Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, the Commander in Chief Joint Forces Command Admiral Hal Gehman, and the Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki for their commitment to transforming our current military force to one which will assure our military superiority well into the twenty first century. Secretary Cohen and General Shelton have taken strong and direct action to establish transformation as the guiding policy for the Department of Defense. Their leadership responds to what are now broadly accepted conclusions about the security environment we will face and the challenges and opportunities resulting from the Revolution in Military Affairs. Many, both inside and outside the Pentagon, have concluded that these changes are of such magnitude that they require that our military in the twenty first century be fundamentally different than today's military. This view was compellingly articulated by the National Defense Panel, which was created by this body. And it was given the force of policy by Secretary Cohen in the Quadrennial Defense Review. But how are we to know what this very different military should look like? Secretary Cohen and General Shelton, encouraged and supported by legislation we passed last year, established a process to answer that question. On the first of October, 1998, they charged the Commander in Chief of the United States Atlantic Command, Admiral Harold Gehman, to put in place a joint experimentation process to objectively determine which new technologies, organizations, and concepts of operation will most likely to future military superiority. Since that time Admiral Theman has done a superb job of establishing a process and beginning experiments toward that end. In June, 1999, Admiral Gehman began experiments to address how the U.S. military should be equipped and organized to effectively find and strike critical mobile enemy targets, such as ballistic missiles. Other experiments to address near, mid, and far term strategic and operational problems will follow. On the first of October of this year the Secretary and the Chairman increased the priority of the policy of transformation by redesignating the United States Atlantic Command as the United States Joint Forces Command. This change is more than simply a change in name. It underlines the increasing importance of increased jointness in meeting the security challenges of the twenty first century, increases the priority assigned to experimentation, and reflects the expanded role that the United States Joint Forces Command assumes in order to achieve that goal. I applaud Secretary Cohen and General Shelton for their commitment to transformation of the U.S. military and their courage to make the tough changes needed to get it done. I am also pleased to see that their leadership is having a positive effect on our military Services' plans to transform themselves to meet the coming challenges. The U.S. Air Force has begun to reorganize its units into Air Expeditionary Forces to be more responsive to the need for air power by the warfighting commanders. And I note with great admiration that on October 12, 1999 General Eric Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, announced his intention to begin to transform the U.S. Army from a heavy force designed largely for the Cold War to one that will be more effective against the threats that most now see as most likely and most dangerous. The goal is to make the U.S. Army more strategically relevant by making it lighter, more deployable, more lethal, and more sustainable. General Shinseki plans to find technological solutions to these problems, and intends to create this year an experimentation process at Fort Lewis Washington in order to begin to construct this new force. He has said that he wants to eliminate the distinction between different types of Army units, and perhaps in time go to an all-wheeled fleet of combat vehicles, eliminating the tank as we have known it for almost a century. These are historic and very positive steps. But there is much progress that must still be made. For example, the Army and the Air Force must now implement their plans in concert with the other services, and with the Joint Forces Command. Fundamental change is very difficult to effect, especially in organizations, like the Department of Defense, that are large and successful. Frankly, I am a little surprised that we have been able to achieve these changes in so short time. But organizations that don't change ultimately fail, and that is not an outcome we can accept. So we should not only applaud these moves, but support them, and encourage faster and more direct action. An excellent report by the Defense Science Board in August, 1999 suggests some things we can do to provide this support. The most important are encouraging the development of a DOD-wide strategy for transformation activities, and insisting on the establishment of processes to turn the results of experiments into real capabilities for our forces. And we must ensure that this effort is not hobbled by lack of resources. Perhaps most importantly, we must insist that no Service plan nor program be agreed to or resourced unless we are assured that it has passed through a rigorous joint assessment and is consistent with the joint warfighting needs of our military commanders. I urge my colleagues to join me in complementing our senior leaders and to support their efforts to move to the next level of jointness as they grapple with the difficult task of building the most effective American military possible for the 21st century.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we have just marked the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berln Wall, one of the most important milestones of our era. In honor of this event, I am submitting a resolution urging that a ``Freedom Day'' be celebrated each year in the United States. It also calls on the United States to work with other nations to establish a global holiday called ``Freedom Day.'' The House already passed an identical resolution, introduced by my friend House Policy Chairman Christopher Cox, by a vote of 417-0, and it is my hope that we can pass it in the Senate before adjournment. A decade later, it is sometimes easy to forget the profound significance of November 9, 1989, the day that Berlin Wall came down. It was the symbolic end of four decades of a Cold War that had dominated our foreign and defense policies and threatened international stability. The Cold War's end was a resounding success for the United States and the international community, that set off a worldwide movement toward greater democratization and the embrace of free markets. In the United States, credit for this success can be generously distributed to generations of American leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, who never wavered in their courageous determination to contain the Soviet Union and resist totalitarianism. The end of the Cold War was truly a bi-partisan effort and a national achievement, and is a model of cooperation that we should not forget as we seek to address the international concerns we face now and in the future. The fall of the wall was a transcendent moment in the struggle against totalitarianism and for democracy, a smashing victory for the human spirit and the cause of human rights. It is only fitting that we choose the anniversary of this epochal triumph to honor and celebrate freedom's march of progress across the planet. This effort to establish a ``Freedom Day,'' in recognition of the end of the Cold War, was inspired by my good friend Ben Wattenberg, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a long time champion of freedom and democracy. His recent column entitled ``moving Forward With Freedom Day'' is particularly noteworthy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of Mr. Wattenberg's column be inserted in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleague from Vermont. As you have argued in the past, the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments assumed that one of the major sources of these pollutants--older power plants--would be retired and replaced with cleaner burning plants. Unfortunately, this has not happened. The average power plant in the United States uses technology devised in the 1950's or before. The EPA-DOJ enforcement action is now alleging that many of these generating units have been modified and are no longer entitled to their grandfathered status.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Certainly, many of our constituents have concerns about how cost and service delivery would be implicated under any enforcement action. If the court were to impose fines and injunctive requirements which would force power companies to go out of business, I think we would all join in opposing that outcome. Yet time and again, we hear claims that such dire outcomes will occur when we ask companies to comply with the law. But the evidence shows that environmental goals are being met without sacrificing economic growth. In this circumstance, I believe the Department of Justice and EPA have been clear that their objective, if the violations are found to have occurred, is to require that the utilities make appropriate investments in pollution control. In fact, EPA has a demonstrated record on the kind of remedy it has sought in a similar case that involved another segment of industry. EPA recently undertook a similar enforcement action against the paper and pulp industry for similar major New Source Review violations. After looking into the paper and pulp sector as part of its Wood Products Initiative, the EPA found New Source Review violations at roughly 70-80 percent of the facilities it investigated. Through its enforcement action, EPA was able to work with industry to generate emission reductions as high as 500 tons of volatile organic compounds. However, these enforcement actions did not require that controls be put in all at once. Rather, a schedule was created to phase in controls so that the pollution controls were instituted in a way that protected the public without crippling the industry. It is disingenuous to argue that we need a preemptive rider to protect against what the outcome of the pending enforcement action might be. There is a history of enforcement decisions which demonstrate that the courts secure remedies that protect the public's interest, and that EPA has had a willingness to work with industry to that end. Fundamentally what we are addressing here is a matter of fairness. Right now utilities in Southern and Midwestern states emit over 4.5 times more nitrogen oxides than utilities in the Northeast. A study by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management found that northeastern states will have to pay between $1.4 and $3.9 billion for additional local controls to reduce ozone pollution if six upwind states fail to implement needed controls. I notice that my colleague from Vermont is here. I yield the floor for him to offer some remarks about how the equity issue is particularly important within a deregulated marketplace.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes. With this rider, Congress would be substituting its opinion for the factual and legal analysis by the court. There will be no opportunity for expert opinions to be heard. In fact, I understand there may even be discussions about trying to add rider language which would allow modifications which would result in significant increases in emissions, by basing them on a unit's potential to emit pollution. This change is a significant departure from the current law, which requires that pollution controls be included when plants are making modifications that cause emissions to increase. For example, a plant's potential to emit pollution may be at 10 tons, while it actually emits 7. The test has been that if modifications are made that raise emissions above the 7 tons, pollution controls are required to be instituted. Since the potential emissions are often much greater than actual emissions, actual emissions have been the threshold to trigger public health protections. A rider that would seek to allow modifications to go forward would give utilities a license to continue to pollute our air while the enforcement action is pending. In its worst form, it would also ``pre-judge'' the court's determination on these matters. These are major reasons why I oppose using a rider to address this issue. It makes no sense for Congress to make a statement on this complex issue with no opportunity for public deliberation. I yield back to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Certainly.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about an issue which has surfaced recently in the national press, and now arises with regard to the remaining appropriations bills before us. On November 3rd, the Justice Department filed seven lawsuits on behalf of EPA against electric utility companies in the Midwest and South. The lawsuit charged that 17 power plants illegally polluted the air by failing to install pollution control equipment when they were making major modifications to their plants. This action is one of the largest enforcement investigations in EPA's history, and seeks to control pollution which contributes to degraded air quality throughout the Northeast. I have recently learned that some of the defendants may be seeking relief from this enforcement action by adding a rider to one of the remaining appropriations bills. I am speaking with my colleagues here today in strong opposition to this effort. To seek relief for pending violations of federal law through a rider without any congressional hearing, debate, or voting record, is utterly inappropriate. It undermines the democratic process which is constitutionally guaranteed to American citizens, and to the states which have similar cases pending. The alleged violations are extremely serious. Congress has long recognized the need to control transported air pollution. Provisions to study and address the issue have been included by major amendments to the Clean Air Act. Yet the problem still remains and the statistics are staggering. They demonstrate just how much older, Midwestern powerplants contribute to air pollution in the Northeast. For example, one utility in Michigan emits almost 6 times more nitrogen oxides than all the utilities in the entire state of Connecticut. Ohio power plants produce nearly 9,000 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, which directly contributes to acid rain. One single plant in Ohio produces as much nitrogen oxide as all of the plants in the state of New York. Approximately 67 million people east of the Mississippi River live in area with unhealthy levels of smog. EPA estimates that every year that implementation of regional pollution controls are delayed, there are between 200-800 premature deaths, thousands of additional incidences of moderate to severe respiratory symptoms in children, and hundreds of thousands of children suffering from breathing difficulties. Now these polluting power plants want special relief during the court's review. The alleged violations result from a portion of the Clean Air Act that many refer to as the ``grandfathering'' provisions. When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1970 and 1977, there were two categories of requirements: those for existing power plants, and those for new sources. At the time, most people envisioned that the older coal burning plants would soon be retired, making the additional controls for old plants unnecessary. Instead, the life span of older coal fired plants has been extended by modifications to their facilities. Many of the older coal fired plants have stayed around for three decades; and coal power plants are now the largest industrial source of smog pollution. Of the approximately 1,000 power plants operating today, 500 were built before modern pollution control requirements went into effect. Although the Clean Air Act did exempt older plants from the new standards, it required that the plants meet a test of ``prevention of significant deterioration'' to protect the public when a plant undertook a major modification. Although the definition of ``major modification'' has been debated, Section 111 of the Clean Air Act clearly states that a modification means ``any physical change . . . which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted.'' What is at stake in the recent enforcement action is the question of whether the power plants undertook major modifications without installing state of the art pollution controls, in violation of this Clean Air Act requirement.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we have reiterated our concerns concerning the wool tariff provision with the hope that the leadership will find a way to support the views of nearly one quarter of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from April 16, 1999, from 23 Senators opposed by any changes in wood tariffs addressed to Senator Roth.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for his kind words. On November 3, I presented legislative background on the wool tariff provision to reflect the concerns of my constituents about any revision to tariff reduction and phase-out schedules that would unfairly alter their competitive posture and force layoffs. Specifically, I noted that the language in the provision as originally proposed dinting the inclusion of the wool fabric industry was purposely deleted in the version that passed in the Manager's Amendment, underscoring the Senate's clear intent that this provision is not directed at this sector. Second, the provision specifically requires that full account be taken of ``conditions'' in the various ``producing industry in the United States,'' indicating that whatever further action Congress may want to consider in the future on this issue, or that the U.S. Trade Representative may raise in future negotiations, must assure fairness and equitable treatment to those currently producing in the United States. Furthermore, the language specifically states that special attention and equity is to be provided to ``those currently facing tariff phase-outs negotaited under prior trade agreements.'' Since my constituents in the wool fabrication sector specifically fall into exactly that posture, property relying on phase-out schedules negotiated in prior trade agreements, this protection and assurance is directed at their concerns, which, in turn, is why their industry sector was dropped from application of this provision. Senator Helms, is it not true that Senators Moynihan and Roth provided assurances that I would be given full notice of any consideration of this issue in conference and that it will be resolved in a manner satisfactory to me in representative of my constituents concerns?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. And Senator Thomas, am I correct in noting that 23 distinguished members of this body submitted a letter to the Chairman of the Finance Committee earlier this year expressing concern over legislation that would threaten domestic textile producers?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to make additional remarks on a provision contained in the Manager's Amendment to the Trade and Development Act of 1999 adopted last week by voice vote. The manager's included a Sense of the Senate on Tariff Inversions that has raised some concerns with several of my colleagues. I would like to engage them in a discussion of the issue on the floor of the United States Senate. There is a company in my state, The Warren Corporation, that specializes in the manufacture of high quality woolen and worsted apparel fabric. This company has been producing luxurious fabrics for decades and recently invested heavily in the U.S. to become a fully integrated textile mill with a diverse set of manufacturing operations. I mention Warren today because this proud contributor to the New England textile heritage could be adversely affected by a tariff provision recently adopted by voice vote in the Manager's Amendment to the Trade and Development Act of 1999. I would like to call on some of my esteemed colleagues who I am sure have similar concerns in their states. Senator Helms, is it not true that you have thousands of workers in the textile industry that could be adversely affected by this legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in memory and tribute to Senator John H. Chafee, who was for me not just a colleague and friend, but a mentor on the Environment and Public Works Committee for the eleven years I have been in the Senate. Nearly every single environmental statute bears the strong stamp of his commitment and leadership; Superfund, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, barrier beach legislation, transportation laws, the Oil Pollution Protection Act. The list goes on and on. When John Chafee first announced that he was not going to run for reelection, a lot of us who care about the environment realized what a great loss John Chafee's retirement would be. Now his sudden death reminds us all too quickly that he was an irreplaceable friend of the environment. He was a very sturdy, forthright, faithful leader at a time when the number of legislators in his great party who consider themselves environmental stewards grew smaller. This trend has been contrary to the proud environmental tradition of the Republican party that goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt and contrary to what I find to be the opinion of Republicans in Connecticut who are quite enthusiastically supportive of environmental protection. Senator Chafee held high the banner of that tradition. He always considered himself a centrist and I know that what he meant by that was not that he was neutral, but that he was committed to bringing different groups and factions within Congress and outside together to get things done. One of my first and best experiences as a Senator was in 1990 when we were considering the Clean Air Act Amendments. Senator George Mitchell, then Majority Leader, pulled a group of us together with representatives of the Bush Administration in his conference room. John Chafee was there day after day, and night after night, throughout long, tedious negotiations. But in the end, he helped put the pieces together for us to adopt a bill signed by President Bush that has clearly made our nation's air healthier and cleaner. He was also a leader in the effort to protect against global climate change, urging the President to adopt an international framework to address the issue as early as 1988, and supporting the efforts to achieve the signing and ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We went to Kyoto, Japan for the critical meetings there to forge further agreements to fulfill the objectives of the Framework Convention agreement. In that difficult setting John sent a message to the countries of the world which were being quite critical of the United States' position, that there was bipartisan support in Congress for taking action to address global warming. He and I then worked together with Senator Mack to sponsor what we thought was a modest proposal in this Congress to begin to give companies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions the promise of credit if and when we adopt a mandatory system for controlling that kind of air pollution. I remember laughing with John that we must be on the right path because our proposal was opposed by both sides of the debate. John Chafee was the quintessential New Englander; he was a straightforward, very honest, very civil man. He also was a great outdoorsman. I think that some of the work he was proudest of involved his efforts to protect natural resources. He played a critical role in expanding our National Wildlife Refuge System and worked hard to conserve wetlands. He instituted several reforms to tax policy to encourage the preservation of open space. He was a great advocate right up to his death for full and permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is so important to preserving open spaces in our states. John Chafee was a good man and a superb chairman. Always respectful to those who came before our Committee, he wanted to get things done. When it came to the environment, he really did get things done. I'll miss him. We'll all miss him. The Lord's good earth will miss him, because he was indeed a good friend. My wife Hadassah joins me in extending condolences to Ginny Chafee and the entire family. We all do truly share in their loss.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 is landmark legislation that provides for a historic modernization of our financial services system. This legislation is the culmination of years of effort on the part of several Congresses, several administrations, and federal financial regulators. Passing this legislation will eliminate inefficiencies and unnecessary barriers in our economy that were created by the Glass- Steagall Act of 1933 and other laws passed generations ago. With this legislation, the Congress recognizes the significant transformations taking place in our economy and its financial services sector. Through this Act, Congress makes the necessary and critical leaps for our financial services sector to catch up with the realities of a marketplace and economy driven by an information technology revolution. The changes created through this legislation are inevitable. They overhaul laws implemented decades ago that have not withstood the test of time and that have increasingly been bypassed through more and more regulatory loopholes. Passing the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 will create a rational financial structure in the U.S., the world's largest economy, that will be competitive in the global economy. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. By updating laws separating banks, securities firms, and insurance companies, this Act will result in a broader array of financial services and products for consumers. It will spur innovation in the financial services industry and create a more competitive marketplace where powerful new products come to market more quickly and at a lower cost to consumers. It will lead to the creation of an array of new products for consumers and at the same time will help them to make their choices more intelligently and efficiently by allowing for one- stop shopping for a multitude of financial services. Specifically, by overriding sections of the Glass-Steagall Act and other federal and state laws, this legislation will allow banks, insurance companies, and security firms to more easily merge or otherwise enter one another's businesses. While allowing the industry greater flexibility to provide services, this legislation also protects consumer privacy by requiring financial institutions to create privacy policies and spell them out to consumers. Financial institutions will have to provide notice of how they share the financial information of their customers and with certain exceptions they would be prohibited from disclosing personally identifiable financial information to non-affiliated third parties without first giving consumers the opportunity to ``opt out''. The legislation gives regulatory agencies the authority to enforce those privacy protections. Importantly, this legislation also retains key parts of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. Any financial services company that is out of compliance with that Act would not be allowed to take advantage of mergers and other benefits outlined under this legislation. It is right that the Administration and others held fast to keeping a strong CRA component in this legislation. The CRA has been critically important to many communities and community-based organizations in Connecticut and across the country. The CRA, like the Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) that I strongly support, helps more Americans to actively participate in our economy by providing them the ability to build assets and to access financial services. This legislation is not perfect. Its implementation will need to be monitored over time. I will be paying particular attention to how this legislation affects both consumer privacy and CRA implementation. However, this legislation is good and long overdue. It provides balanced and strong protections for consumers and communities without diluting its intended financial services benefits. Finally, I would like to thank those who have worked so tirelessly to do what so many others have tried and failed to do for the last 20 years. Through the hard work of the Senate Banking Committee members, including Senator Dodd of Connecticut and Chairman Gramm, their House counterparts, in conjunction with the Administration, particularly Secretary Summers and his staff, the financial services industry, and those representing the interests of consumers and communities, we now have legislation with compromise language that achieves a broad public purpose. We are now able to achieve the improvements to our financial services sector that have been needed for decades and that will effectively bring us into the next century.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to present legislative background and history on a provision contained in the Manager's Amendment to the African Growth and Opportunity Act adopted this evening by consent. Constituents in my state in the wool fabric industry have been concerned about any revision to tariff reduction and phase-out schedules that would unfairly alter their competitive posture and force layoffs of Connecticut employees. The final language in the provision states that, ``It is the sense of the Senate that U.S. trade policy should place a priority on the elimination or amelioration of tariff inversions that undermine the competitiveness of the U.S. consuming industries, while taking into account the conditions in the producing industry in the United States, especially those currently facing tariff phase-outs negotiated under prior trade agreements.'' I want to note that this provision as adopted was modified to reflect specific concerns I raised about it. While this provision merely expresses a ``sense of the Senate'' and is in no way law or binding, I do want to provide background on the intent of the provision. I note, first, that language in the provision as originally proposed directing the inclusion of the ``wool fabric'' industry sector in this provision was specifically deleted in the version that passed in the Manager's Amendment, underscoring the Senate's clear intent that this provision is not directed at this sector. Second, the provision specifically requires that full account be taken of ``conditions'' in the various ``producing industry in the United States,'' indicating that whatever further action Congress may want to consider in the future on this issue, or that the U.S. Trade Representative may raise in future negotiations, must assure fairness and equitable treatment to those currently producing in the United States. Furthermore, the language specifically states that special attention and equity is to be provided to ``those currently facing tariff phase-outs negotiated under prior trade agreements.'' Since my constituents in the wool fabrication sector specifically fall into exactly that posture, properly relying on phase-out schedules negotiated in prior trade agreements, this protection and assurance is directed at their concerns, which, in turn, is why their industry sector was dropped from application of this provision. I further appreciate the assurances provided me by the Managers of this bill that I will be provided full notice of any consideration of this issue in conference and that it will be resolved in a manner satisfactory to me in representation of my constituent's concerns.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to explain my reasons for voting to table amendments No. 2379 and No. 2483 sponsored by Senator Hollings. The two amendments would have required the United States to negotiate side agreements with the countries named in the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act concerning labor standards and the environment similar to the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Mandating that the United States negotiate agreements before providing the benefits granted to these countries under this act would have had the effect of nullifying the bill. Labor and environmental issues should be considered when negotiating trade agreements. In today's global economy, the economic actions of one country can have profound implications for the entire world economy. We witnessed this firsthand with the recent global economic crisis. Just as the economic decisions of one person in Indonesia can have significant consequences for someone in Germany, the living standards, working conditions, and the environment standards of workers in Peru or Malaysia can have an impact on our workers here in the United States. The two amendments offered by Senator Hollings have admirable goals, however they are unworkable in the context of this bill. Because this bill calls for the United States to take the unilateral action of reducing tariffs on a wide range of products in order to provide incentive for these countries to develop their economies, it would be out of place to mandate negotiations that were designed to accompany bilateral trade agreements. If we are serious about protecting workers and the environment, we should include them as part of a bilateral negotiation when our trading partners will have obligations to fulfill. Our goal with this bill is to improve and grow the economies of sub- Saharan Africa and the Caribbean Basin. We are doing this by opening our markets in the hope that these economies will integrate into the world economy as responsible trading partners and will develop as future markets for our exports. The two amendments offered by Senator Hollings would have had the effect of neutralizing the underlying bill to support economic development in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean Basin. I could support similar amendments when they are raised in the context of trade agreements when side agreements can be enforced. tariffs on wool fabrics

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is with considerable glee that I rise today to commend a true titan of our national pastime, the New York Yankees, who earlier this week cemented their legacy as the preeminent dynasty of 20th century American sports. The Yankees four-game sweep of the Atlanta Braves in this year's World Series earned the franchise its 25th championship of the 1900s, proving that the Yankees belong right up there with Uncle Sam and Mom's apple pie as inspirational symbols of America's greatness. In Connecticut, the loyalties of baseball fans are split between the Yankees, the New York Mets, and the Boston Red Sox. This made the 1999 Major League Baseball season truly memorable, as all three teams advanced to their respective league championships and vied for the pennant. I confess that I was once a Brooklyn Dodgers backer, but I have been cheering the Bronx Bombers for decades--since my eldest son, Matt, caught Yankee fever at an early age. Some of my fondest memories are watching games at Yankee Stadium with my family. Yet I cannot recall any of the teams' accomplishments being more impressive or fun to watch than this world championship, the Yankees' third in four years, capping a string of World Series triumphs that dates back to 1923. I tip my pinstripe cap to Manager Joe Torre, Series MVP Mariano Rivera, the indomitable Roger Clements, Orlando ``El Duque'' Hernandez, the valiant Paul O'Neill, the heroic Chad Curtis, and the entire Yankees organization for their inspirational and dominating play this October. The Yankees' remarkable success has brought untold joy to their neighbors in Connecticut.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President. I am happy to join Senator Gorton in introducing a bill that we hope will restore some common sense to the way the country chooses party nominees for president. As Senator Gorton already has explained well, anyone taking a objective look at the current primary and caucus system could reach only one conclusion: it makes very little sense. Our primary system was meant to serve a very important purpose: to determine the two--or perhaps three--individuals who will have the opportunity to compete for the most powerful office in our nation, and perhaps in the world. Given the importance of the process, it is critical that it be a fair one, one that tests the mettle and the ideas of all of the candidates, one that allows the voters to hear and weigh the views of those seeking their parties' nominations, and one that gives the primary electorate--the whole, national primary electorate--a chance to choose the person they think will best represent them and their views in the ultimate contest to determine who will become President of the United States. But that just isn't happening now. Instead of a system that tests a candidate's character and his ability to offer reasoned opinions over the long haul, we have an increasingly compressed schedule, one in which States whose primaries once were spread out over months now compete to see who can hold their contests the earliest, and candidates compete to see who can raise more money than everyone else before the first primary voters ever step foot into the election booth. That ``money primary'' has already eliminated four of the Republican candidates for President. This is no way for the world's greatest democracy to choose its leader. As Senator Gorton already has explained, the bill we are proposing today offers an alternative system, one that can restore the primary season to what it should be: a contest of candidates discussing their ideas for America's future. By creating a series of regional primaries, we will make it more likely that all areas of the country have input into the nominee selection process, and that the candidates and their treasuries will not be stretched so thin by primaries all over the country on the same day. By spreading out the primaries over a four-month period, we have a chance to return to the days when the electorate had an opportunity to evaluate the candidates over time, and where voters--not just financial contributors--had decided who the parties' nominees will be. Anyone looking at the current system knows it has to change. I hope that we can make that happen before the 2004 campaign begins.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President. I am happy to join Senator Gorton in introducing a bill that we hope will restore some common sense to the way the country chooses party nominees for president. As Senator Gorton already has explained well, anyone taking a objective look at the current primary and caucus system could reach only one conclusion: it makes very little sense. Our primary system was meant to serve a very important purpose: to determine the two--or perhaps three--individuals who will have the opportunity to compete for the most powerful office in our nation, and perhaps in the world. Given the importance of the process, it is critical that it be a fair one, one that tests the mettle and the ideas of all of the candidates, one that allows the voters to hear and weigh the views of those seeking their parties' nominations, and one that gives the primary electorate--the whole, national primary electorate--a chance to choose the person they think will best represent them and their views in the ultimate contest to determine who will become President of the United States. But that just isn't happening now. Instead of a system that tests a candidate's character and his ability to offer reasoned opinions over the long haul, we have an increasingly compressed schedule, one in which States whose primaries once were spread out over months now compete to see who can hold their contests the earliest, and candidates compete to see who can raise more money than everyone else before the first primary voters ever step foot into the election booth. That ``money primary'' has already eliminated four of the Republican candidates for President. This is no way for the world's greatest democracy to choose its leader. As Senator Gorton already has explained, the bill we are proposing today offers an alternative system, one that can restore the primary season to what it should be: a contest of candidates discussing their ideas for America's future. By creating a series of regional primaries, we will make it more likely that all areas of the country have input into the nominee selection process, and that the candidates and their treasuries will not be stretched so thin by primaries all over the country on the same day. By spreading out the primaries over a four-month period, we have a chance to return to the days when the electorate had an opportunity to evaluate the candidates over time, and where voters--not just financial contributors--had decided who the parties' nominees will be. Anyone looking at the current system knows it has to change. I hope that we can make that happen before the 2004 campaign begins.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Ten minutes is fine.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. The underlying bill and this amendment bring us back to these morally perplexing questions. We heard it in the sincerity of the speech by the Senator from Minnesota and the sincerity of all of my colleagues speaking on either side, for either of these approaches. This problem, more than any I have confronted in my public life, seems to me to join our personal value systems, our personal understanding about profound philosophical medical questions, such as ``When does life begin?'' with our role as legislators, with our role as lawmakers, with the limits of what our capacities are in making law and, ultimately, of course, also with what the reality is that the courts have stated as they have applied our Constitution, as the ultimate arbiter of our values and our rights in this country. I support this proposal of Senator Durbin's because, once again, I think it actually will do what I believe most everybody--I would say everybody--in this Chamber would like the law to do, and that is to reduce the number of abortions that are performed. I support it also because I think it can be upheld as constitutional, and I sincerely and respectfully doubt the underlying proposal, the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Act, will be upheld as constitutional. I remember I first dealt with these issues when I was a State senator in Connecticut in the 1970s, after the Roe v. Wade decision was first passed down by the Supreme Court, and the swelter of conflicting questions: What is the appropriate place for my convictions about abortion, my personal conviction that potential life begins at conception and, therefore, my personal conviction that all abortions are unacceptable? How do I relate that to my role as a lawmaker, to the limits of the law, to the right of privacy that the Supreme Court found in Roe v. Wade? This proposal that deals with partial-birth abortion, or intact dilation and extraction, brings us back once again to all of those questions. I have received letters from constituents in support of Senator Santorum's proposal. I have had calls and conversations with constituents and friends--people I not only respect and trust but love--who have urged me to support Senator Santorum's proposal. When you hear the description of this procedure, it is horrific; it is abominable. There is a temptation, of course, to want to respond and do what the underlying proposal asks us to do in the law by adopting this law. And then I come back to my own personal opinion, which is every abortion, no matter when performed during pregnancy--this is my personal view--is unacceptable and is, in its way, a termination of potential life. So as I step back and reach that conclusion, I have to place the proposal Senator Santorum puts before us and the one Senator Durbin puts before us now in the context, one might say, of some humility of what the appropriate role for each of us is as lawmakers, what the appropriate role for this institution is as a lawmaking body, and what does the Court tell us is appropriate under the Constitution. I cannot reach any other conclusion, personally, than that Senator Santorum's proposal is not constitutional, that Senator Durbin's is, and will, in fact, reduce the number of postviability abortions and, therefore, the number of abortions that are performed in our country. That is why I have added my name as a cosponsor to Senator Durbin's proposal. The courts have created well-defined boundaries for legislative action. Under Planned Parenthood versus Casey, the Supreme Court held that ``subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' Partial birth legislation has been challenged 22 times in the courts resulting in 19 injunctions. The court-imposed constraints must be reflected in legislative efforts if we are going to achieve our goal of reducing late-term abortions. Enacting legislation that courts have struck down time and again is unlikely to reduce abortions. Most recently, of course, that conclusion was reached by the Eighth Circuit Court on September 24, little less than a month ago, when the court said: Several states have enacted statutes seeking to ban ``partial-birth abortion.'' The precise wording of the statutes, and how far the statutes go in their attempts to regulate pre-viability abortions, differ from state to state. The results from constitutional challenges to the statutes, however, have been almost unvarying. In most of the cases that reached the federal courts, the courts have held the statutes unconstitutional. So the constitutional impediment to the proposal Senator Santorum makes is that, notwithstanding the horrific nature of the so-called partial-birth abortion, the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion, you cannot prohibit by law, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, any particular form of terminating a pregnancy at all stages of the pregnancy. You can prohibit almost all forms of terminating a pregnancy after viability. That is what the Durbin amendment will do. Incidentally, viability as medical science has advanced, has become an earlier and earlier time in the pregnancy. There are exceptions. Incidentally, the language in the Durbin proposal is not full of loopholes. It is very strict and demanding. It requires a certification by a physician that the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. Those are serious requirements not meant to create a series of loopholes through which people intending to violate the law can go. As has been said, a new provision has been added to this amendment which requires that an independent physician who will not perform nor be present at the abortion, who was not previously involved in the treatment of the mother, can affirm the first physician's opinion by a certification in writing. A physician who knowingly violates the act may be subject to suspension of license and penalties as high as $250,000. The limitations are specific. They are narrow. And they are, if I may say so, inflexible. In that sense, they respond in the most narrow way to the health exception required by the Supreme Court. This is such a good proposal which Senator Durbin has offered that I hope we may come back to it at some other time when it is not seen by the proponents of Senator Santorum's legislation as a negation of that legislation because this amendment in that sense never gets a fair vote or a clear vote. I think if we brought it up on its own, perhaps it could allow us the common ground on this difficult moral question toward which I think so many Members of the Chamber on both sides aspire. I hope we can find the occasion to do that. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Illinois for the work he has done in preparing this amendment and bringing it before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Cheshire Lions Club of Cheshire, CT which is celebrating its 50th anniversary of service to the community. With the support of area residents, the Cheshire Lions Club has reached out to assist many members of the community. The Lions Club has developed a national reputation for advancing such worthwhile local causes as the D.A.R.E. Program for schools, academic scholarships for local students, and area food banks, and the Cheshire club has been an important part of that legacy. Over the years, members of the Cheshire Lions Club have actively involved themselves in countless civic activities and made a real difference in Connecticut. Their hard work has reached far beyond the Town of Cheshire and the Lions Club stands tall as an example of the principles upon which our nation was built. As the Cheshire Lions Club has grown, its numerous good works have touched many lives and demonstrated the true value of community spirit. I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking the club and all its members for their service, dedication, and contributions to our state.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in her most recent book, ``The Corruption of American Politics,'' the very skilled and veteran Washington reporter Elizabeth Drew writes that ``indisputably, the greatest change in Washington over the past 25 years--in its culture, in the way it does business and the ever-burgeoning amount of business transactions that go on here--has been in the preoccupation with money. It has transformed politics and its has subverted values . . .'' This evaluation once was nursed by a few public interest groups and then a group of congressional reformers. Now, it constitutes conventional wisdom. It is written in the books. It is fact. The political preoccupation with money has ``transformed us and subverted values.'' According to a Quinnipiac College poll published October 14, 68 percent of those surveyed believe large campaign contributions influence the policies supported by elected officials and a June survey by the National Academy of Public Administration reported the number one thing politicians could do to regain public trust is to curb large campaign contributions. Despite these assessments from the people we serve, Congress remains incapable of changing how U.S. federal campaigns are financed. With the 2000 election cycle well underway, it is clear the worst habits of the past two decades have become the springboard from which new excesses will be launched. Candidates are awash in more money than ever before and party fund-raising records are being shattered again and again. At least two presidential primary candidates--George W. Bush and Steve Forbes--have decided to forego public matching funds in order to avoid the related limits on their campaign spending, while candidates and third party groups are seeking ever more inventive ways to raise undisclosed and unlimited funds to communicate with voters and influence elections. As a member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, I had hoped the system had reached its nadir in the 1996 federal election campaign, which the committee investigated for most of 1997. I was too optimistic. Because of Congress' failure to enact campaign finance reform, the system continues to fester and elections seem to be auctioned off to the highest bidders. After it's over, the complete story of the 200 presidential race will be told. Until then, the investigation conducted by the Governmental Affairs Committee provides the best portrait there is of how corrupt our elections have become and how obviously current practices violate the clear intent of Congress in passing campaign finance laws. Our investigation revealed that in 1996, the major parties sabotaged some of the most fundamental values underpinning our American experiment in self-rule. They gave millions of Americans good reason to doubt whether they had a true and equal voice in their own government. What emerged from that investigation was the picture of a campaign finance system gone haywire--a story replete with abuses ranging from institutionalized failures to two-bit hustlers--a story that should have made any elected federal official ashamed and disgusted by the taint that has diminished our representative democracy, that is to say, every citizen's right to an equal voice in his or her government. The investigation forces us to ask whether we are no longer a nation where one person's vote speaks louder than another person's money. Or have we reached a place where one person's money can drown out another person's vote? For those who may have forgotten the unseemly details, let me remind you of what our year-long investigation uncovered, because it's important to remember these things. We learned about a brazen man named Roger Tamraz, who contributed $300,000 in soft money to the Democratic Party for access to the White House in order to try to override the NSC's rejection of his plan for a Caspian Sea oil pipeline. Ultimately, he never gained the White House support he was looking for but he did get to talk to the President of the United States. Any lessons to be learned from his experience, we asked? Yes, he responded. Next time he would contribute $600,000. After this remarkable comment, Tamraz admitted he had never even bothered to register to vote because, in his words, his checkbook was worth ``a bit more than a vote.'' We also learned about Johnny Chung, a California entrepreneur, who visited the White House 49 times, had lots of pictures taken with the President, and once gave the First Lady's chief of staff a $50,000 check right there in the East Wing. He had a particularly jarring assessment of our government. ``I see the White House is like a subway,'' he told the committee. ``You have to put in coins to open the gates.'' For those of you who may think these are just marginal opportunists who slipped through the cracks of our system, let me remind you of the revolving cast of top-dollar contributors who slept in the Lincoln bedroom and of the chairman of the Republican Party who sought a $2.1 million loan for a Republican think tank from a Hong Kong industrialist, which was intentionally defaulted on 2 years later. The chairman said he had no idea this was a foreign contribution, even though the industrialist had renounced his U.S. citizenship and the chairman obtained the loan while cruising Hong Kong Harbor on the industrialist's luxury yacht. These are colorful stories and among the most outrageous incidents uncovered by the committee. But the far more prevalent collection of big soft money donations came not from the carnival hawkers but from mainstream corporate and union interests and individuals. In total, the parties raised $262 million in soft money during the 1996 campaigns--12 times the amount they raised in 1984. And that's chicken feed compared to the amount of soft money being raised for the 2000 campaign. Based on the first 6 months of this year, both parties have doubled their take over the same period in 1995. To my friends who say these contributions are an expression of free and protected speech, I respectfully disagree. Free speech is abut the inalienable right to express our views without government interference. It is about the vision the Framers of our Constitution enshrined--a vision that ensures that we will never compromise our American birthright to offer opinions, even when those opinions are unpopular or repugnant. But that is not at issue here, Mr. President. Absolutely nothing in this campaign finance bill will diminish or threaten any American's right to express his or her views about candidates running for office or about any other issue in American life. What we would be threatening, is something entirely different, and that is the ever increasing and disproportionate power that those with money have over our political system. Let's not fool ourselves--because the American public isn't fooled. Much of the campaign money raised comes from people seeking to maintain their access to, and perhaps sway over, particular parties or candidates. That explains why so many big givers are so generous with both parties at the same time. Everyone of us in this chamber knows intimately the cost of running for office. It requires us to spend so much more time raising money than we ever did in the past, so much more time that we find we have less time to do the things that led us to run for office in the first place. Barely a day seems to go by in this town in which there is not an event or a meeting with elected officials attended only by those who can afford sums of money that are beyond the capacity of the overwhelming majority of Americans to give. That, Mr. President, is threatening the principle that I--and all of us, I dare say--hold just as dearly as the principle of free speech. It is the genius of our Republic, the principle that promises one man, one vote, that every person--rich or poor, man or woman, white or black, Christian or Jew, Muslim or Hindu--has an equal right and an equal ability to influence the workings of their government. I have always said the most serious transgressions of the 1996 presidential campaign were legal. Wealthy donors contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money blatantly skirted legal limits on individual contributions. Unions and corporations donate millions to both Republican and Democratic parties, despite decades-old prohibitions on union and corporate involvement in federal campaigns. And tax-exempt groups paid for millions of dollars worth of television ads that clearly endorsed or attacked particular candidates even though the groups were barred by law from engaging in such extensive partisan electoral activity. Each of these acts compromised the integrity of our elections and our government. Each of these acts violated the spirit of our laws. To achieve significant reform of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the unrelenting pressure to raise vast sums of money simply must be reduced. A ban on soft money contributions is the necessary beginning to that process and the current McCain-Feingold proposal is the vehicle through which this goal can best be accomplished now. I believe the record created by the Governmental Affairs Committee's hearing in 1997 helped that bill obtain the votes of a majority of the Senate in the 105th Congress, but an anti-reform minority filibustered the bill and prevented it from passing. The House has twice approved the companion Shays-Meehan proposal. A majority of Congress supports this bill. A large majority of the American public supports this bill. One day, if not today, it will become law. By placing a limit on the amount of money raised for campaigns, we can restore a sense of integrity--and of sanity--to our campaign financing system and to our democracy. If I could waive a magic wand, I would have Congress enact far broader reforms than what is in the bill before us today. I would make sure that advertisements for candidates could no longer masquerade as so-called issue ads, thereby evading the disclosure requirements of our campaign laws; I would make sure that no organization could claim the benefit of tax-exemption and then work to influence the election or defeat of particular candidates or parties. I would make sure that candidates for the Presidency who receive public funds live up to the original intent of the law, that they remain above the fund-raising fray and abstain from raising any more money once they have accepted public funds. I would like to see more exacting criminal law provisions become part of the campaign finance law. Indeed, I hope to offer and support amendments aimed at some of these problems as our debate on this bill continues. The truth is that we can never fully write into law what every citizen has a right to expect from his or her representatives--that those who seek to write the rules for the nation will respect them, rather than search high and low for ways to evade their requirements and eviscerate their intent; and that those who have sworn to abide by the Constitution will honor the trust and responsibilities the Constitution places in their hands. We can, however, reduce the feverish and incessant chase for money, the chase that has pushed candidates and their parties to duck, dodge and ultimately debase the laws we have now. The pressure to raise ever expanding sums of cash will continue to drive good people to do bad things, almost regardless of what the law calls for, if we do not recast the system to permanently defuse the fund-raising arms race and stem the corrosive influence of big money. That is the challenge ahead of us.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a milestone vote by the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont. Today Senator Patrick Leahy becomes the 21st member in the Senate's history to pass the 10,000 vote mark. I have had the opportunity to work alongside the Senator for the last 11 years and it gives me great pleasure to take a few minutes to discuss his many accomplishments. Senator Leahy began working for the people of Vermont back in 1966, when he was elected Chittenden County state's attorney. He quickly gained a national reputation when he revamped the office and led a national task force that was probing the 1973-74 energy crisis. In 1974, he was elected to the Senate and he remains the only Democratic Senator in the state's history. This is important because to have the state of Vermont re-elect Senator Leahy four times means that he is doing work here that appeals to a wide cross section of people. During his years as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Senator Leahy demonstrated his ability to report bills to the full Senate with strong bipartisan support. In partnership with Senator Lugar he authored two farm bills that not only protected important nutrition initiatives like the WIC program, but also included landmark environmental features that have helped to preserve farmland. He has also been able to streamline the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the process saving more than $2 billion. The issue that the Senator may be best known for is his fight for a world-wide ban on land mines. Since 1989 he has labored to raise awareness among the public and build political support within the administration. He pushed for an international treaty that would ban anti-personnel mines and got a commitment from the U.S. administration to sign the treaty when alternatives to the mines are available. And the Leahy War Victims Fund provides up to $12 million a year in medical supplies to aid land mine victims. Senator Leahy is also a cofounder of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Now in his fifth term, Senator Leahy remains on the cutting edge of technology as he was one of the first Senators to establish a home page on the web. He also conducts electronic town meetings with residents on-line, and has sought to update copyright law to reflect the changes that have occurred with the advent of the information age. Equally important as these legislative achievements is the sense of tradition that Senator Leahy carries with him as he fulfills the daily tasks of a U.S. Senator. He has consistently been a voice for rural America, and, while he always votes with the people of Vermont in mind, in a more traditional way Patrick Leahy has not been afraid to take an unpopular stance if he believes that the national interest is at stake. He is a Statesman who appeals to a sense of bipartisanship on issues dealing with our national security and foreign policy. These are customs that are essential to the success of this institution, and the Senator is often looked to for leadership for these reasons. I congratulate Senator Leahy for this momentous achievement. He is a fine example of what a United States Senator should be.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Central Connecticut State University as it celebrates its 150th anniversary. Under the dynamic leadership of President Richard Judd, this fine institution has continued to achieve the vision of academic excellence upon which it was founded. Originally the New Britain Normal School, CCSU was established by the State General Assembly in 1849 and stands as the oldest public institution of higher education in Connecticut. Whether under the name Normal School, Teachers College of Connecticut, or Central Connecticut State University, its students have never received less than a first- rate education. CCSU has cultivated a rich academic environment in which both graduates and undergraduates have the opportunity to better understand themselves as well as the world around them. Academically, athletically, and culturally, CCSU and its more than 11,000 students have much to celebrate throughout this special year. What makes CCSU so unique is that it has never isolated itself from the surrounding community. Instead, the university embraces its position within the larger civic arena and, in doing so, offers its students the valuable opportunity to make a real difference in the city of New Britain and beyond. CCSU students, faculty, and facilities have played a significant role in the city's development and will continue to weave themselves into the city's social fabric for many years to come. Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating the sesquicentennial anniversary of Central Connecticut State University, one of the Nation's great academic institutions.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Societa Regionale Marchegiana of New Haven, CT, as they celebrate their 90th anniversary of service to the Greater New Haven community. Founded in 1909 on the principles of brotherhood and community involvement, the Marchegiana Society has enjoyed 90 years of success as one of the State's largest fraternal organizations. A number of important events have marked the history of the Regional Marchegiana Society, including the construction of the Marchegian Center and the merging with its sister group, the Ladies Marchegiana Society. In times of war and in times of peace, this proud organization has always served as a model of patriotism, dedication, and community spirit. Over the years, its members have actively involved themselves in countless civic activities and made a real difference to the city of New Haven. In our society, which draws its strength from its diversity, the Marchegiana Society stands tall as an example of the principles upon which our nation was built. Mr. President, I ask that you join me in honoring the fine men and women of the Regional Marchegiana Society. They have met and exceeded the expectations of their 36 founders and will undoubtedly continue their unblemished record of service far into the future.