Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask what the pending business is.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr President, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has sent her reasoned voice across the radio airwaves of America. A strong willed and strong minded woman who is not only a friend, but I'm fortunate to say is also a constituent, Judy Jarvis. Yesterday, this great radio talk show host, Judy Jarvis, my friend, lost her battle with cancer. She fought hard to the bitter end. She fought by informing her audience, by not keeping them in the dark about the cancer that was invading her body. She shared her fears, her hopes and her dreams with her weekday broadcasts and in interviews when the table was turned and she became the subject of the interview. Mr President I would like to submit two articles for the Record about her battle with cancer. A June 1999 article from Talkers Magazine and a November 29, 1999 article from People Magazine. Her listeners became an extended family, and when she wasn't well enough to continue broadcasting the entire show everyday, they warmly welcomed her cohost, her son, Jason Jarvis. As the only nationally syndicated Mother/Son radio team in America, Judy and Jason were a great team. They enjoyed each other's company and brought a wonderful mixture of generations and views to their show. Judy Jarvis will be missed by those of us in this chamber who embrace talk radio, by all of us, Democrats and Republicans who have been privileged to be regular guests on her show. She was a woman of intellect and humor, a broadcaster who did her own research and never went for the cheap shot. She was opinionated and provocative, but never nasty. Judy dug deep for the questions that would generate answers to best inform her audience. Judy Jarvis earned a special place in the history of talk radio and left us with a strong human legacy--her husband, Wal, her sons Jason and Clayton and her granddaughter Alexandra. I wouldn't be surprised if Judy has not already set up interviews, up there in Heaven. Her audience now is global and out of this world. Judy Jarvis, you will be missed by those of us fortunate and blessed enough to call you friend. Mr. President, I ask that articles from Talkers magazine and from People magazine be printed in the Record. The articles follows: [From Talkers Magazine, June/July 1999] Judy Jarvis--Profile in Courage (By Michael Harrison) Hartford.--Everything was rolling along just fine for nationally syndicated talk show host Judy Jarvis. Her independently produced and syndicated midday talk show which has been on the air since April of 1993 had recently achieved what she describes as a ``second tier breakthrough'' and was solidly implanted on more than 50 highly respectable affiliates across America. The longstanding live hours of noon to 3 pm ET had just been expanded an extra couple of hours per day to re-feed several prestigious new stations picking up the show. Judy was appearing as a regular guest on the cable TV news talk channels and her commentaries were being published in important daily newspapers. She was again on the annual TALKERS magazine heavy hundred list for the fifth year in a row and generally admired throughout the industry as a talented talk show host on the rise. Plus, on the business side of things she had attained recognition and respect as the head of a successful, family-run radio network operation complete with a in-house staff of nine and the beneficiary of professional sales and affiliate representation from one of New York's finest national firms, WinStar. The show had even built its own state-of-the-art two-room studio in Farmington Connecticut at the well-known Connecticut School of Broadcasting. Yes, things was going great guns until this past Fall of 1998--shortly after the NAB Radio Show in Seattle--when upon feeling unusually fatigued and having developed a cough that would not go away; Judy Jarvis checked into Beth Israel hospital in Boston and didn't check out for six weeks. Tests indicated that Judy had developed lung cancer . . . a particularly vicious type that had already impacted her blood and was causing clotting problems. ``It was absolutely a shock,'' Judy tells TALKERS magazine. ``It was like being the victim of a drive-by shooting.'' Judy has never even been a smoker and, until this terrifying revelation, had enjoyed very good health. ``I was a moose!'' she says, with the good humor that typifies her positive approach to the great challenge that had fallen upon her shoulders. Instantly committed to beating the disease, she was also determined to preserve the radio show that she and her family had worked so long and hard to build. As it is turning out, the family connection plays a key role in the rescue of the Judy Jarvis Show and Hartford-based Jarvis Productions. Five years ago, her son, Jason, then 25, left his job at the Washington, DC political journal Hotline and became his mom's producer. He quickly developed a favorable reputation within the business as both an excellent behind the scenes broadcaster and an extremely personable individual. Her husband, Wal Jarvis--a successful businessman outside the radio industry--also serves on the company's executive board to which he brings his considerable experience and expertise. Judy simply describes Wal and the way he has supported her career and now her personal trial as ``the best ever!'' So when disaster struck . . . as an immediate stop-gap measure, ``We ran tape for a few weeks to keep the show on the air,'' Judy recounts. ``That worked well for a while,'' she says, but with her initial stay in the hospital and newly-diagnosed illness extending beyond the program's ability to keep playing reruns and maintain a viable network, her son Jason--who had never been a radio personality-- stepped up to the microphone and went on the air. He told the audience about his mother's situation and began to do a radio talk show. His natural ability and honesty were enough to hold the fort for another couple of months while Judy began an aggressive round of treatments to begin fighting the disease. The affiliates were individually informed of the plight by WinStar reps backed up by Jarvis Productions in-house business manager Deb Shillo. Just about all the affiliates were extremely cooperative . . . especially since Jason Jarvis turned out to be a surprisingly talented talker, enhanced, of course, by the extremely dramatic circumstances in which he was immersed. American talk radio was not about to abandon this sturdy ship caught in a storm. When discussing Jason's pinch-hitting effort, Judy tries to hold back the tears. ``He never wanted to do this,'' she says in a burst of emotion that shakes the calm restraint that had marked the conversation to this point. ``It was an amazing act of courage and love. He wanted to save it (the show) in case I would get better.'' Judy Jarvis' form of lung cancer hits 20,000 people per year and kills more women than breast cancer. But she optimistically points out that modern medicine has come a long way and ``it is not quite as grim as it might have been'' had this happened several years ago. Judy completed the first round of treatments and returned to the show on January 4, 1999 with nearly 100% of her affiliates (and listeners) intact, waiting for her return. However, now, it had become a two-person show. Jason earned himself a place on the program as co-host and a unique mother-son talk team modestly emerged on the talk radio airwaves of America, largely unheralded by the media at large and void of the hype that usually marks the beginning of something that can lay claim to being a first. But the challenges facing Judy Jarvis and her family were far from over. As the Winter of 1999 wore on, so did the pain in Judy's left leg, due to circulation complications arising from the illness. The bleak diagnosis indicated an irreversible condition in which the only remedy was amputation. In March, Judy Jarvis' left leg was removed below the knee. More treatment, more recovery, more courage . . . and finally back to work, on the air again with Jason. After a period of several weeks in a wheelchair, Judy has been successfully outfitted with a prosthesis and now is able to walk again. She has risen to the challenge with the same positive attitude that she brings to the air. Life is tough enough in the competitive world of day-to-day syndicated talk radio. Judy now does it while going through the discomfort of chemotherapy and adjusting to the trauma of losing a limb. ``The work is conducive to my recovery,'' she says, ``it helps me focus on something positive.'' And the program remains positive. Although Judy's situation has been presented quite honestly to the audience, adding an increased dramatic dimension to the culture of the show, the Judy Jarvis Show remains upbeat and issues-oriented. It continues to reflect the niche she has carved out on the talk radio landscape as a fiercely independent moderate who covers the big political issues, but also talks about day-to-day life and the endless controversies, crisis, joys and sorrows that make up real life for real human beings. Her credentials speak for themselves and give her immense credibility to really communicate with her listeners. In terms of her status in the talk radio industry: She is a giant of strength, will and talent. Staying on the air and running her company as effectively and as dedicatedly as she has done under the conditions she has faced is the kind of inspirational heroism that brings out the best in talk radio as both a business and a cultural phenomenon. Judy Jarvis can be reached via Deb Shillo at Jarvis Productions, 860-242-7276.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Boxer to S. 1134 that would help to protect children from exposure to pesticides used in schools. In the wake of tragic incidents in schools across the nation, many people now think of school safety in terms of enhanced protection from violent crime. My colleague's amendment addresses a less visible aspect of school safety: the need to reduce environmental health hazards from pesticides. Because of their smaller size, greater intake of food and air relative to body weight, recreational environment, and developing systems, children are at higher risk from pesticide exposure than adults. Numerous studies show that pesticides can pose health risks to children, such as impaired cognitive skills, fatigue, burns, elevated rates of childhood leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma, and brain cancer. Pesticides can be absorbed from exposure through skin contact, inhalation, or ingestion. One recent study showed that after a single broadcast use of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide commonly used in schools, the chemical remained on children's toys and hard surfaces for two weeks, resulting in exposure 21-119 times above the current recommended safe dose. Last year, I requested that the General Accounting Office review the federal requirements that govern the use of pesticides in schools and the existence of data on the use and incidences of illnesses related to exposure. In January when I released the GAO report, ``Use, Effects, and Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools,'' I noted that its results underscore the lack of both comprehensive information about the amount of pesticides used in our nation's schools, and data on whether pesticide exposure is adversely affecting our children's health. In January, I called on Administrator Browner to task her agency to take immediate steps to protect children from exposure to pesticides in schools, including providing guidance to applicators and school districts on the relative exposures of different application methods, taking action to appropriately label pesticides that are being used in school environments, and consider conducting a full-scale statistical survey on the use of pesticides in schools to determine whether risks are posed to children by pesticides through cumulative exposure. Ultimately, these measures all would lead to better information about the risks of pesticide exposure to children. However, we also need to act now to help parents protect their children in the interim. In 1999, Connecticut passed a bill requiring schools to create registries of parents who wish to be informed prior to school use of pesticides. Several other states have taken similar action. However, parents in many states still do not have access to information about when and what pesticides are being used in their children's schools. Senator Boxer's amendment would remedy this problem by ensuring that all parents receive advance notification before toxic pesticides are applied on school or day care center grounds. In addition to supporting Senator Boxer's notification amendment, I am a cosponsor of Senator Torricelli's School Environment Protection Act of 1999, or SEPA, which is currently before the Agriculture Committee. In addition to recognizing the need for parental notification before pesticides are used in schools, SEPA would create a national requirement that when pesticides are used in schools, only the safest methods are followed in order to protect children. I recently visited a school system in Cheshire, Connecticut, that has very successfully implemented these methods, known as Integrated Pest Management, or IPM. The Cheshire school system works closely with local contractors, who carry out monthly visual inspections of the schools, use least toxic pesticides when required, and apply them after hours and after contacting the school nurse. SEPA would require that, like the Cheshire schools, schools nationwide ensure that pesticides are applied safely and only when alternatives have failed. I am pleased to be able to support Senator Boxer today in her effort to help parents protect their children by reducing their exposure to potentially harmful pesticides. And I hope that there will be further opportunities to discuss the important issue of decreasing children's exposure to pesticides in schools.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I rise to speak both in favor of the underlying proposal offered by the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from New Jersey, which I am pleased to be a cosponsor of, but also to speak on behalf of an amendment that has been introduced by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, on behalf of herself, Senator Bayh, and myself. Let me say briefly, on the underlying proposal, it is a modest but important proposal which encourages parents and enables parents through the tax benefits provided to set aside some money for their children's future, and to use it for a variety of educational purposes that have been well outlined here. This proposal, as has been said over and over again, is no different than existing legislation for use at the college level. I support it enthusiastically and think it is a step forward. It will be of particular help to struggling middle-class families who want the best for their children's education and often find it hard to pay the way. This will help them just a little bit. Second, speaking about the amendment offered by Senator Landrieu and Senator Bayh and myself, as I have followed the debate on the Coverdell-Torricelli proposal, I have been troubled, again, to see the Senate divided largely along partisan lines. The lines are familiar, the arguments have been heard before, but they do not get us anywhere, and they particularly do not respond to the message that I get clearly when I go home and speak to people in Connecticut and that I guess my colleagues here get when they go to their respective States. It is that there is nothing that matters more to the people of America today than to improve our system of education, particularly public education, but all education, private, faith-based as well. If we respond to that clear plea, that priority of our constituents, with partisanship and posturing that produces nothing but a continuation of the status quo, then shame on us. So in hopes of reaching a realistic consensus in the weeks ahead, this debate in some ways has been a warm-up. But it is an important one that has substance attached to it for the broader debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The amendment Senator Landrieu has put forward is a piece of a broader proposal that she and I and Senator Bayh, Senator Lincoln, and others are developing as a total reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is building on good news in a number of our States which are moving in the direction, not of a fixation with rules and regulations or bureaucracies but concentrating instead on results: How can we improve the educational performance of our children? In the States that are succeeding, they are doing three things. First, they are infusing new resources into their public education systems. We are going to have to invest more. Second, they are giving local districts more flexibility in how they meet those higher standards as they determine the needs of their children and local school systems. Third, they are demanding new measures and mechanisms of accountability to increase the chance that these investments will yield the intended return, which is higher academic achievement by all of our students. Those are the goals of the bill that Senators Landrieu, Bayh, Lincoln, I and several others are drafting. It calls for revamping the framework of our Federal education programs and engaging the States in a new performance-based partnership, where we would significantly increase Federal funding to help our schools meet these new expectations, to target these new dollars to the communities and children who are disadvantaged, who need them most, and to provide State and local officials with broad latitude in allocating these resources to meet their specific priorities. We then hold the States responsible for showing progress in meeting those goals, to reward those who do and, yes, to punish those who do not better educate our children. In this approach, we believe and hope, are the seeds of a bipartisan solution. It brings together what is best on both sides of the favored educational reform. For those who call for more resources and more targeting to poor urban and rural districts, we are proposing increasing our investment in ESEA by $25 billion over the next 5 years, 80 percent of which would be put into title I. For those who call for more flexibility of local control, we propose consolidating the mass of Federal categorical grant programs, a kind of Washington-knows-best attitude, into five performance-based partnership grants, all of which are tied to the overarching goal of raising our children's academic achievement. And for everyone, the parent in particular, who is concerned about the bottom line--and the bottom line here is how well are my children being educated--we propose making accountability our new education linchpin by rewarding States that exceed their own performance goals and punishing those who routinely fail to show such progress. We plan to introduce this bill next week and hope to have it considered on the floor during the ESEA debate. In the meantime, I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a hard look at that proposal and the ideas behind it. I recognize nothing we do at the Federal level can, by itself, solve the problems of education in our country. But we can create incentives for change and innovation. We can identify the way and build the will to get there, which is our goal, as is, may I say, the goal of the underlying bill before the Senate today. I support the Landrieu amendment. I am proud also to state my support for the Coverdell-Torricelli bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I agree.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I agree.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Delaware for his kind words and the spirit of cooperation in which we have worked on this and on so many other matters over the years. I could not agree with him more on what he said. There is an irony here. It is as if folks in places such as Russia are still doing what we sometimes criticize people in our country for doing--going by a cold- war mentality. But it is a cold-war mentality heavily not only affected by communism, but what the Senator has said, capitalism. So they are selling for short-term gains that, before very long, will endanger them more than us. This is our attempt to say: We are in this together. We are threatened by what you are doing, but watch out, friends, you are going to be threatened soon yourselves. I thank the Senator for his characteristically straight talk-- although he is not on the Straight Talk Express. He is a straight talker in the Senate Chamber. I thank him for his support.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support this legislation. I particularly wish to thank the majority leader for his steadfast and very strong support for this important piece of legislation. The majority leader has recognized the serious threat that the proliferation of ballistic missile capacity and weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations, such as Iran, represents to our forces in the Middle East, to our allies in the Middle East, and in the not-too- distant future--maybe real soon--to our allies in Europe, and, heaven protect us, to the United States of America, to our homeland. We have talked a lot in this Chamber, and outside, about national missile defense. We crossed a bridge on this issue last year, I think, with the bipartisan legislation sponsored initially by the majority leader's colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. But if we are now involved in an effort to develop a national missile defense, does it not make sense to use whatever authority we have to deter, to retard, and, if possible, to prevent a rogue nation, such as Iran, from developing the capacity to strike us and our allies? This is to me the other side of the American effort to protect us and our people and our allies from what, in the years ahead, I am afraid will be the single most serious threat to our security, which is, the proliferation of ballistic missile capacity and weapons of mass destruction. The majority leader has been the leader on the bill we are considering today, and I have been privileged to work with him on it. I appreciate the broad bipartisan support we have on this measure. As the majority leader said, this legislation could have been stronger. It started out stronger when we introduced the initial legislation, but in the process of trying to get something done, we modified it. It still makes an important statement to the world about the steadfast commitment of the Congress of the United States to do everything we can to diminish the threat of weapons of mass destruction carried by ballistic missiles. It sends a message to our friends in Russia about the intensity of our concern about their part in helping Iran develop weapons of mass destruction. I believe it sends a message to the Administration of the United States about the broad bipartisan support in Congress for tougher actions against any nation, including Russia--with whom we have a developing relationship--if they are supporting Iran in the development of this destructive capacity. A reporter stopped me earlier today on the way to the Chamber and asked: Aren't you worried about the effect that passage of the Iran Nonproliferation Act will have on the Government of Russia or in the Presidential elections coming in Russia? My answer, directly, is no. But, obviously, we are all concerned and hopeful that the forces of reform will take hold in Russia and bring stability and progress to that country. But our first concern has to be not what happens in Russia, but what we can do to protect the security of the American people in this country and our forces abroad from the threat of weapons of mass destruction carried by ballistic missiles. If the Russian Government will be true to its own statements about working against proliferation, then there will be no problem for Russia as a result of the passage of this legislation. My colleagues have talked about changes in Iran. The developments are most remarkable in Iran. There is a whole new generation of Iranians and, if I am not mistaken, more than half of it was not of age when the extreme Islamic revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, occurred in the late 1970s. It is a generation that appears to want reform, better lives for themselves, freedom, better relations with the West, and better relations with the United States of America. Remarkably, in the midst of the very authoritarian government that came into power in the late 1970s and has been there since, the Iranians have continued to have elections. Here is the power of the people at work again. Last Friday, apparently, more than four out of five eligible voters came out to vote in Iran. I say, parenthetically, what an embarrassment it should be to us to recall that in 1998, the last time we had a congressional election--our own, if you will, parliamentary election--36 percent of the eligible voters came out to vote; only one-third, as compared to more than four-fifths in Iran. They are apparently expressing very broad support for the forces of reform. Does that diminish the concern we have about what Iran is doing? Not immediately, unfortunately. Because the power is still exercised by a small group of leaders at the top. Not by the reform-oriented, moderate President Khatami, but by the religious leaders at the top who still exercise and control the agencies of foreign policy, defense policy, and intelligence policy, who still have the power to override and veto any of the acts, even of this new reform Parliament. The focus of our concern about Iran is that it has been our most implacable foe in the recent past and that it has been the single most intransigent supporter of terrorism against this Nation and our allies, a reality that remains unchanged. The thought that weapons of mass destruction, carried by ballistic missiles, would be in the possession of this nation, effectively still controlled by this small group of enemies of the United States, should fill us with the most profound fear and anxiety. It is from that fear and anxiety that this bill emerges. It is not the first time we have expressed our concerns about these developments in Iran. In previous enactments we have given the Administration the tools to try to address this problem, specifically in the Arms Export Control Act and in the Iran-Iraq Sanctions Act. But we were not satisfied with those measures and the way they were being used, so we passed the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act in 1997, a measure similar to this legislation we are considering today. Unfortunately, the President chose to veto that legislation. That is why H.R. 1883 was introduced and why it passed the House overwhelmingly, 419-0, with every Member of both parties who voted supporting it. Since 1997, our concern about the problem has not diminished. It is widely and reliably reported--this is why we are back with this legislation--that entities and people in Russia continue to provide both technology and assistance to Iran to build these dangerous weapons. Iran has made worrying progress on its missile program, as the majority leader indicated and as the intelligence reports, classified as they are, which are available to our colleagues, clearly state. I cite also an unclassified source. According to the Congressional Research Service, with help from Russians and others, notably North Koreans and Chinese, Iran has produced a Shahab 3 ballistic missile with a range of 800 miles and tested it; on July 22, 1998, to be exact. Although the first test was apparently unsuccessful, the Congressional Research Service reports that the Shahab 3 is now thought to be operational and in production. There also have been credible reports that Iran is in the process of developing yet another, more advanced missile, the Shahab 4, which would have a range of up to 2,000 miles, more than double the range of the Shahab 3. We have some basis for believing the Iranians are now working on intercontinental ballistic missiles. If combined with weapons of mass destruction, these existing Iranian missiles can threaten American forces and our allies and friends in the Middle East and, soon after that, as indicated, our forces and allies throughout Europe and, of course, eventually, the American homeland itself. This is a frightening prospect, given Iran's large chemical weapons program and aggressive attempt to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. The American Government has made it clear that Iran is attempting--in this case largely with China's help--to reach self- sufficiency in the manufacture and stockpiling of chemical weapons, though Iran continues to deny that charge. Concerns have also been expressed by authorities in our country that Iran is seeking to become a nuclear arms state by attempting to buy material for such weapons or by using nonmilitary nuclear assistance to build up its knowledge about nuclear weapons. These programs in Iran can profoundly change the balance of power in the region and strike a very serious blow to our efforts to contain Iran until it becomes a responsible member of the community of nations, until the forces of change which are blowing so hopefully through Iran, even as we speak today, reach fruition and a change of policy. I am sure most everyone in this Chamber will look forward to a day when sanctions of this kind will not be necessary because a new government, representing what seems to be the clear will of the Iranian people, would be in power in Tehran; a government with which the United States of America and our allies could have constructive and peaceful relations. But until that time, the kinds of weapons capabilities that are being developed allow Iran to threaten, for instance, friendly Arab States, making it harder for them to cooperate with the United States. These weapons capabilities would raise the risks to U.S. military forces in the region and could threaten the free flow of oil out of this critical region which could, of course, create crises in the United States, in Europe, Asia, and in any other place in the world that depends on fuel from the Middle East to power their economies. It is self-evident and axiomatic that we have to do whatever we can to try to deter this dangerous capability, to delay it, to retard it as best we can, given the Iranian Government that now exists. Part of that is making clear, as I believe this legislation does, to our friends in Russia in no uncertain terms that we are serious about this. The time for hit and miss, slower, bob-and-weave progress toward shutting off Russian assistance to Iran for the development of these dangerous programs is over. In addition to other sanctions, we have focused in this bill on holding up extraordinary, as we call it, American funding for the international space station to the Russian space agency, unless Russia takes sufficient action to halt any part it is playing in proliferation to Iran. This is our attempt to demonstrate the seriousness of our concern about this matter, even to the extent of stopping the funding of a program that is not only important to us--that is, space cooperation--but important to the Russians. While we cannot expect to prevent all technology transfers to rogue states, we do have the ability to check the flow of some of it by adopting the kinds of sanctions in this legislation that are aimed at persons engaged in such activity. We are able and therefore must act to take measures against those governments that condone such activity, whether or not they are organizing and abetting the transfer, or merely looking the other way when their citizens engage in these activities. Senator Lott quoted CIA Director George Tenet. Director Tenet has made quite clear that despite the noticeable shifts within Iran, it remains ``the most active state sponsor of terrorism.'' Iran's support for dangerous terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, through training, money, and weapons, has just not ended. There are people in our country, people whom I respect, who continue to sustain the belief, based on evidence they have gathered, that Iran was involved in the 1996 attack on American service personnel at Khobar in Saudi Arabia, though no definitive conclusion has been reached on that matter. We have been engaged in a dialog across a wide spectrum with our friends and allies in trying to address the issue of proliferation to Iran. The prospect of a nuclear-capable, militarily powerful Iran armed with ballistic missiles is clearly a threat to our national interests and to those of our allies; therefore, we must act to stop it. The sanctions we are proposing will further stop the diffusion of this technology and lead to a more stable Middle East. I echo the words of the majority leader: The passage of this measure may actually encourage the forces of reform in Iran which are now so boldly and inspiringly expressing themselves. It certainly does seem that those forces of reform want to have better relations with the West, with the United States. Part of what we are saying to them is, this matters to us. You must stop your support of terrorism. Stop your development of these weapons of mass destruction, and we can develop a much better relationship. The bill itself is simple and direct. It requires the President to submit reports to Congress on foreign entities where there is credible information that these entities have transferred certain goods, services, or technologies to Iran. That part of the bill would apply to any entities anywhere in the world, not just the Russians. It authorizes the President to impose measures against these entities, but does not mandate him to do so. It allows him to consider exculpatory material, material that argues against the guilt of the entities. And with an amendment that will be adopted, submitted by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, those entities will be given an opportunity to respond to those allegations before any sanctions are considered. Finally, the bill prohibits these extraordinary American payments to the Russian space agency until certain conditions enumerated in the bill are met. The purpose is to say to the Russians specifically that we keep seeing compelling evidence that entities in Russia are supporting the development of these dangerous programs within Iran. As much as we want to continue to work with Russia on joint efforts in space, we will not do so if they are contributing to this grave threat to our security. Finally, I thank Senator Lott, Senator Biden, Senator Helms, and others on both sides who have worked together to bring this bill to the floor, where I have reason to believe it will achieve strong support. I was pleased to hear representatives of the Administration indicate to some of us a short while ago that, though they may not specifically support the bill, they would not recommend that, in its current form, the President veto it. I think we are on the way to making a unified statement, which is a constructive one, and which takes a small but significant step toward protecting us, our children, and grandchildren from the threat of weapons of mass destruction carried by ballistic missiles. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I agree.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an extremely serious problem plaguing the citizens of my state of Connecticut and those throughout the Northeast--the skyrocketing cost of home heating oil and the fear of higher gas prices that will follow. This complaint may sound familiar to some of my colleagues, particularly those similarly-situated in cold-weather states. Senator Dodd and I and several others have repeatedly voiced concerns about the volatility of the heating oil-gasoline marketplace over the last several years, about the sudden swings in prices we have experienced as a result of that volatility, and the threat it poses to the livelihood of our constituents and the stability of our regional economy. The situation now, though, is more dire than anything we have seen in recent years. While I do not want to be an alarmist, I think it is critical for my colleagues to understand the severity of the squeeze many families and businesses are feeling and the potential for economic havoc. We are bordering on a real crisis. The average price of a gallon of heating oil in the Northeast has jumped more than 100 percent since mid-January. Many families are really struggling to pay their bills and keep their families warm. Dealers and distributors are reporting significant shortages throughout the region, which promises to send prices spiraling even higher in the near term. And if this vicious cycle of high demand and low supply continues to turn, and if the weather stays the way it has, many households may literally be left out in the cold, and their well-being put at risk. It is not just consumers, though, who are being hit hard by this price spike. It is also hurting a number of small businesses that are not prepared to absorb this kind of sudden surge in costs. It sure is hurting many small companies in the heating oil industry, the independent distributors and retailers, who form the backbone of this market. I have already heard of one oil dealer in Connecticut who owns a family business and who needed to take out a second mortgage on his home to make it through this hardship. It may not be long before others join him. There is also the very real risk of some small dealers being forced out of business. As a result of all this, a conspicuous current of fear and uncertainty is rippling throughout the Northeast. People are anxious for some answers just as they are desperate for some relief. Like many of my colleagues, my offices have been inundated with calls from around the state from outraged homeowners demanding to know why their heating bills are going through the roof and what we are doing to bring them down. We know that supplies are low and demand is high, and that is the basic source of the problem. But it goes much deeper than that. The decision made by OPEC to limit the production and supply of crude oil on the international market has been a major factor. Our domestic supply has shrunk considerably. Another factor has been the temperature; the cold weather and strong winds have not only kept demand high, they have frozen rivers and made it difficult at times for oil barges to dock and unload their product. And some questions have to be raised about the choices made by the major oil companies, while the supply of crude oil may have been sufficient to meet demand, the refiners may have made matters worse by focusing on turning out more gasoline than heating oil in anticipation of a warmer winter. These questions deserve more attention, and I intend to press for more information about how these decisions are being made about utilization of capacity, which are critical to determining oil supplies and by extension oil prices. But the complexity of this problem does not mean we are powerless to help. Along with Senator Dodd and the rest of our state delegation, we have been doing all we can to provide some immediate relief from these spiraling prices and troubling shortages. One of our principal concerns is for the low-income families who are being asked to choose between putting food on the table and heating their homes. The price spike is hitting these families the hardest, and we are doing our best to help them make it through. A bipartisan coalition sent a letter to the President two weeks ago urging him to quickly release emergency funds from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which is a critical first line of defense for our neighbors who are least able to cope with sudden price surges. The President thankfully responded by releasing $45 million for the disadvantaged families of New England, including $3.1 million for those in Connecticut. This was a significant gesture, but there are many families who won't benefit from it. That is why just two days ago our coalition sent the President another letter requesting that an additional $200 million in LIHEAP funding be released immediately. I hope the President again hears our concerns and heeds our call. I am also concerned about the independent oil suppliers in the Northeast. Most home heating oil distributors are small businesses with few employees; these businesses are not always in the position to weather severe price fluctuations or shortages as we are seeing now. Part of the problem is that small oil dealers often must pay the high price of crude oil from large wholesalers before they are able to collect on oil sales to residential homes. This leaves them with few reserves to make due. To help relieve the burden on these businesses, I have asked the Small Business Administration to make available a package of short turnaround loans and technical assistance. The SBA has been highly sensitive to this problem, and they are moving quickly to spread the word around the region about these options. Along with several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I have supported and continue to support a drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to quickly boost stocks in the Northeast and thereby quickly reduce prices. Senator Dodd and I and several of our colleagues from neighboring states have lobbied hard for the Administration to take that step. We have cosponsored legislation that explicitly authorizes the Secretary of Energy to tap the SPR in these circumstances. We wrote the President two weeks ago urging him to approve a drawdown as soon as possible. And shortly thereafter we met with Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to plead this case directly. The Secretary unfortunately has been reluctant to pursue this option, but we have not given up hope of changing his mind, and will continue to push our argument. While we believe the SPR drawdown is critical to getting us through this short-term emergency, it is not a long-term solution. It will not and cannot defuse the volatility of the heating oil marketplace. But there are a number of steps we can take to prevent these disruptive price spikes from cycling in and out. First, it is important that we convince leaders of the oil-producing nations that colluding to hold down supply is not in their long-term interest. As we have seen, prices of oil have indeed gone up, but there is growing resentment of the policies of OPEC as our citizens feel a strengthening pinch. It is important that these countries understand that if they continue with this strategy, they may jeopardize good relations with the United States. Secretary Richardson will soon be meeting with OPEC's leaders, and we are pressing him to forcefully communicate this message to our allies and trading partners. Second, we should take a hard look at the use of interruptible gas contracts by natural gas suppliers and the evidence that these contracts may be exacerbating the volatility of the heating oil market. These ``interruptible" contracts can be obtained at a discount rate in exchange for giving the contractor the ability to suspend service when gas supply is low or demand is high. When these contracts are interrupted, many customers typically turn to heating oil as their preferred alternative, creating a sudden, secondary demand jolt to the oil market. I have heard from a number of leaders in the heating oil industry who fear that this is exactly what is happening now. We need to better understand the level of additional heating oil demand caused by these types of contracts and be able to anticipate demand fluctuations as accurately as possible so that we may avoid future situations where demand exceeds supply. For that reason, I recently asked Secretary Richardson to investigate the extent and impact of interruptible contracts, and to report back to us on his findings to determine what if anything we should do about this practice. Our current situation points to the fundamental problem that we are far too dependent upon foreign oil for our energy needs. We need to employ long-term strategies to decrease our reliance upon foreign nations and bolster our own energy capacity. Many of us have cosponsored legislation in the past to increase research and development funding for renewable energy sources. We need to invest time, money, and an increased level of effort in the development of energy efficient power sources such as wind, solar, and natural gas. I will continue to work toward this goal and I strongly urge my colleagues to do so as well. Mr. President, as I said, I rise to speak about a very serious problem plaguing the citizens of Connecticut and the Northeast; that is, the skyrocketing cost of home heating oil and the fear of higher gas prices that will come with the warmer weather. There is a very complicated situation as to why it exists. It begins with the decision by the OPEC cartel to reduce the supply of oil. It goes to the decision of some oil companies not to refine adequate supplies of home heating oil. Whatever the complexity, it does not mean that we are powerless to help. Senator Dodd and I, and the rest of our delegation, on earlier occasions, with colleagues from throughout the Northeast from both parties, have appealed to the President to release Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program funding. He did that--$45 million worth. We have another request in now for an additional $200 million. It is that bad in our State. The real answer to this is to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and effect the laws of supply and demand, 560 million barrels of oil that we, the taxpayers, U.S. Government own. This is the time to use it. Up until now, Secretary Richardson and the administration have refused to do so. I appeal to them today on behalf of the people of Connecticut who are suffering under the shock of doubling and in some cases tripling of what they pay for home heating oil. Please open up the reserve. There is now a new idea of swaps, not selling the oil but allowing the oil companies to take it out of reserve, bring it into the market, increase supply, lower price, and then put oil back into the reserve, even a higher amount. The short of it is, we are in crisis in the Northeast. It is a crisis that, if it is not stopped and is allowed to go on, with higher gasoline prices that will affect the rest of the country in spring time, it will begin to create the kind of inflation that will cut the economic growth we have enjoyed.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an extremely serious problem plaguing the citizens of my state of Connecticut and those throughout the Northeast--the skyrocketing cost of home heating oil and the fear of higher gas prices that will follow. This complaint may sound familiar to some of my colleagues, particularly those similarly-situated in cold-weather states. Senator Dodd and I and several others have repeatedly voiced concerns about the volatility of the heating oil-gasoline marketplace over the last several years, about the sudden swings in prices we have experienced as a result of that volatility, and the threat it poses to the livelihood of our constituents and the stability of our regional economy. The situation now, though, is more dire than anything we have seen in recent years. While I do not want to be an alarmist, I think it is critical for my colleagues to understand the severity of the squeeze many families and businesses are feeling and the potential for economic havoc. We are bordering on a real crisis. The average price of a gallon of heating oil in the Northeast has jumped more than 100 percent since mid-January. Many families are really struggling to pay their bills and keep their families warm. Dealers and distributors are reporting significant shortages throughout the region, which promises to send prices spiraling even higher in the near term. And if this vicious cycle of high demand and low supply continues to turn, and if the weather stays the way it has, many households may literally be left out in the cold, and their well-being put at risk. It is not just consumers, though, who are being hit hard by this price spike. It is also hurting a number of small businesses that are not prepared to absorb this kind of sudden surge in costs. It sure is hurting many small companies in the heating oil industry, the independent distributors and retailers, who form the backbone of this market. I have already heard of one oil dealer in Connecticut who owns a family business and who needed to take out a second mortgage on his home to make it through this hardship. It may not be long before others join him. There is also the very real risk of some small dealers being forced out of business. As a result of all this, a conspicuous current of fear and uncertainty is rippling throughout the Northeast. People are anxious for some answers just as they are desperate for some relief. Like many of my colleagues, my offices have been inundated with calls from around the state from outraged homeowners demanding to know why their heating bills are going through the roof and what we are doing to bring them down. We know that supplies are low and demand is high, and that is the basic source of the problem. But it goes much deeper than that. The decision made by OPEC to limit the production and supply of crude oil on the international market has been a major factor. Our domestic supply has shrunk considerably. Another factor has been the temperature; the cold weather and strong winds have not only kept demand high, they have frozen rivers and made it difficult at times for oil barges to dock and unload their product. And some questions have to be raised about the choices made by the major oil companies, while the supply of crude oil may have been sufficient to meet demand, the refiners may have made matters worse by focusing on turning out more gasoline than heating oil in anticipation of a warmer winter. These questions deserve more attention, and I intend to press for more information about how these decisions are being made about utilization of capacity, which are critical to determining oil supplies and by extension oil prices. But the complexity of this problem does not mean we are powerless to help. Along with Senator Dodd and the rest of our state delegation, we have been doing all we can to provide some immediate relief from these spiraling prices and troubling shortages. One of our principal concerns is for the low-income families who are being asked to choose between putting food on the table and heating their homes. The price spike is hitting these families the hardest, and we are doing our best to help them make it through. A bipartisan coalition sent a letter to the President two weeks ago urging him to quickly release emergency funds from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which is a critical first line of defense for our neighbors who are least able to cope with sudden price surges. The President thankfully responded by releasing $45 million for the disadvantaged families of New England, including $3.1 million for those in Connecticut. This was a significant gesture, but there are many families who won't benefit from it. That is why just two days ago our coalition sent the President another letter requesting that an additional $200 million in LIHEAP funding be released immediately. I hope the President again hears our concerns and heeds our call. I am also concerned about the independent oil suppliers in the Northeast. Most home heating oil distributors are small businesses with few employees; these businesses are not always in the position to weather severe price fluctuations or shortages as we are seeing now. Part of the problem is that small oil dealers often must pay the high price of crude oil from large wholesalers before they are able to collect on oil sales to residential homes. This leaves them with few reserves to make due. To help relieve the burden on these businesses, I have asked the Small Business Administration to make available a package of short turnaround loans and technical assistance. The SBA has been highly sensitive to this problem, and they are moving quickly to spread the word around the region about these options. Along with several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I have supported and continue to support a drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to quickly boost stocks in the Northeast and thereby quickly reduce prices. Senator Dodd and I and several of our colleagues from neighboring states have lobbied hard for the Administration to take that step. We have cosponsored legislation that explicitly authorizes the Secretary of Energy to tap the SPR in these circumstances. We wrote the President two weeks ago urging him to approve a drawdown as soon as possible. And shortly thereafter we met with Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to plead this case directly. The Secretary unfortunately has been reluctant to pursue this option, but we have not given up hope of changing his mind, and will continue to push our argument. While we believe the SPR drawdown is critical to getting us through this short-term emergency, it is not a long-term solution. It will not and cannot defuse the volatility of the heating oil marketplace. But there are a number of steps we can take to prevent these disruptive price spikes from cycling in and out. First, it is important that we convince leaders of the oil-producing nations that colluding to hold down supply is not in their long-term interest. As we have seen, prices of oil have indeed gone up, but there is growing resentment of the policies of OPEC as our citizens feel a strengthening pinch. It is important that these countries understand that if they continue with this strategy, they may jeopardize good relations with the United States. Secretary Richardson will soon be meeting with OPEC's leaders, and we are pressing him to forcefully communicate this message to our allies and trading partners. Second, we should take a hard look at the use of interruptible gas contracts by natural gas suppliers and the evidence that these contracts may be exacerbating the volatility of the heating oil market. These ``interruptible" contracts can be obtained at a discount rate in exchange for giving the contractor the ability to suspend service when gas supply is low or demand is high. When these contracts are interrupted, many customers typically turn to heating oil as their preferred alternative, creating a sudden, secondary demand jolt to the oil market. I have heard from a number of leaders in the heating oil industry who fear that this is exactly what is happening now. We need to better understand the level of additional heating oil demand caused by these types of contracts and be able to anticipate demand fluctuations as accurately as possible so that we may avoid future situations where demand exceeds supply. For that reason, I recently asked Secretary Richardson to investigate the extent and impact of interruptible contracts, and to report back to us on his findings to determine what if anything we should do about this practice. Our current situation points to the fundamental problem that we are far too dependent upon foreign oil for our energy needs. We need to employ long-term strategies to decrease our reliance upon foreign nations and bolster our own energy capacity. Many of us have cosponsored legislation in the past to increase research and development funding for renewable energy sources. We need to invest time, money, and an increased level of effort in the development of energy efficient power sources such as wind, solar, and natural gas. I will continue to work toward this goal and I strongly urge my colleagues to do so as well. Mr. President, as I said, I rise to speak about a very serious problem plaguing the citizens of Connecticut and the Northeast; that is, the skyrocketing cost of home heating oil and the fear of higher gas prices that will come with the warmer weather. There is a very complicated situation as to why it exists. It begins with the decision by the OPEC cartel to reduce the supply of oil. It goes to the decision of some oil companies not to refine adequate supplies of home heating oil. Whatever the complexity, it does not mean that we are powerless to help. Senator Dodd and I, and the rest of our delegation, on earlier occasions, with colleagues from throughout the Northeast from both parties, have appealed to the President to release Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program funding. He did that--$45 million worth. We have another request in now for an additional $200 million. It is that bad in our State. The real answer to this is to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and effect the laws of supply and demand, 560 million barrels of oil that we, the taxpayers, U.S. Government own. This is the time to use it. Up until now, Secretary Richardson and the administration have refused to do so. I appeal to them today on behalf of the people of Connecticut who are suffering under the shock of doubling and in some cases tripling of what they pay for home heating oil. Please open up the reserve. There is now a new idea of swaps, not selling the oil but allowing the oil companies to take it out of reserve, bring it into the market, increase supply, lower price, and then put oil back into the reserve, even a higher amount. The short of it is, we are in crisis in the Northeast. It is a crisis that, if it is not stopped and is allowed to go on, with higher gasoline prices that will affect the rest of the country in spring time, it will begin to create the kind of inflation that will cut the economic growth we have enjoyed.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce with my esteemed colleagues, Senators Santorum, Abraham, Feinstein, Landrieu, Bayh, and Robb, the Savings for Working Families Act of 2000. This legislation directly addresses a problem that is now starting to receive the attention that it deserves: the growing wealth gap in our country. This legislation builds on a bipartisan effort begun last session to help more low-income working families join our country's economic mainstream by addressing that wealth gap. Passing this legislation will help expand our economic winner's circle to include more working families. Because what goes up for the richest families, particularly in these boom times, need not come down for other families. Today with my colleagues, I put forward a modest yet promising proposal that we believe will help more low income families share in our country's economic prosperity. Today we will introduce new legislation to support the expansion of Individual Development Accounts, or IDAs, an innovative and powerful tool to help the working poor save and develop the assets they need to get ahead and thrive in the new economy--to enter the winner's circle. The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 will benefit working, low-income families across this country to share in the unprecedented prosperity of our booming economy. Our bill brings together Republicans and Democrats, policy wonks and working mothers, and even financial institutions and consumers, all in support of a new approach to sustaining some American ideals--hard work, thrift, individual responsibility, and entrepreneurship. The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 provides the real incentives and real opportunities for the working poor to build assets, both human and financial capital, which they in turn will be able to invest in our national economy. Today's economy is defying gravity. The stock market is jumping to record highs while inflation and unemployment are hovering at record lows. Millions of Americans are reaping the benefits of the longest economic expansion in our history, including millions of working middle class families. Unfortunately, millions more are not. Several recent studies have documented a growing income gap in the U.S.--an increasing income disparity between the rich and poor with declining incomes for both poor and low-income families. In addition to that income gap, a report released recently by the Federal Reserve Bank, has identified a significant asset gap in this country. A gap where the net worth--or assets--of the typical American family has risen substantially since 1989, while the net worth--or assets--of lower income families has actually declined during the economic boom of recent years. According to the Fed report, families earning under $10,000 a year had a median net worth of $1,900 in 1989. That climbed to $4,800 in 1995, but had slipped back to $3,600 by 1998. Those families earning $10,000 to $25,000 saw their net worth drop from $31,000 in 1995 to $24,800 in 1998. More specifically, while the percent of all U.S. families that own a home or business has risen during the boom years of 1995-98, the percent among lower income families has decreased. For example, in 1995, 36.1% of families earning under $10,000 annually owned their home. By 1998 the rate had dropped to 34.5%. The drop for families earning $10,000 to $25,000 was from 54.9% to 51.7%. The same story is true for the percent of lower income families owning a business. The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 will directly address exactly this asset gap. Our bill seeks to address this imbalance by dramatically expanding the use of IDAs. IDA programs do work and are reporting real success in spurring savings and asset building on a small scale in hundreds of communities across the country. Already 27 states have passed some form of IDA program legislation. In my home state of Connecticut, there is today only one pilot IDA program in existence. A handful of low income individuals are now starting to take part in a strong IDA program run by the Committee for Training and Employment, or CTE, a cutting edge community-based organization providing a range of services and activities to address poverty issues in the greater Stamford area. In Connecticut we are hopeful that we will soon be seeing an expansion of IDA accounts and programs. A statewide IDA Task force, convened by Connecticut State Treasurer, Denise L. Nappier, recently released a report to jump-start more IDA activity in the state. Its thoughtful analysis and authoritative recommendations will certainly help to increase IDAs in our state. The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 was drafted in consideration of the excellent IDA work under way in states and communities all across the country. The idea is simple, but powerful. Low income workers who put their hard earned dollars into IDAs would get matching funds from financial and other private entities. A federal tax credit will provide the incentives for those private sector investments in IDAs. The IDA savings could then be used by low income working families to develop assets, specifically for the purchase of a home, the pursuit of a postsecondary education, or to start a business. In essence, this legislation extends to lower income working families the type of incentives for building assets, such as the home mortgage interest deduction, preferential capital gains rates and pension funds exclusions and incentives, that are now available on a large scale to the non-poor and wealthy. Just last week, President Clinton underscored the promise of this approach in his State of the Union Address, when he put forward his Retirement Savings Account (RSA) proposal. Those RSAs are similar to the IDAs in this bill. In his proposal, the President rightly identified the potential of the private sector in strengthening the economic security of many of our most vulnerable citizens. Just as important, he made clear, as we do in the Savings for Working Families Act, that these IDA accounts are not simply an empty promise for a handout. They are a means to integrate more Americans into the broader economic mainstream. In drafting this new IDA legislation, our objective was to keep it simple and based closely on S. 895, a bill that Senator Santorum and I introduced last year and that enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Modifications in the Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 are primarily technical in nature, recognizing that the IDA field has grown and evolved in the last year. We have also made a concerted effort in the new bill to realize the potential of critical private sector and nonprofit organizations to be effective IDA providers, including credit unions and community service organizations. Moving forward, we are confident that we can get this bill passed because it addresses a threat to our fundamental faith in the American dream and to the vitality and long-term stability of our national economy. Our bill cannot singlehandedly eliminate the wealth gap, but we are confident that it will help carve out a little more space in that winner's circle and move us a step closer to making the American dream real for more working families. Finally, I would like to thank each of the cosponsors of this bill, especially Senators Santorum and Abraham. Through their hard work, and in conjunction with the financial services industry and the IDA field, we have legislation that achieves a very public interest. In particular, I would like to note the leadership of the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) for helping to bring the voice of the IDA community to this creation of this bill. With the Savings for Working Families Act of 2000, we are able to harness the creative forces of the marketplace to help secure our core democratic values, holding out the hope of free enterprise without the false promise of a free lunch, and giving some tangible meaning to those core values of community, opportunity and responsibility. In expanding the use of IDAs across the country as an empowerment tool for working families, this legislation speaks to our shared aspirations as Americans.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce with my esteemed colleagues, Senators Santorum, Abraham, Feinstein, Landrieu, Bayh, and Robb, the Savings for Working Families Act of 2000. This legislation directly addresses a problem that is now starting to receive the attention that it deserves: the growing wealth gap in our country. This legislation builds on a bipartisan effort begun last session to help more low-income working families join our country's economic mainstream by addressing that wealth gap. Passing this legislation will help expand our economic winner's circle to include more working families. Because what goes up for the richest families, particularly in these boom times, need not come down for other families. Today with my colleagues, I put forward a modest yet promising proposal that we believe will help more low income families share in our country's economic prosperity. Today we will introduce new legislation to support the expansion of Individual Development Accounts, or IDAs, an innovative and powerful tool to help the working poor save and develop the assets they need to get ahead and thrive in the new economy--to enter the winner's circle. The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 will benefit working, low-income families across this country to share in the unprecedented prosperity of our booming economy. Our bill brings together Republicans and Democrats, policy wonks and working mothers, and even financial institutions and consumers, all in support of a new approach to sustaining some American ideals--hard work, thrift, individual responsibility, and entrepreneurship. The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 provides the real incentives and real opportunities for the working poor to build assets, both human and financial capital, which they in turn will be able to invest in our national economy. Today's economy is defying gravity. The stock market is jumping to record highs while inflation and unemployment are hovering at record lows. Millions of Americans are reaping the benefits of the longest economic expansion in our history, including millions of working middle class families. Unfortunately, millions more are not. Several recent studies have documented a growing income gap in the U.S.--an increasing income disparity between the rich and poor with declining incomes for both poor and low-income families. In addition to that income gap, a report released recently by the Federal Reserve Bank, has identified a significant asset gap in this country. A gap where the net worth--or assets--of the typical American family has risen substantially since 1989, while the net worth--or assets--of lower income families has actually declined during the economic boom of recent years. According to the Fed report, families earning under $10,000 a year had a median net worth of $1,900 in 1989. That climbed to $4,800 in 1995, but had slipped back to $3,600 by 1998. Those families earning $10,000 to $25,000 saw their net worth drop from $31,000 in 1995 to $24,800 in 1998. More specifically, while the percent of all U.S. families that own a home or business has risen during the boom years of 1995-98, the percent among lower income families has decreased. For example, in 1995, 36.1% of families earning under $10,000 annually owned their home. By 1998 the rate had dropped to 34.5%. The drop for families earning $10,000 to $25,000 was from 54.9% to 51.7%. The same story is true for the percent of lower income families owning a business. The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 will directly address exactly this asset gap. Our bill seeks to address this imbalance by dramatically expanding the use of IDAs. IDA programs do work and are reporting real success in spurring savings and asset building on a small scale in hundreds of communities across the country. Already 27 states have passed some form of IDA program legislation. In my home state of Connecticut, there is today only one pilot IDA program in existence. A handful of low income individuals are now starting to take part in a strong IDA program run by the Committee for Training and Employment, or CTE, a cutting edge community-based organization providing a range of services and activities to address poverty issues in the greater Stamford area. In Connecticut we are hopeful that we will soon be seeing an expansion of IDA accounts and programs. A statewide IDA Task force, convened by Connecticut State Treasurer, Denise L. Nappier, recently released a report to jump-start more IDA activity in the state. Its thoughtful analysis and authoritative recommendations will certainly help to increase IDAs in our state. The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 was drafted in consideration of the excellent IDA work under way in states and communities all across the country. The idea is simple, but powerful. Low income workers who put their hard earned dollars into IDAs would get matching funds from financial and other private entities. A federal tax credit will provide the incentives for those private sector investments in IDAs. The IDA savings could then be used by low income working families to develop assets, specifically for the purchase of a home, the pursuit of a postsecondary education, or to start a business. In essence, this legislation extends to lower income working families the type of incentives for building assets, such as the home mortgage interest deduction, preferential capital gains rates and pension funds exclusions and incentives, that are now available on a large scale to the non-poor and wealthy. Just last week, President Clinton underscored the promise of this approach in his State of the Union Address, when he put forward his Retirement Savings Account (RSA) proposal. Those RSAs are similar to the IDAs in this bill. In his proposal, the President rightly identified the potential of the private sector in strengthening the economic security of many of our most vulnerable citizens. Just as important, he made clear, as we do in the Savings for Working Families Act, that these IDA accounts are not simply an empty promise for a handout. They are a means to integrate more Americans into the broader economic mainstream. In drafting this new IDA legislation, our objective was to keep it simple and based closely on S. 895, a bill that Senator Santorum and I introduced last year and that enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Modifications in the Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 are primarily technical in nature, recognizing that the IDA field has grown and evolved in the last year. We have also made a concerted effort in the new bill to realize the potential of critical private sector and nonprofit organizations to be effective IDA providers, including credit unions and community service organizations. Moving forward, we are confident that we can get this bill passed because it addresses a threat to our fundamental faith in the American dream and to the vitality and long-term stability of our national economy. Our bill cannot singlehandedly eliminate the wealth gap, but we are confident that it will help carve out a little more space in that winner's circle and move us a step closer to making the American dream real for more working families. Finally, I would like to thank each of the cosponsors of this bill, especially Senators Santorum and Abraham. Through their hard work, and in conjunction with the financial services industry and the IDA field, we have legislation that achieves a very public interest. In particular, I would like to note the leadership of the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) for helping to bring the voice of the IDA community to this creation of this bill. With the Savings for Working Families Act of 2000, we are able to harness the creative forces of the marketplace to help secure our core democratic values, holding out the hope of free enterprise without the false promise of a free lunch, and giving some tangible meaning to those core values of community, opportunity and responsibility. In expanding the use of IDAs across the country as an empowerment tool for working families, this legislation speaks to our shared aspirations as Americans.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for raising this important consumer issue. Seven weeks ago, I held a forum on payday lending to help educate myself and the public on this troubling consumer credit practice. At the forum, we heard from representatives of the payday industry, consumer advocates, state regulators, and a credit union representative. We also were fortunate to hear from two Navy servicemen, one a payday borrower and one a commander who provides financial counseling to his sailors. Their stories of military personnel caught in cycles of debt to payday lenders helped me realize the impact this issue can have on individuals' lives. For example, Captain Robert W. Andersen, commanding officer of Patrol Squadron 30 in Jacksonville, FL, testified that sailors who take payday loans are often victims of a ``snowball effect or financial death spiral they cannot recover from.'' For those who aren't familiar with payday lending, let me explain how it works. Someone who is short of cash can borrow money using his or her future paycheck as security. The borrower usually writes a check for the loan amount plus a fee, and then the lender agrees not to cash the check until after the borrower's next paycheck comes in. Payday lenders commonly promote their product as quick and easy cash. But what they don't usually advertise is that this is one of the most expensive consumer credit products in existence. Interest rates on payday loans average about 500 percent annually, with some loans going well over 1000 percent APR. Among the frequent borrowers who pay these high fees are those with particularly limited ability to repay the loan, including enlisted military personnel, college students, and senior citizens on fixed incomes. Despite the fact that payday loans are marketed as short-term credit, intended to help people get through one rough pay period, a disturbingly high number of payday borrowers apparently soon discover that they can't pay their loan off immediately, and so they end up rolling their loan over for another--and another, and another--term. According to a study by the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions, 77 percent of all payday loan transactions are rollover transactions, and the average annual number of renewals per borrower is over ten. As a result, consumers can end up paying amounts in interest and fees that dwarf their initial loans--and make it very difficult for them to repay the principal. One borrower in Kentucky, for example, ended up paying $1,000 in fees for a loan of only $150 over a period of six months--and the borrower still owed the $150. It is cases like these that has led the Consumer Federation of America to call payday lending ``legal loan sharking.'' As the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) stated in written testimony provided for the forum: It is not difficult to see how a borrower could become mired in debt. A person so desperate for money that he or she is willing to pay a three-digit APR is not likely to have the cash--plus the fee--two weeks after taking out a loan. . . . Taking out a loan at 391% APR, with the obligation to repay the principal and interest charge in two weeks, is not going to help consumers who do not have the cash to cover the checks they write. (emphasis in original) And that's not the worst of it: state efforts to control rollovers appear to be failing; lenders and customers find any number of ways to roll over a loan, even if rollovers are limited or prohibited. The Illinois Department of Financial Institutions has concluded that rollover rules have ``been ineffective in stopping people from converting a short term loan into a long term headache.'' At the forum, Mark Tarpey, Consumer Credit Division Supervisor with the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions, testified: The problem with renewals is that you have an incentive for the lender to continue to collect fees as long as the customer pays them. There is no incentive to limit renewals/ rollovers. Even if you statutorily prohibit or limit renewals/rollovers, you have the problem of a customer coming in and paying cash and the lender then giving them the same funds back and calling it a new loan. There are other practices to conceal transactions from being deemed a renewal/rollover. The industry acknowledges that loan renewal is a problem, although there is dispute over just how big a problem it is. Both of the trade associations represented at the forum I held in December have adopted ``best practices'' guidelines that attempt to address this issue, but because the borrower drives the decision to renew a loan, it would be difficult for the industry guidelines to succeed. Equally disturbing are the practices that some in the payday industry have used to collect on delinquent loans--and I recognize and appreciate that the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota addresses this problem. At the forum in December, Leslie Pettijohn, the Consumer Credit Commissioner in Texas, testified: From a regulator's perspective, one of the most objectionable practices of these transactions is the threat of criminal prosecution against the consumer. When a check bounces, lenders frequently file charges against consumers with law enforcement officials and attempt to collect this debt by means of criminal prosecution. In a single precinct in Dallas County, more than 13,000 of these charges were filed by these kind of companies in one year. As I mentioned, payday lending uses as security a live check that both the borrower and the lender know is no good at the time it is written. Just as we don't imprison people for failure to pay their credit card bills or meet their mortgage payments, I do not believe that a borrower--unless he committed fraud--should be subject to threat of such severe measures for failure to make good on a payday loan, particularly because the very premise of the loan was the borrower's willingness to write a bad check. The amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota would prevent the misuse of these ``bad check'' laws, but it would still permit a fraud prosecution where appropriate. That is an important step. Again, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for raising this important issue, and I look forward to working with him to address it further in the future. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to Senator Levin's amendment, which would deny bankruptcy protection to gun companies, and to explain the reasons for my position. I intend to vote against Senator Levin's amendment despite the fact that I have consistently supported gun control legislation. I know my colleague's intentions are good, but this amendment is not the right way to address the serious problem of gun violence in our nation. It would establish a dangerous new precedent in our Bankruptcy Code, and it would unfairly discriminate against an entire category of companies, regardless of whether a given company is behaving responsibly. In Connecticut, for example, Colt's Manufacturing, which has been at the forefront of developing new technologies to make guns safer, teeters at the edge of bankruptcy because it has been caught up in the tide of lawsuits against gun companies. Would it be fair to deny Colt the normal protections afforded to any company trying to reorganize? My colleague from Michigan refers to the irresponsible practices of a few gun companies, but his amendment could cripple reputable companies such as Colt's. Senator Levin seeks to amend the Bankruptcy Code so that firearm manufacturers filing for reorganization would not be entitled to the ordinary protections from product liability lawsuits. He argues that a loophole in the bankruptcy system allows gun companies to stay lawsuits and discharge their debts. In fact, the stay of lawsuits and discharge of debts to which Senator Levin refers is no loophole, but is essential to the proper operation of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On more than one occasion, otherwise healthy companies have been hit with huge numbers of product liability cases simultaneously, and had to file for protection under Chapter 11. One recent example is Dow Corning, which filed for reorganization in response to the thousands of lawsuits over silicone breast implants, and which is now paying out claims in an orderly and expeditious process. If the lawsuits are not stayed by the bankruptcy court, then resolved in one tribunal, the company would be more likely to fail before all claimants can litigate their cases. Chapter 11 does not allow a company to evade lawsuits, but rather to pay out claims proportionately and fairly to all claimants, hopefully in a way that keeps the company afloat. This rationale for Chapter 11 bankruptcy applies to the gun industry as well. I understand why my colleague criticizes the practices of companies such as Lorcin, which churn out the ``Saturday Night Specials'' favored by criminals. But his amendment to the Bankruptcy Code is not narrowly drafted to target those companies. Many municipalities and gun control groups have adopted a strategy of filing multiple, simultaneous product liability lawsuits, in which all gun companies are named as defendants irrespective of their particular practices. The lawsuits have not succeeded on the merits thus far, but the costs of litigation are threatening the financial viability of many of the smaller companies. Colt's Manufacturing, which is among the most progressive firearms manufacturers in the country, has been drawn into the same lawsuits. Seventy percent of Colt's sales are to law enforcement and defense agencies, and the company does not produce ``Saturday Night Specials.'' Although Colt's has limited assets, it has been working to develop ``smart gun'' technology and other innovations that will reduce handgun violence. Nevertheless, Colt's has been named as a defendant in all 29 lawsuits filed so far. Despite the fact that Colt's has won four decisions and lost no final judgments, insurance companies are pulling their coverage and investors have been reluctant to provide new capital. In one year, the company has gone from 1200 to 400 employees. Colt's reports that it is in financial jeopardy as a result of the lawsuits, and may soon have to file for reorganization under Chapter 11, as it did several years ago. The amendment we are considering today would be devastating to Colt's. Rather then being given a chance to reorganize, the company would slowly be bled dry. Along with lost jobs in my state, the nation would lose a responsible company with a history of great craftsmanship which has been looking for solutions to the epidemic of handgun violence. No industry has ever been singled out in the Bankruptcy Code for this sort of discriminatory treatment. The case has not been made for why Chapter 11 should not apply equally to all sectors of the economy. There are many possible legislative approaches for addressing the appalling rates of gun violence in the United States, but this is not one of them. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, since 1983, the United States Congress and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and convey Members' views on issues of mutual concern. A staff delegation from the United States Congress will be selected to visit Germany April 7 to April 22 of this year. During the two week exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag Members, Bundestag party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic, and media agencies. Cultural activities and a weekend visit in a Bundestag Member's district will complete the schedule. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for three weeks this summer. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington and visit the districts of Congressional Members. The Congress-Bundestag Staff Exchange is highly regarded in Germany, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag reciprocates by sending senior staff professionals to the United States. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern in Germany and the United States such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, immigration, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag staff delegation when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two Bundestag staffers in their Member's district in July, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district. Participants are selected by a committee composed of personnel from the Bureau of Education and Culture Exchanges of the U.S. Department of State and past participants of the exchange. Senators and Representatives who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state why they believe they are qualified, the contributions they can make to a successful program and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications may be sent to Connie Veillette in Congressman Regula's office, 2309 Rayburn House Building by noon on Friday, March 3.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator Thompson in introducing the Government Information Security Act of 1999. This bill would put a management structure in place for the implementation of risk-based computer security measures across the government. We are introducing this bill in the closing days of this session with the hope that it will serve as the basis for launching a discussion about the most effective ways to improve government's approach to computer security. We invite and look forward to comments from government agencies, industry and academic experts, think tanks and others who have been involved in this field. Like the rest of the nation,the government is increasingly dependent on computer and other electronic information systems to collect, analyze and preserve important data and perform vital tasks. Government computer systems are rife with sensitive information pertaining to the fundamentals of our existence--our national security, the strength of our economy, transportation and communications systems, and the personal lives of millions of individual citizens. The Department of Defense and other national security agencies control our weapons of mass destruction and track the offensive movements of enemy states through complex computer programs; the Internal Revenue Service maintains an automated systems wage information on every working American; the Federal Reserve calculates key economic indicators electronically and the Center for Disease Control relies on computers to tracks threats to the nation's public health. And yet, this computer-reliant infrastructure is frighteningly vulnerable to exploitation not only by trouble-makers and professional hackers but by organized crime and international terrorists. Indeed, a disruption of our communications, transportation and energy sections could prove as destructive as any conventional weapons attack to our ability to defend our privacy, our safety, even our freedom. Indeed, witnesses before the Governmental Affairs Committee last Congress testified that the government's reliance on computer systems is not matched by a concomitant growth in the security of those systems. A series of Government Accounting Office studies found government computer security so lax that it landed on the GAO's list of ``high risk'' government programs. For example, this year, GAO reported that one of its test teams gained access to mission critical computer systems at NASA which would have allowed the team to control spacecraft or alter data returned from space. In May 1998, the GAO was able to gain unauthorized access to the State Department's networks which would have enabled GAO to modify, delete or download important data and shutdown services. And the GAO reported in September 1998 that inadequate information system controls by the Veterans Administration threatened the disruption or misuse of service delivery to the men and women who have fought our wars. Less significant on a global scale, but of utmost concern to individual citizens is the extent to which inadequate security leaves personal information, and therefore people, vulnerable to exposure and exploitation. Our legislation will address personal information maintained by the government such as benefits and tax data and demographics culled from personal information we supply to the Census Bureau. While the GAO's work is compelling, I am convinced by two other developments that legislation in this area needs to be addressed quickly. First, we have been intensely focused throughout the year on fixing the computer problems associated with Y2K. Ensuring that the information our government collects and produces is secure may seem similar to the Y2K issue because both reflect our dependency on computers and their vulnerability to programming failures and outside disruptions. The need for secure government computer systems, however, will not disappear in the first days and weeks of the year 2000. Indeed, it will be with us until we have a structure within the government dedicated to fixing these problems. Second,we have spent significant time this session digging into the Los Alamo National Laboratory espionage scandal and allegations that an employee improperly downloaded classified material to an unclassified computer. The Energy and Justice Departments are still looking into this breach of security, but it should focus everyone's attention on the vulnerability associated with extensive reliance computers and the undeniable need for improvements in how we manage and secure these systems. Mr. President, the goal of the bill we are introducing today is to protect the integrity, confidentiality and availability of information and ensure that critical improvements in the management of our computer security system take place. Specifically, our bill would: Require high-level accountability. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget will be accountable for overseeing policy while the agency heads will be accountable for developing specific security plans. Require agency heads to develop and implement security plans and policies based on the appropriate level of risk for the different type of information the agency maintains. We need to ensure that each agency's plan reflects an understanding that computer security must be an integral part of the development process for any new system. Agencies now tend to develop a system and consider security issues only as an afterthought, if at all. Establish an ongoing, periodic reporting, testing and evaluation process to gauge the effectiveness of the policies and procedures. This would be accomplished through agency budgets, program performance and financial management. Require an independent, annual audit of all information security practices and programs within an agency. The audit would be conducted either by the agency's Inspector General, GAO or an independent external auditor. GAO has told us that an audit requirement is essential to monitoring agencies' management of information security and to ensure that these systems are kept current. Require that agencies report unauthorized intrusions into government systems. GSA currently has a program where agencies can report and seek help to respond to intrusions into their information systems and share information concerning common vulnerabilities and threats. Our bill would require agencies to use this reporting and monitoring system. Mr. President, the provisions of this bill would apply to all information, including classified and unclassified information maintained on civilian and national security systems. We are also considering whether the bill's provisions should apply to government owned, contractor operated facilities including laboratories engaged in national defense research. We look forward to discussions with the defense and intelligence communities on how best to address these issues. There are a number of areas we have not addressed, and I welcome comments on how best to handle these areas. For example: We need to ensure that computer security systems will not interfere with the ability of agencies to share data and communicate with each other and the rest of the world. The new era of ``e-business'' and ``e- government'' holds untold opportunities for improving government efficiency, and that's something we want to encourage. The government needs to rapidly and safely increase the number of trained technical information security professionals. There are a range of approaches to addressing this need, including incentives to universities to train more people in this area; contracting out to the private sector; establishing a CyberCorps at universities based on the ROTC model; or establishing special career designations for personnel specializing in computer security. We should consider whether current technology will meet the government's computer security needs or whether we need to develop incentives for technology development. A Presidential advisory committee is developing recommendations based on a national laboratory model to conduct research and development of security technology with a possible secondary focus on testing. We are interested in exploring whether provisions in this bill addressing risk and technology standards, which are now voluntary, consensus-based standards, should be issued as minimum mandatory requirements for successive levels of risk. And we will also consider issues relating to budgetary needs, privacy requirements, performance measures and how best to coordinate information security and management within the federal government. Mr. President, I expect what we have proposed will generate a hearty debate. As I have said, I consider this bill a work in progress, so I look forward to hearing from a wide range of interested parties and to working with the Chairman to craft the best possible legislation to protect the integrity and the confidentiality of the government's vast storehouse of information.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator Thompson in introducing the Government Information Security Act of 1999. This bill would put a management structure in place for the implementation of risk-based computer security measures across the government. We are introducing this bill in the closing days of this session with the hope that it will serve as the basis for launching a discussion about the most effective ways to improve government's approach to computer security. We invite and look forward to comments from government agencies, industry and academic experts, think tanks and others who have been involved in this field. Like the rest of the nation,the government is increasingly dependent on computer and other electronic information systems to collect, analyze and preserve important data and perform vital tasks. Government computer systems are rife with sensitive information pertaining to the fundamentals of our existence--our national security, the strength of our economy, transportation and communications systems, and the personal lives of millions of individual citizens. The Department of Defense and other national security agencies control our weapons of mass destruction and track the offensive movements of enemy states through complex computer programs; the Internal Revenue Service maintains an automated systems wage information on every working American; the Federal Reserve calculates key economic indicators electronically and the Center for Disease Control relies on computers to tracks threats to the nation's public health. And yet, this computer-reliant infrastructure is frighteningly vulnerable to exploitation not only by trouble-makers and professional hackers but by organized crime and international terrorists. Indeed, a disruption of our communications, transportation and energy sections could prove as destructive as any conventional weapons attack to our ability to defend our privacy, our safety, even our freedom. Indeed, witnesses before the Governmental Affairs Committee last Congress testified that the government's reliance on computer systems is not matched by a concomitant growth in the security of those systems. A series of Government Accounting Office studies found government computer security so lax that it landed on the GAO's list of ``high risk'' government programs. For example, this year, GAO reported that one of its test teams gained access to mission critical computer systems at NASA which would have allowed the team to control spacecraft or alter data returned from space. In May 1998, the GAO was able to gain unauthorized access to the State Department's networks which would have enabled GAO to modify, delete or download important data and shutdown services. And the GAO reported in September 1998 that inadequate information system controls by the Veterans Administration threatened the disruption or misuse of service delivery to the men and women who have fought our wars. Less significant on a global scale, but of utmost concern to individual citizens is the extent to which inadequate security leaves personal information, and therefore people, vulnerable to exposure and exploitation. Our legislation will address personal information maintained by the government such as benefits and tax data and demographics culled from personal information we supply to the Census Bureau. While the GAO's work is compelling, I am convinced by two other developments that legislation in this area needs to be addressed quickly. First, we have been intensely focused throughout the year on fixing the computer problems associated with Y2K. Ensuring that the information our government collects and produces is secure may seem similar to the Y2K issue because both reflect our dependency on computers and their vulnerability to programming failures and outside disruptions. The need for secure government computer systems, however, will not disappear in the first days and weeks of the year 2000. Indeed, it will be with us until we have a structure within the government dedicated to fixing these problems. Second,we have spent significant time this session digging into the Los Alamo National Laboratory espionage scandal and allegations that an employee improperly downloaded classified material to an unclassified computer. The Energy and Justice Departments are still looking into this breach of security, but it should focus everyone's attention on the vulnerability associated with extensive reliance computers and the undeniable need for improvements in how we manage and secure these systems. Mr. President, the goal of the bill we are introducing today is to protect the integrity, confidentiality and availability of information and ensure that critical improvements in the management of our computer security system take place. Specifically, our bill would: Require high-level accountability. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget will be accountable for overseeing policy while the agency heads will be accountable for developing specific security plans. Require agency heads to develop and implement security plans and policies based on the appropriate level of risk for the different type of information the agency maintains. We need to ensure that each agency's plan reflects an understanding that computer security must be an integral part of the development process for any new system. Agencies now tend to develop a system and consider security issues only as an afterthought, if at all. Establish an ongoing, periodic reporting, testing and evaluation process to gauge the effectiveness of the policies and procedures. This would be accomplished through agency budgets, program performance and financial management. Require an independent, annual audit of all information security practices and programs within an agency. The audit would be conducted either by the agency's Inspector General, GAO or an independent external auditor. GAO has told us that an audit requirement is essential to monitoring agencies' management of information security and to ensure that these systems are kept current. Require that agencies report unauthorized intrusions into government systems. GSA currently has a program where agencies can report and seek help to respond to intrusions into their information systems and share information concerning common vulnerabilities and threats. Our bill would require agencies to use this reporting and monitoring system. Mr. President, the provisions of this bill would apply to all information, including classified and unclassified information maintained on civilian and national security systems. We are also considering whether the bill's provisions should apply to government owned, contractor operated facilities including laboratories engaged in national defense research. We look forward to discussions with the defense and intelligence communities on how best to address these issues. There are a number of areas we have not addressed, and I welcome comments on how best to handle these areas. For example: We need to ensure that computer security systems will not interfere with the ability of agencies to share data and communicate with each other and the rest of the world. The new era of ``e-business'' and ``e- government'' holds untold opportunities for improving government efficiency, and that's something we want to encourage. The government needs to rapidly and safely increase the number of trained technical information security professionals. There are a range of approaches to addressing this need, including incentives to universities to train more people in this area; contracting out to the private sector; establishing a CyberCorps at universities based on the ROTC model; or establishing special career designations for personnel specializing in computer security. We should consider whether current technology will meet the government's computer security needs or whether we need to develop incentives for technology development. A Presidential advisory committee is developing recommendations based on a national laboratory model to conduct research and development of security technology with a possible secondary focus on testing. We are interested in exploring whether provisions in this bill addressing risk and technology standards, which are now voluntary, consensus-based standards, should be issued as minimum mandatory requirements for successive levels of risk. And we will also consider issues relating to budgetary needs, privacy requirements, performance measures and how best to coordinate information security and management within the federal government. Mr. President, I expect what we have proposed will generate a hearty debate. As I have said, I consider this bill a work in progress, so I look forward to hearing from a wide range of interested parties and to working with the Chairman to craft the best possible legislation to protect the integrity and the confidentiality of the government's vast storehouse of information.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with renewed hope for the safety of our public roads. In 1998, 5,374 people were killed in truck- related crashes. In my State there is a strong public sense of alarm about this safety problem. And as trucks get bigger and heavier and the volume of trucks on our roads increases, the General Accounting Office (GAO) predicts that by the year 2000, over 6,000 people will be killed every year as a result of truck-related crashes. This prediction comes at a time when the Office of Motor Carriers (OMC)--the federal agency charged with overseeing truck safety--has failed in its duties to protect the American public. The Department of Transportation Inspector General, the National Transportation Safety Board, the GAO and members of this Congress have all brought to light and documented the many inadequacies of this broken agency. I commend the leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee for pursuing this very important issue. H.R. 3419, The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, addresses the numerous failings of the Office of Motor Carriers by strengthening federal motor carrier safety programs, and by creating a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Although H.R. 3419 takes a large step in the right direction, federal truck safety oversight needs a new look, with a focus dedicated to reducing truck-related fatalities and injuries, and not simply a new agency with new letterhead. The Inspector General in his April 1999 report showed that the OMC has not maintained an ``arm's length'' relationship between itself and the industry it regulates. In fact, the report suggests OMC has developed too close a relationship with the industry it must regulate. This has limited OMC in taking the tough regulatory and enforcement actions that the accident data suggests are needed to protect public safety. One example of this problem is that the OMC has consistently awarded research contracts to the regulated industry to perform some of the most critical, and highly sensitive research on future rulemakings governing the industry. This practice appears questionable. In order to protect the American public, an independent relationship should be established by the new Federal Motor Carrier Administration. H.R. 3419 provides us with an opportunity for real progress in improving truck safety, but only if the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and its leaders commit to a new culture which truly holds safety as the highest priority. This Congress and the Department of Transportation must restore the American public's trust in federal motor carrier safety programs, and take action that produces safer results.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Millennium Digital Commerce Act of 1999. I thank Senators Abraham, Leahy, and Wyden for their leadership on this important issue. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I am proud of the steps it takes to support an important and still emerging technology and industry. The Millennium Digital Commerce Act will facilitate the continued growth of the Internet and of electronic commerce. With this legislation, the Senate recognizes the significant transformations taking place in our economy and how we do business today and into the future. I think we all recognize that we are witnessing an electronic revolution. There is no shortage of statistics to prove what we are seeing all around us. According to a recent U.S. Department of Commerce report, approximately one third of the U.S. economic growth in the past few years has come from information technologies (over $1.1 trillion). Just this year, venture capitalists have invested more than $8 billion in Internet companies--twice the rate of last year. According to a University of Texas report, e-commerce is growing at a much faster rate than many had expected. The digital economy generated more than $300 billion in revenue in 1998 and was responsible for 1.2 million jobs. Many e-commerce companies in my State of Connecticut, like Micro-Warehouse in Norwalk, Coastal Tool & Supply in West Hartford, and Sagemaker Inc. of Fairfield, are leading the way in the digital economy. In the Senate, I have worked to support the growth of e-commerce by cosponsoring the Internet Tax Freedom Act which places a three year moratorium on new state and local taxes on the Internet in order to give the digital economy some breathing room to evolve. This legislation takes further steps to continue the growth of e- commerce and is a powerful follow-on to the Internet Tax Freedom Act. With this legislation we will eliminate a major barrier to e-commerce by providing for the legal recognition of electronic signatures in contracting and by creating a consistent, but temporary, national electronic signatures law to preempt a multitude of sometimes inconsistent state laws. This bill is technology neutral, allowing contracting parties to determine the appropriate electronic signature technology for their transaction. Importantly, this legislation is the result of thoughtful compromise. It gives electronic signatures more legal certainty but also provides for consumer protection. It deals with electronic signatures only in creating contracts. It preempts state law only until the states enact their own statutes and standards as provided for by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). Mr. President, I would like to thank those who have worked so diligently to create this Act. Through the considerate and collaborative approach of several of my colleagues, including Senators Abraham, Leahy, and Wyden, we now have legislation with language that achieves a broad public purpose. We are now able to continue supporting the growth and evolution of electronic commerce and technologies that will effectively bring us into the next century.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Millennium Digital Commerce Act of 1999. I thank Senators Abraham, Leahy, and Wyden for their leadership on this important issue. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I am proud of the steps it takes to support an important and still emerging technology and industry. The Millennium Digital Commerce Act will facilitate the continued growth of the Internet and of electronic commerce. With this legislation, the Senate recognizes the significant transformations taking place in our economy and how we do business today and into the future. I think we all recognize that we are witnessing an electronic revolution. There is no shortage of statistics to prove what we are seeing all around us. According to a recent U.S. Department of Commerce report, approximately one third of the U.S. economic growth in the past few years has come from information technologies (over $1.1 trillion). Just this year, venture capitalists have invested more than $8 billion in Internet companies--twice the rate of last year. According to a University of Texas report, e-commerce is growing at a much faster rate than many had expected. The digital economy generated more than $300 billion in revenue in 1998 and was responsible for 1.2 million jobs. Many e-commerce companies in my State of Connecticut, like Micro-Warehouse in Norwalk, Coastal Tool & Supply in West Hartford, and Sagemaker Inc. of Fairfield, are leading the way in the digital economy. In the Senate, I have worked to support the growth of e-commerce by cosponsoring the Internet Tax Freedom Act which places a three year moratorium on new state and local taxes on the Internet in order to give the digital economy some breathing room to evolve. This legislation takes further steps to continue the growth of e- commerce and is a powerful follow-on to the Internet Tax Freedom Act. With this legislation we will eliminate a major barrier to e-commerce by providing for the legal recognition of electronic signatures in contracting and by creating a consistent, but temporary, national electronic signatures law to preempt a multitude of sometimes inconsistent state laws. This bill is technology neutral, allowing contracting parties to determine the appropriate electronic signature technology for their transaction. Importantly, this legislation is the result of thoughtful compromise. It gives electronic signatures more legal certainty but also provides for consumer protection. It deals with electronic signatures only in creating contracts. It preempts state law only until the states enact their own statutes and standards as provided for by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). Mr. President, I thank those who have worked so diligently to create this Act. Through the considerate and collaborative approach of several of my colleagues, including Senators Abraham, Leahy, and Wyden, we now have legislation with language that achieves a broad public purpose. We are now able to continue supporting the growth and evolution of electronic commerce and technologies that will effectively bring us into the next century.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the week of Nov. 21-28 is an important time for houses of worship and individuals of all religions across the country--National Bible Week. As this year's National Bible Week co-chair, it is my privilege to pay tribute to the Bible and its remarkable influence on American life. As in past years, the National Bible Association is hosting the week- long salute to the Good Book. This year, the tribute happens to fall during the Thanksgiving holidays; this seems fitting, because we should be eternally thankful that we have the teachings of the Bible to help guide our daily lives. And old maxim states that ``A reformation happens every time you open the Bible.'' Indeed, no book over the course of human history has had a more profound effect on how we live and act. The Bible has influenced Western culture in myriad ways, shaping areas as diverse as government and art. John Wycliffe, the great religious reformer, once wrote, ``The Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' The writings found within it inspired many of our nation's founders' most cherished ideals--ideals that remain cornerstones of democracy today. The Bible, for example, advocates faith in a greater good, the glory of freedom, the importance of family, and the sanctity of every human life. The Bible is at the heart of America's civic religion. Far from archaic, the Bible is as important today as it has ever been, particularly as many Americans feel this country slipping into moral decline. Our best hope of righting our national ship is to instill in future generations the core values of love, truth, honor, and service enshrined in the Bible. As an Orthodox Jew, my faith orders my life, gives me a sense of purpose and direction, and provides comfort in uncertain or difficult times. The Old Testament or Torah serves as a constant reminder of my obligations to God, country, and family. So as Thanksgiving approaches, I encourage every believer in this land to open the Bible, read a favorite passage or two, and give thanks to God for this wonderful, sacred Book.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the tax extenders package included in the Work Incentives Act conference report. In the context of our current budget situation of a small projected on-budget surplus for FY 2000, I believe this tax package strikes an important balance between fiscal responsibility and tax relief. Although I would have preferred a fully offset tax package, I am pleased that the bill is fully offset for FY2000 and partially offset for FY2001, the two years for which most of the tax provisions are extended by law. If two years from now when we reconsider most of these provisions a on-budget surplus does not exist, I will push for an extenders package that is fully offset to ensure that we do not go into deficit as a result of tax relief measures. The package includes several important provisions that I strongly support. The Research and Experimentation Tax Credit is important for our future international competitiveness. This tax credit provides an important incentive for our companies to research and innovate. I hope that in the near future we will update this credit to reflect current business conditions and to make it a permanent part of the tax code. The AMT modification, the Worker Opportunity Tax Credit, and the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit are all important provisions to help low to moderate income earners create more opportunities and to improve their living standards. I am pleased that the Finance Committee decided to include renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences in this tax package. This is a critical program for promoting growth in developing economies and for increasing international trade integration. I strongly support the provision to extend and modify the tax credit for electricity produced by wind and biomass materials. In order to ensure energy security and address national environmental priorities such as clean air and mitigation of global climate change, it is essential that renewable energy options become more competitive. These tax provisions will ensure that renewable energy technologies will be able to compete more equitably with fossil sources such as coal and oil. However, while this package includes modest extensions and modifications, I am disappointed that the bill does not go further by extending the credit to include landfill methane and other cellulosic feedstocks. I would like to thank Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan for their hard work in getting this package together. It is a fiscally responsible and an appropriate package under our current fiscal situation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Pfizer, Inc. on its 150th anniversary. As one of the global leaders of the important pharmaceutical industry, Pfizer has helped to improve the health of men, women and children around the world for the last century and a half. The company employs 4,939 men and women in its Groton, CT research facility, which lies in my home state. Pfizer is committed to helping people live better lives--not only by bringing best-in-class medicines to market, but also by working with patients and physicians to develop comprehensive disease management programs that educate people about ways to better control their illness, rather than letting their illness control them. Pfizer's long history is full of adventure, daring risk-taking, and intrepid decision-making. Founded by German immigrant cousins Charles Pfizer and Charles Erhart in 1849, Pfizer has grown from a small chemical firm in Brooklyn, NY to a multinational corporation, which employs close to 50,000 people. Pfizer has a long tradition of developing innovative drugs to combat a variety of illnesses. In 1944, Pfizer was the first company to successfully mass-produce penicillin, a breakthrough that led to the company's emergence as a global leader in its industry. Since then, Pfizer has marketed dozens of effective medicines designed to fight conditions like arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, and infections. Nearly all of the major medicines marketed by Pfizer are No. 1 or No. 2 in their categories In addition, Pfizer provides a wide range of assistance to those in need. The desire to live a healthy life is universal. But for millions of people around the world, access to high quality health care remains out of reach. Pfizer is committed to bringing their medicines to those in need. Through Sharing the Care, a program started in 1993, Pfizer has filled more than 3.0 million prescriptions for its medicines-- valued at over $170 million--for more than one million uninsured patients in the United States. The program was cited by American Benefactor, a leading philanthropy journal, in selecting Pfizer as one of America's 25 most generous companies for 1998. As you can see, Pfizer has made innumerable contributions to our nation and our world, and its accomplishments should be applauded as it celebrates its 150th anniversary.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for S. 1798, the American Inventors Protection Act. Yesterday I became a co- sponsor of the patents reform legislation, which was recently reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is my understanding that the provisions contained in that legislation are being folded into a larger bill, which also addresses satellite television and other matters. Although I urge passage of this larger bill, in my comments today I will speak only to the provisions dealing with patent reform and inventor protection, provisions which I strongly believe will provide vital new protections both to businesses and to individual inventors. In particular, I am pleased to see an entire title dedicated to regulating invention promoters, many of whom are little more than con artists. In 1995 I introduced the ``Inventor Protection Act'' of 1995, which was the first bill to target the unsrupulous firms that take advantage of inventors' ideas and dreams. Several of my bill's provisions now appear in the House and Senate legislation, and I am glad to see that the work we did in the 104th Congress, combined with the efforts of others since, should finally result in the passage of long needed protections against invention promotion scams. The American Inventors Protection Act is a well-rounded bill. It reduces patent fees and authorizes the Comissioner of the Paetnt and Trademark Office (PTO) to report to Congress on alternative fee structures. The goal here, as with other titles of the legislation, is to make our patent system as accessible as possible to all. Another reform would save money for parties to a patent dispute. It allows third parties the option of expanded inter pates reexamination procedures; these new procedures before the PTO will decrease the amount of litigation in federal district court. The ``First Inventor Defense'' is a vital new provision for businesses and other inventors caught unaware by recent court decisions allowing business methods to be patented. It is simply unfair that an innovator of a particular business method should suddenly have to pay royalties for its own invention, just because of an unforeseeable change in patent law. It is my understanding that any kind of method, regardless of its technological character, would be included within the scope of this definition, provided it is used in some manner by a company or other entity in the conduct of its business. Two other provisions provide greater predictability and fairness for inventors. One title guarantees a minimum patent term of 17 years by extending patent term in cases of unusual delay. Another allows for domestic publication of patent applications subject to foreign publication. I support the changes made to this provision since the last Congress, changes which should satisfy the concerns of independent inventors that their ideas might be copied before their patents are granted. Finally, I applaud the new regulations and remedies which will provide inventors with enhanced protections against invention promotion scams. Each year thousands of inventors lose tens of millions of dollars to deceptive invention marketing companies. In 1994, as then- Chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulation and Governmental Affairs, I held a hearing on the problems presented by the invention marketing industry. Witness after witness testified how dozens of companies, under broad claims of helping inventors, had actually set up schemes in which inventors spend thousands for services to market their invention--a service that companies regularly fail to provide. The legislation I introduced in 1995 used a multi-faceted approach to separate the legitimate companies from the fraudulent and guarantee real protection for America's inventors. I am gratified that a number of the provisions from my bill have been used in a title of this year's patent reform legislation specially devoted to invention marketing companies. Both bills provide inventors with enhanced protections against invention promotion scams by creating a private right of action for inventors harmed by deceptive fraudulent practices, by requiring invention promoters to disclose certain information in writing prior to entering into a contract for invention promotion services, and by creating a publicly available log of complaints received by the PTO involving invention promotes. The provisions contained in the American Inventors Protection Act represent our best hope for passage of meaningful patent reform. I urge my colleagues to support their passage to ensure that inventors as well as their ideas are adequately protected.