchase. A hot reputation and fancy student center are no guarantee of a solid academic program. Students who are already attending a college can make up for colleges' deficiencies by selecting for themselves those courses, including American history, that will prepare them for successful participation in our civic as well as economic life. Parents should help their students understand that trendy courses that may strike their short-term fancy will not well serve their long-term needs. By alumni and donors Alumni should take an active interest in whether their alma maters have strong requirements in American history and other basic subjects. They should not allow their degrees to be devalued by a decline in college standards. Those who give can be especially helpful, since it is possible to target gifts to outstanding programs and projects in American history and civic understanding. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni has established a program, the Fund for Academic Renewal (FAR), that assists donors, free of charge, in identifying outstanding programs and directing their gifts to support them. By State and Federal Governments and accrediting agencies Consumers in the higher education market cannot make wise choices if they have no information. Most college guides and rankings give little or no information about the curriculum. The U.S. Department of Education--and state government for institutions in their states--should publish and disseminate a national report on collegiate standards, listing which colleges require such basic subjects as English, history, mathematics, and science, and which do not. Federal and state governments should target some of the funds from existing grant programs to support outstanding core curricula that include American history and civics. Accrediting agencies, which have so often neglected issues of academic quality, should include adequate requirements in American history and other basic disciplines among their criteria for assessing colleges and universities. Conclusion On this Presidents' Day 2000, it is indeed ironic that many--if not most--of our college seniors are unfamiliar with and ignorant about the individuals we celebrate. The time is ripe for citizens, parents, families and policymakers to demand a renewed exploration and examination of our history. It is not too late to restore America's memory. Exhibit 2 statements submitted in conjunction with the congressional press conference on historical illiteracy in america--june 27, 2000 David McCullough, Historian, West Tisbury, MA: The place given to history in our schools is a disgrace, and the dreadful truth is very few of those responsible for curriculum seem to care, even at the highest level of education. Anyone who doubts that we are raising a generation of young Americans who are historically illiterate needs only to read Losing America's Memory. Oscar Handlin, University Professor Emeritus, Harvard University: History is a discipline in decline. There is a profound ignorance not only among students but among their teachers as well. This study [Losing America's Memory] confirms that. Lynne V. Cheney, Former Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities: It is regrettable that over the last decade we have seen a continuing decline in emphasis at the college level on core subjects such as literature, math, and history. ACTA's recent report, ``Losing America's Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century,'' confirms this disturbing trend and underscores a profound historical illiteracy amongst our future leaders that bodes ill for the future of the Republic. Sen. Lieberman and Cong. Petri deserve our praise for raising this important issue. We must begin to restore America's memory. If our best and brightest are graduating without a grounding in the past, we are on our way to losing the understanding that makes us all feel part of a common undertaking, no matter how diverse our backgrounds. John Patrick Diggins, Distinguished Professor of History, The Graduate Center, City University of New York: ``We cannot escape history,'' Abraham Lincoln warned Americans more than a century ago. According to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni report, students have escaped it and remain happily ignorant of their own ignorance in an educational establishment that has surrendered its mission to popular culture. Gordon Wood, Professor of History, Brown University: We Americans have a special need to understand our history, for our history is what makes us a nation and gives us our sense of nationality. A people like us, made up of every conceivable race, ethnicity, and religion in the world, can never be a nation in the usual sense of the term. Instead, we have only our history to hold us together; McDonald's can never do it. It's our history, our heritage, that makes us a single people. Up until recently almost every American, even those who were new immigrants, possessed some sense of America's past, however rudimentary and unsophisticated. Without some such sense of history, the citizens of the United States can scarcely long exist as a united people. Theodore K. Rabb, Chairman, National Council for History Education, Professor of History, Princeton University: Since the focus of the National Council for History Education (NCHE) is on the improvement of history education in the schools--indeed, our one postsecondary initiative has been to recommend that teachers of history be certified only if they have a college major or at least a minor in the subject--we are not in a position to comment on the findings of Losing America's Memory except to add our voice to those who are concerned about the growing problem of historical illiteracy in the United States. We have long argued that history should occupy a large and vital place in the education of both the private person and the public citizen. As historian Kenneth T. Jackson has written, ``Unlike many people of other nations, Americans are not bound together by a common religion or a common ethnicity. Instead, our binding heritage is a democratic vision of liberty, equality and justice. If Americans are to preserve that vision and bring it to daily practice, it is imperative that all citizens understand how it was shaped in the past, what events and forces either helped or obstructed it, and how it has evolved down to the circumstances and political discourse of our time.'' Indeed, the office of citizen cannot be filled property in today's democratic society without an understanding of American history, nor can students afford to go into the twenty-first century ignorant of the history and culture of other nations. Eugene W. Hickock, Secretary of Education, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: ACTA's recent study, Losing America's Memory, is deeply troubling for many reasons. The findings suggest to me that the teaching of our nation's history has taken a back seat in our elementary and secondary schools, likely replaced by failed fads or trends that have permeated our education system for decades. But, we cannot expect K-12 education to take full responsibility; our higher education institutions often have replaced the study of our American culture with watered down programs and curricula that focus more on our popular culture. It is time for Americans from all walks of life--parents, educators, students, and local, state, and national leaders--to step up their efforts to reverse this disturbing trend and to make sure our nation's history is a key part of the curriculum at every level. I applaud Senator Lieberman and Congressman Petri for their strong commitment and bold efforts to reverse this trend and to make sure every student knows and appreciates our Republic's rich history. James C. Rees, Executive Director, Historic Mount Vernon: With each year that passes, it becomes more and more evident that the people entering our gates at Mount Vernon know next to nothing about the real George Washington. They usually recognize his image from the dollar bill, and sometimes they're familiar with the age-old myths about the cherry tree and the silver dollar toss across the Rappahannock River. But when it comes to even the most rudimentary facts--what war he was in and when he was president--it is incredible how many people draw a blank. And it's not just the kids in grade school who have somehow lost touch with George Washington. It is their parents as well. This most recent survey of college students confirms our worst fear: that the next generation of parents will continue this trend of ignorance. To put it as simply as possible, it would be naive to think that George Washington could be first in the hearts of this generation, because it simply doesn't know and appreciate his remarkable leadership and character. Walter A. McDougall, Pulitzer prize-winning professor of history, University of Pennsylvania: The findings of this excellent ACTA report are deemed ``shocking.'' In fact, they are all too predictable, which is why they deserve the widest dissemination. Americans simply cannot expect rigorous history instruction in their K-12 schools so long as the nation's elite colleges and universities delete history from their curricula. Thomas Egan, Chairman of the Board, State University of New York: ACTA's recent report ``Losing America's Memory,'' is alarming proof that our graduates are failing to receive a strong grounding in their past. At SUNY, we are pleased to be among the vanguard of university boards to require U.S. history as part of a core curriculum demanded of our graduates. Congressional action today confirms what we have already concluded: students must be familiar with their history in order to be engaged participants in the civic life of our nation. Stepeh H. Balch, President, National Association of Scholars: More than most nations, America is defined by shared memories. Great deeds, stirring moments, inspiring heroes, hard-won victories, occasional defeats, and, most significantly, lofty ideals--declared, attacked, and ultimately vindicated--map our collective identity. ACTA's study, ``Losing America's Memory,'' thus strongly suggests that we are also in danger of losing America itself. Its findings should be a wake-up call for our educators who have been clearly shirking their responsibilities. Candace de Russy, Member of the Board, Chairman, Academic Standards Committee, State University of New York: As part of their duty to ensure the academic excellence of their institutions, the nation's higher-education governing boards are beginning to promote U.S. history requirements. We trustees of the State University of New York have accomplished this by mandating the study of American history as part of a larger core curriculum which all SUNY undergraduates must now pursue. This mandate is consonant with our determination to raise academic standards. It also reflects our commitment to help ground students in the fundamental norms and ideals we as citizens need to hold in common in order that this free society endures. Dr. Balint Vazsonyi, Founder and Director, Center for the American Founding: Having grown up in Hungary, in turn under German National Socialist and Russian International Socialist terror, I have learned the absolute need of socialists to erase the national memory as a precondition for disseminating their own fictitious history. The so-called National Standards for U.S. History demonstrate that the second stage of this process is already under way. Alone clear identification of the ideology that mandates the erasure of national memory can provide a meaningful response to the crisis. It is then up to the advocates of that ideology whether they desire continued identification with it. Incorporating more of the current, mostly fraudulent histories in the curriculum only serves those who have created the crisis in the first place. Marc Berley, President, Foundation for Academic Standards & Tradition: While students may not know as much as they should about American history, they do know what they're missing. And they want their colleges to do exactly what Senator Joseph I. Lieberman and Congressman Thomas E. Petri are urging. In ``Student Life,'' a national survey of 1005 randomly selected college students conducted by Zogby International and released last week by the Foundation for Academic Standards and Tradition, 8 out of 10 college students said their schools need to ``do a better job teaching students the basic principles of freedom in America.'' Michael C. Quinn, Executive Director, James Madison's Montpelier: America is forgetting its heritage, and it does matter. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni has recently taken a survey of college seniors, and has exposed the failure of our universities to teach our nation's history. Only 23 percent of the college seniors surveyed could correctly identify James Madison as the ``Father of the Constitution.'' Why does this matter? It matters because the American nation exists through its heritage. Americans have only one thing that unites them as citizens: a shared vision of democracy. Citizens of almost every other country are united by a shared language, a shared religion, a shared geography, or a shared ethnicity. In America, we join together as a people because of nothing more than an idea. Yet the idea we share as a people--the constitutional democracy pioneered by James Madison and other founding fathers--is one of the most powerful ideas on earth. No other form of government has guaranteed so much individual liberty and economic opportunity to its citizens. The failure to teach American history, with its lessons of struggle and idealism, of inspiring leaders like James Madison, is failing our nation. Each generation has an obligation to instill the shared idea of democracy into the next generation. And American history-- the story of the birth and success of that vision of democracy--makes our shared idea a lasting, meaningful part of every new citizen's life.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chairman for his continuing leadership on this matter.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. First, I want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Harkin for bringing this bill to the Senate in a very timely way and for the committee's attention to the several health programs funded by this Bill that very broadly benefit the entire Nation. I also want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member for the committee's report language from last year that urged the Department of Health and Human Services to address the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint in mental health facilities across the Nation that has resulted in tragic and unnecessary deaths and injuries. The committee's language has helped focus attention on this matter and progress has been made. For example, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has issued interim ``conditions of participation'' rules governing the use of restraints and seclusion in facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. I thank the committee for its assistance in making progress on this matter. Mr. President, what we have learned from the National Mental Health Association, the Child Welfare League, and my own states Klingberg Center is that a significant obstacle to making further progress is the high turnover rate in many of the mental health facilities across the country and the recurring need to provide training to new personnel in these facilities on the appropriate use of seclusion and restraint. To address this national problem, would the Chairman support funding a demonstration project for model training and education programs for the appropriate use of restraints?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I do so because I believe all of us--elected officials, educators, parents, the whole of our citizenry--should be alarmed by findings, by the Nation's growing ignorance of our past and what it implies for America's future. When we lose the memory of our past, when we lose our understanding of the remarkable individuals, events, and values that have shaped this Nation, we are losing much of what it means to be an American. We are losing touch with the civic glue that binds our diverse Nation into a single people with a common purpose. And, I fear, we are losing sight of the lessons our history teaches us and the fundamental responsibilities we share as citizens in a free democracy. Earlier this week I had the privilege of joining with my colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, Congressman Tom Petri of Wisconsin, the leaders of the ACTA, and assemblage of distinguished historians at a press conference to underscore the import of this report. With the Fourth of July in the offing, we wanted to seize the opportunity of this moment of patriotism to in a sense play Paul Revere, and to begin ringing the alarm bells about the growing ignorance of the contributions that Revere and many other great men and women made to this Nation. Among the scholars who attended were: Gordon Wood, Professor of History at Brown University; John Patrick Diggins, Distinguished Professor of History, The Graduate Center, City University of New York; James Rees, Director of George Washington's Mount Vernon; Jeffrey Wallin, president, American Academy for Liberal Education; and Paul Reber, Executive Director of Decatur House, National Trust for Historic Preservation. With us, in spirit if not in body, were David McCullough, the prize-winning author of the illuminative biography of Harry Truman, and the great Oscar Handlin, Professor Emeritus at Harvard. Each of these historians, as well as several others, issued statements expressing their concerns about the consequences of losing America's memory. I ask unanimous consent to have a collection of these statements printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I come today to the floor of this Chamber, which is so rich with history, which has been the setting of some of the most determinative moments for our democracy, to talk about the state of our civic memory. Thomas Jefferson once famously said, ``If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.'' I am saddened to say that this Nation, the guardian of the Jeffersonian ethic, seems well on the way today to testing his proposition. Or so the findings of a recent survey of America's college graduates would suggest. That survey reveals that our next generation of leaders and citizens is leaving college with a stunning lack of knowledge of their heritage and the democratic values that have long sustained our country. The University of Connecticut's Roper Center found that 81 percent of seniors from America's elite institutions of higher education received a grade of D or F on history questions drawn from a basic high school examination. Many seniors could not identify Valley Forge, words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution. By comparison, 99 percent of them knew who Beavis and Butthead were and 98 percent knew who the rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg was. The Roper survey also shows that most major colleges no longer require their students to study history, which helps to explain why historical illiteracy is growing in this country. Students can now graduate from 100 percent of the top colleges and universities without taking a single course in American history. And students at 78 percent of those institutions are not required to take any form of history at all. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a nonprofit group dedicated to the pursuit of academic freedom, has compiled and analyzed these findings in a provocative report entitled ``Losing America's Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century.'' I would encourage my colleagues to examine this report, a copy of which has been sent to every Member's office. I ask unanimous consent to have the report printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Will the Chairman of the Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee yield for a question?

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona whom I have come to call our commanding officer in the war for campaign finance reform. I am proud to serve under him. In this long struggle to cleanse our campaign finance system, we are about to achieve a victory. In a campaign finance system that is wildly and dangerously out of control today, we are about to draw a line. We are about to establish some controls based on the best of America's national principles. The campaign finance reform adopted after the Watergate scandal had two fundamental principles: that contributions to political campaigns be limited, and that they be fully disclosed. These so-called 527 organizations totally violate and undermine both of those principles. Individuals, corporations, and associations can give unlimited amounts to 527 organizations, and those contributions are absolutely secret, unknown to the public. The contributors then audaciously enjoy a tax benefit for those contributions. Today, we say no more of that. Unfortunately, contributions will continue to be unlimited to 527 organizations, but at least now the public will know. As Senator McCain indicated, this is not the end of the effort to reform our campaign finance system. It is only the beginning, but it is a significant beginning. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to support it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from Wisconsin. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for this bill, which contains nearly identical language to a bill I introduced earlier this session and to an amendment Senators McCain, Feingold, and I sponsored to the Defense authorization bill. This bill deals with the proliferation of so-called stealth PACs operating under section 527 of the Tax Code. These groups exploit a recently discovered loophole in the tax code that allows organizations seeking to influence federal elections to fund their election work with undisclosed and unlimited contributions at the same time as they claim exemption from both Federal taxation and the Federal election laws. Section 527 of the Tax Code offers tax exemption to organizations primarily involved in election-related activities, like campaign committees, party committees and PACs. It defines the type of organization it covers as one whose function is, among other things, ``influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or local public office. . . .'' Because the Federal Election Campaign Act, (FECA) uses near identical language to define the entities it regulates--organizations that spend or receive money ``for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office''--section 527 formerly had been generally understood to apply only to those organizations that register as political committees under, and comply with, FECA, unless they focus on State or local activities or do not meet certain other specific FECA requirements. Nevertheless, a number of groups engaged in what they term issue advocacy campaigns and other election-related activity recently began arguing that the near identical language of FECA and section 527 actually mean two different things. In their view, they can gain freedom from taxation by claiming that they are seeking to influence the election of individuals to Federal office, but may evade regulation under FECA, by asserting that they are not seeking to influence an election for Federal office. As a result--because, unlike other tax- exempt groups like 501(c)(3)s and (c)(4)s, section 527 groups do not even have to publicly disclose their existence--these groups gain both the public subsidy of tax exemption and the ability to shield from the American public the identity of those spending their money to try to influence our elections. Indeed, according to news reports, newly formed 527 organizations pushing the agenda of political parties are using the ability to mask the identities of their contributors as a means of courting wealthy donors seeking anonymity in their efforts to influence our elections. Because section 527 organizations are not required to publicly disclose their existence, it is impossible to know the precise scope of this problem. The IRS's private letter rulings, though, make clear that organizations intent on running what they call issue ad campaigns and engaging in other election-related activity are free to assert Section 527 status, and news reports provide specific examples of groups taking advantage of these rulings. Roll Call reported the early signs of this phenomenon in late 1997, when it published an article on the decision of Citizens for Reform and Citizens for the Republic Education Fund, two Triad Management Services organizations that ran $2 million issue ad campaigns during the 1996 elections, to switch from 501(c)(4) status, which imposes limits on a group's political activity, to 527 status after the 1996 campaigns. A more recent Roll Call report recounted the efforts of a team of GOP lawyers and consultants to shop an organization called Citizens for the Republican Congress to donors as a way to bankroll up to $35 million in pro-Republican issue ads in the 30 most competitive House races. And Common Cause's recent report Under The Radar: The Attack of The ``Stealth PACs'' On Our Nation's Elections offers details on 527 groups set up by politicians, Congressmen J.C. Watts and Tom DeLay industry groups; the pharmaceutical industry-funded Citizens for Better Medicare; and ideological groups from all sides of the political spectrum, the Wyly Brothers' Republicans for Clean Air, Ben & Jerry's Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities and a 527 set up by the Sierra Club. The advantages conferred by assuming the 527 form--the anonymity provided to both the organization and its donors, the ability to engage in unlimited political activity without losing tax-exempt status, and the exemption from the gift tax imposed on very large donors--leave no doubt that these groups will proliferate as the November election approaches. None of us should doubt that the proliferation of these groups--with their potential to serve as secret slush funds for candidates and parties, their ability to run difficult-to-trace attack ads, and their promise of anonymity to those seeking to spend huge amounts of money to influence our elections-- poses a real and significant threat to the integrity and fairness of our elections. We all know that the identity of the messenger has a lot of influence on how we view a message. In the case of a campaign, an ad or piece of direct mail attacking one candidate or lauding another carries a lot more weight when it is run or sent by a group called ``Citizens for Good Government'' or ``Committee for our Children'' than when a candidate, party or someone with a financial stake in the election publicly acknowledges sponsorship of the ad or mailing. Without a rule requiring a group involved in elections to disclose who is behind it and where the group gets its money, the public is deprived of vital information that allows it to judge the group's credibility and its message, throwing into doubt the very integrity of our elections. With this incredibly powerful tool in their hands, can anyone doubt that come November, we will see more and more candidates, parties and groups with financial interests in the outcome of our elections taking advantage of the 527 loophole to run more and more attack ads and issue more and more negative mailings in the name of groups with innocuous-sounding names? The risk posed by the 527 loophole goes even farther than depriving the American people of critical information. I believe that it threatens the very heart of our democratic political process. Allowing these groups to operate in the shadows pose a real risk of corruption and makes it difficult for us to vigilantly guard against that risk. The press has reported that a growing number of 527 groups have connections to--or even have been set up by--candidates and elected officials. Allowing wealthy individuals to give to these groups--and allowing elected officials to solicit money for these groups--without ever having to disclose their dealings to the public, at a minimum, leads to an appearance of corruption and sets the conditions that would allow actual corruption to thrive. If politicians are allowed to continue secretly seeking money--particularly sums of money that exceed what the average American makes in a year--there is no telling what will be asked for in return. The bill we are addressing today gives us hope for forestalling the conversion of yet another loophole into yet another sinkhole for the integrity of our elections. The bill aims at forcing section 527 organizations to emerge from the shadows and let the public know who they are, where they get their money and how they spend it. The bill would require 527 organizations to disclose their existence to the IRS, to file publicly available tax returns and to file with the IRS and make public reports specifying annual expenditures of at least $500 and identifying those who contribute at least $200 annually to the organization. Although this won't solve the whole problem, at least it will make sure that no group can hide in the shadows as it spends millions to influence the way we vote and who we choose to run this country. Opponents of this legislation claim that our proposal infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. Nothing in our bills infringes on those cherished freedoms in the slightest bit. To begin with, the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo made absolutely clear that Congress may require organizations whose major purpose is to elect candidates to disclose information about their donors and expenditures. Even without that opinion, the constitutionality of this bill would be clear for an entirely different reason. And that is that this bill does not prohibit anyone from speaking, nor does it force any group that does not currently have to comply with FECA or disclose information about itself to do either of those things. Instead, the bill speaks only to what a group must do if it wants the public subsidy of tax exemption--something the Supreme Court has made clear no one has a constitutional right to have. As the Court explained in Regan versus Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 544, 545, 549 (1983), ``[b]oth tax exemptions and tax-deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system,'' and ``Congressional selection of particular entities or persons for entitlement to this sort of largesse is obviously a matter of policy and discretion . . .'' Under this bill, any group not wanting to disclose information about itself or abide by the election laws would be able to continue doing whatever it is doing now--it would just have to do so without the public subsidy of tax exemption conferred by section 527. Let me address one final issue: that it is somehow wrong to apply this bill to 527s but not to other tax exempt groups. I believe deeply in the cleansing tide of disclosure, whether the contributing organization involved is a labor union, a business association, a for- profit company or a tax-exempt organization. For that reason, I worked hard with a bipartisan bicameral group of reformers to come up with a fair proposal requiring across the board disclosure from all organizations that engage in election activity. I thought we had a good proposal, but we were unable to get enough support for it to see it pass the House at this time. We should continue to work to enact such disclosure, but we cannot let that goal stand in the way of passing this urgently needed legislation now, because there are real differences between 527 organizations and other tax exempts, and these differences justify closing the loophole, even if we can't enact broader reform. First and foremost, section 527 organizations are different because they are the only tax-exempts that exist primarily to influence elections. That is not my characterization. That is the statutory definition. 527s are not lobbying organizations. They are not public- interest issue organizations. They are not labor organizations or business organizations. They are election organizations, plain and simple. You can't say the same about the AFL-CIO or the Chamber of Commerce, or Handgun Control or the NRA, whose primary purpose is to advocate a policy position or to represent specific constituencies. So I say to anyone who claims these groups are just like other tax- exempts, ``Read the tax code.'' Just as importantly, there is a greater need for improved disclosure by 527 organizations than there is for disclosure by other tax exempts. When the AFL or the Chamber of Commerce runs an ad, we know exactly who is behind it and where their money came from: union member dues in the case of the AFL, and business member dues in the case of the Chamber. These groups provide the basic information the public needs to evaluate the motivation of the messenger. The absolute opposite is the case with 527s. The public can't know what hidden agenda may lie behind the message because so many 527s have unidentifiable names and are funded by sources no one knows anything about. In the best of all possible worlds, all money supporting election- related activity would be disclosed. But we should not allow our inability to achieve that goal now to stand in the way of closing the most egregious abuse of our hard-won campaign laws that we have seen during this election cycle. We all agree the American people have an absolute right to know the identity of those trying to influence their vote. So why let another day go by allowing these self-proclaimed election groups to operate in the shadows. Let's work together, across party lines, to close the 527 loophole. We have become so used to our campaign finance system's long, slow descent into the muck that it sometimes is hard to ignite the kind of outrage that should result when a new loophole starts to shred the spirit of yet another law aimed at protecting the integrity of our system, but this new 527 loophole should outrage us, and we must act to stop it. On June 8, a bipartisan majority of the Senate said that we stand ready to do so when we adopted nearly this precise language as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. An overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives did the same when it passed this bill on June 28. We cannot retreat from what we have already said we are ready to do. We must pass this bill now. I am thrilled to support this bill. I pay appropriate tributes to Senators McCain and Feingold for their principled and persistent leadership of this movement to bring some sanity, openness, limits, and control back to our campaign finance laws. I have been honored to work with them in the front lines of this effort. This is a turning point. The campaign finance laws of America adopted after Watergate say very clearly that individuals cannot give more than $2,000 to a campaign. Corporations and unions are prohibited by law from giving anything. Yet we know that unlimited contributions have been given by individuals, corporations, and unions, but at least that soft money, if anyone can say anything for it, is fully disclosed. In this cycle, we have seen increasing use of the most egregious violation of the clear intention of our campaign finance laws: So- called 527 organizations that not only invite unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals, but keep them a secret. Finally, we have come to a point in the abuse of our campaign finance laws that Members can no longer defend the indefensible. This is a victory for common sense, for our democracy, for the public's right to know. It has value in itself. But I hope it will also be a turning point that will lead us to further reform of our campaign finance laws. I will say this: In the battle that has brought us to the eve of this victory--that we will enjoy tomorrow, I am confident--we have put together a broad bipartisan, bicameral group committed to cleaning up our election laws, our campaign finance laws. I hope and believe the debate tonight and the vote tomorrow are the beginning of finally returning some limitation, some sanity, some disclosure, some public confidence to our campaign finance laws. I thank the Chair and thank the leaders in this effort--Senator McCain and Senator Feingold--and am proud to walk behind them in this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Thompson, I am introducing a bill at the request of the administration to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. The bill is designed to improve the federal government's role in managing both its personal and real property. By granting agencies enhanced tools to handle their assets, the bill's goal is to bring federal asset management into the 21st century. I invite comments on the administration's proposal and look forward to reviewing them.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and colleague from Louisiana. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, and express my strong support for her amendment to better target our Federal education funding to the schools and children who need it most. I know from our collaboration on our comprehensive new Democrat education reform plan, the Three R's legislation, that Senator Landrieu's commitment to rescuing failing schools and providing every child with a quality education is unsurpassed in this body. I also want to thank my friend and colleague from Arkansas for her devotion to this cause, and for her very eloquent statement on behalf of this amendment. As Senator Landrieu and many others have rightly pointed out, we are facing an educational crisis in our poorest urban and rural communities, where learning too often is languishing, where dysfunction is too often the norm, and where as a result too many children are being denied the promise of equal opportunity. It is just not right or acceptable that 35 years after the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that the average 17-year-old black and Latino student reads and performs math at the same level as the average 13- year-old Caucasian American student. We must begin to respond to this emergency with a greater sense of urgency, and that is exactly what the Landrieu amendment aims to do, infusing $1 billion in new funding for FY 2001 into the Title I program for disadvantaged students and allocating those resources to the districts with the highest concentrations of poverty. We are currently spending $8 billion a year on Title I. No one in this body questions the value or mission of Title I, which was enacted in 1965 to compensate for local funding inequities and help level the playing field for low-income students. But the unpleasant truth is that this well-intentioned program is not nearly as focused on serving poor communities as it is perceived to be, leaving many poor children without any aid or hope whatsoever. According to the Department of Education, 58 percent of all schools received at least some Title I funding, including many suburban schools with small pockets of low-income students. Of the 42 percent that don't receive any Title I support, a disturbing number have high concentrations of poor students. In fact, one out of every five schools with poverty rates between 50 percent and 75 percent do not get a dime from Title I. Let me repeat that startling statistic, because the first time I heard it I did not believe it--one of every five schools that have half to three quarters of its children living in poverty receives no Title I funding. None. How does this happen? The formulas we are using to allocate these funds purposely spreads the money thin and wide. Any school district with at least 2 percent of its students living below the poverty level qualifies for funding under Title I's Basic Grants formula, through which 85 percent of all Title I funding is distributed. The rest of the money is channeled through the Concentration Grant formula, which is only marginally more targeted than the Basic formula, providing aid to districts with as few as 15 percent of their students at the poverty level. As a result, almost every school district in the country--9 out of every 10--receives some aid from this critical aid pool. In fairness, Congress did make an effort to correct this imbalance in 1994 through the last reauthorization of the ESA. We approved the creation of a new Targeted formula, which puts a much heavier weight on poverty and therefore would direct a much higher percentage of funds to schools with higher concentrations of poor children. The key word there, of course, is would. Congress has unfortunately never appropriated funding through the Target formula. Not a penny, Instead, we have perpetuated a system that promises one thing and delivers another, that succeeds in letting us bring home funding to each of our districts but fails to meet its fundamental goal of helping those most in need. That is exactly what this amendment introduced by the junior Senator from Louisiana will do. Once again, I congratulate her on her leadership. This is an amendment which would put our money where the needs generally are. I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and my friend and colleague from Kentucky. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Connecticut. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that amendment. I respectfully oppose the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from the State of Washington. As has been amply testified to here on the floor today, Colombia is in a crisis that includes a flourishing drug trade emanating from that country, an aggressive guerrilla movement spreading within it, right- wing paramilitary operations, and human rights abuses on all sides. All of this represents a fundamental threat to democratic government, the rule of law and economic prosperity in Colombia, and undermines stability in the region. It also, closer to home, results in the sad reality of a continued massive drug flow into these United States. There has been literally an explosion of cocaine and heroin production in Colombia, and too much of it ends up in our country. The democratically elected leader of Colombia, President Pastrana, has urgently asked for our assistance and has shown strong leadership in developing a long-term comprehensive strategy for dealing with the multifaceted crisis his country faces. The United States is not pushing its way into this situation, nor are we attempting to impose an outside solution. The Colombian Government quite simply cannot carry out these constructive plans it has without substantial help from its friends abroad. Our Government has quite responsibly pledged that the United States will make a major contribution to this critical effort, and I am convinced that is in our national interest to do so. The administration's budget request for what has become known as Plan Colombia seeks to help that country and other nations in the region tackle the issues of the drug trade, guerrilla and paramilitary violence, human rights abuses, internally displaced people, and economic deterioration. This assistance package would allow for the purchase of 30 Blackhawk helicopters to do the essential job of transporting counter narcotics battalions into southern Colombia. These Blackhawks are fast, they have tremendous capacity, and they are well suited for long-range operations. Unfortunately, the Senate version of the foreign operations appropriations bill eliminates the funding for the Blackhawks and replaces them with twice as many of the slower, less capable Huey II helicopters. While the Huey II is an improvement over the 1960s vintage Huey helicopter, it does not have the same performance capabilities, including range, speed, lift, or survivability, at any altitude as does the Blackhawk. The Colombian Army itself chose the Blackhawk to meet its long-term requirements for all of its forces and believes it is the best solution for providing helicopter support to the newly formed counternarcotics battalions. The Blackhawk would allow the Colombians to put more troops on the ground, more quickly and from greater distances, allowing for a higher initial entry of the battalions and for more rapid reinforcement, all necessary to achieve success against opponents on the ground. For some missions in the mountains at high altitudes, the Huey II simply will not work at all. In sum, the Colombians have concluded that the Blackhawks best suit their need for counter drug missions, which is at the heart of our American interest in this aid package. Both General McCaffrey and General Wilhelm have strongly concurred. In addition, in May, a team of 24 U.S. Army aviation experts was sent to Colombia to conduct an assessment of the operational effectiveness and support requirements of the Blackhawks versus the Huey IIs in Colombia. In a preliminary report on its finding, the team said: The superior troop carrying capacity and range of the UH- 60L, or Blackhawk, versus the Huey II, coupled with the combat nature of operation, limited size of landing and pick up zones within the area of operations, the requirement to operate in high altitude areas and the increased survivability to both aircrew and troops, clearly indicated that the Blackhawk is the helicopter that should be fielded to Colombia in support of a counter drug effort. That was from a U.S. Army report. Senator Dodd and I have offered an amendment that says the U.S. Department of Defense, in consultation with the Colombian military, will determine what kind of helicopters will be most effective to support the purposes for which we are spending this money, which are counternarcotics in Colombia. The Senate ought not to micromanage the decision on which helicopters will be used. It is a decision that ought to be left to those who are the experts. We cannot pretend this overall emergency aid package is a perfect solution to all the problems confronting Colombia or any of the other countries in the region. Neither is this assistance a panacea to the problems of drug abuse and addiction in the United States. It is a strong and credible step forward. For these reasons, I support the underlying package, oppose the Gorton amendment, and proudly support and cosponsor the Dodd amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.