Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the good-faith efforts of people on both sides of the aisle to avoid a vote, knowing that there were not votes in the Senate to ratify this treaty, have obviously failed. The vote will occur soon, and the votes are not there to ratify the treaty. That, in my opinion, is profoundly unfortunate. There is plenty of blame to be passed all around for that result. I think at this moment we all should not look backward but look forward, and particularly say to our friends and allies and enemies around the world that this vote tonight does not send a signal that the majority of the American people and their Representatives in Congress and in the Senate are not profoundly concerned about nuclear proliferation and are not interested in arriving at a treaty that genuinely will protect future generations from that threat. At times in this debate I was heartened by statements, including those made by the current occupant of the Chair, the Senator from Nebraska, saying if the vote occurred, you would vote against the ratification tonight, but more work ought to be done and more thought ought to be given. I hope in the days ahead we will be able to reach across the partisan aisle, work together without time limitation or even timeframe, to see if we can find a way to build adequate support for the ratification of this treaty, or a treaty which will control the proliferation of nuclear weapons by prohibiting the testing of those weapons. I invite my colleagues from both parties to join with us in that effort in working together with our administration. I hope we can take from this experience the lessons of what we did not do this time and should do next time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with the agriculture conference report that we in the Senate will vote on today. This agriculture appropriations bill falls well short of helping the Connecticut farmers whose very livelihood was badly hurt by this summer's record drought, and who are depending on our assistance to recover from the devastating losses they have suffered. Instead, this plan simply leaves farmers throughout the Northeast even higher and drier, and leaves me no choice but to vote against this bill. In August, I joined with Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman in visiting a family farm in Northford to inspect the drought damage done in Connecticut this year. On that day, the Secretary declared the entire state a drought disaster area. Since then, it has been estimated that farmers in our state have incurred losses of $41 million; together, the 13 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states estimate their losses at $2.5 billion. Sadly, despite strong bipartisan pleas for support, the agriculture appropriations bill shortchanges our state as well as the entire Northeast region. Of the $8.7 billion in ``emergency'' farm relief this bill provides, only $1.2 billion is available for natural disaster aid. This smaller allocation of money must be distributed, in turn, to farmers nationwide for drought, flood, and other natural disaster damage. It is likely that the drought-stricken farmers of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states would receive only about $300 million--less than one-eighth of their estimated recovery costs. Historically, hard working Connecticut farmers benefit from very little federal assistance. During the last fiscal year, for example, Connecticut farmers received less than one-tenth of one percent of the $10.6 billion paid out by the government-funded Commodity Credit Corporation. It is only fair that when they need emergency recovery assistance, the government come through for Connecticut farmers too. Sadly, this bill is not fair. This agriculture spending plan is regionally inequitable, offers insufficient disaster assistance for Connecticut farmers, and represents unacceptable public policy. In times of legitimate farm crises, Congress has repeatedly provided a helping hand to farmers in the Midwest and South. We owe nothing less to the farmers in Connecticut and throughout the Northeast who make a critical contribution to our economy. They deserve real help, not a bill of goods. I am also concerned by the disappearance during conference of the Northeast Dairy Compact, which had been approved by the House of Representatives. Because the usual conference committee proceedings were circumvented this year, it is impossible to know why the Dairy Compact is missing in action. Regardless of the answer to this question, the subversion of the conference committee process disturbs me and represents a bad precedent for our legislative process. Because this bill does not provide real, equitable relief for Connecticut farmers and does not include reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact, I will join my colleagues from the Northeast in voting against it. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Delaware. As I have listened to my colleagues during this debate, I feel as if the Senate has backed itself at least into a procedural corner in the midst of a policy disagreement. This is not the first time this has happened in the history of the Senate--not even in the 10\1/2\ years I have been here. But this is one of the most consequential times we have done so. For it seems to be a combination of reasons that are part ideological, part partisan, and part just plain personal. I hope we can find a way to work ourselves out of this corner because the stakes here are high. As the debate has been going on, I have been thinking about the two big debates that have occurred here in the decade that I have been privileged to serve in this body. One was the gulf war debate and the other was the Middle East peace accords, the Oslo accords. I think of the gulf war debate because I remember as President Bush dispatched a half million troops to the gulf that I was dismayed at how the reaction to that act by President Bush was dividing along partisan lines. It didn't seem like a partisan question to me. People could have good faith opinions on both sides, but the opinions were not based on party affiliation. I have the same feeling as I listen to this debate, and watch the lines harden. Something unusual and unsettling has happened to our politics when party lines divide us so clearly and totally on a matter of national security. That is not the way it used to be in the Senate. And that is not the way it ought to be. The same is true of the procedural dilemma to which we have come. We have a President--and those of us who support this treaty-- acknowledging that the votes are not there to ratify it now. That says that the opponents of the treaty have won for now. So why push for the vote? If the President of the United States has asked that it be delayed because of his fear of the consequences of a vote failing to ratify on nuclear proliferation, this is not political. This goes to the heart of our security and the hopes and fears we have for our future and our children's future. But I will say if there is one thing, in my opinion, that would be worse than going ahead and voting, even though we know those who oppose ratification of the treaty have won. That would be for us as a majority to voluntarily say that we will prohibit the President or ourselves from raising the question of this critical and progressive treaty again for the next year and a half. I think to do that would send an even worse signal to India, to Pakistan, to China, and to Russia. Let's keep the hope of a more secure world alive. Let's acknowledge that we have a common goal. Is anybody for nuclear proliferation? Don't we all agree that the atmosphere is cleaner and the likelihood of nuclear proliferation less if nations can't test? Can't we find a way across party lines to do what we have done with other treaties--to adopt reservations or safeguards or conditions which allow enough of us to come together to ratify this treaty? Why are we heading toward a wall from which there will be no good return and no good result? I have also been thinking of the Middle East peace accords and the Oslo accords because I remember what Prime Minister Rabin said. If you are strong you can take risks for peace. We are the strongest nation today in the history of the world. When it comes to strategic nuclear weapons, we are dominant. We have more than 6,000. If, tragically, for whatever reason, a few of them don't work we have such--in the marvelous term of the Pentagon-- ``redundancy'' that we have thousands of others that we can rely on in the dreadful occasion that we might need to use them. This treaty promises to freeze our advantage in nuclear weapons. Since we are the strongest nation in history and this treaty may well make us more dominant in the crucial, terrible arena of nuclear weapons, why would we not want to take the risk of ratifying this treaty? It is, in my opinion, a very small risk for increasing peace and security for all--for our children, for our grandchildren. If we decide that testing is once again required by the United States in pursuit of our national interests, that option is protected. The treaty language is very clear: We can--and I am sure we will--withdraw. My appeal in closing is to say, Can't we find a way to come back to some sense of common purpose and shared vision of a future? Both sides have said on the floor that nuclear proliferation is one of the great threats to our future. We are hurtling down a path, as this dreadful power spreads to other countries of the world, many of them rogue nations, where we cannot rely on the bizarre system of mutual assured destruction that saved the United States from nuclear war during the cold war. If an accident becomes more likely, the consequences will be dreadful. Can't we find a way to avoid good old-fashioned gridlock, which is survivable on most occasions in this Senate, but I think potentially devastating on this occasion? I appeal to my colleagues on the other side, whether there is or is not a vote now on this treaty, let's get together and figure a way we can sit, study the matter, talk to people in the Pentagon and people in allied countries, and see if we cannot find a way to agree on enough reservations, safeguards, and conditions to come back, hopefully next year, and ratify this treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I note there is a rule in the Senate against using props. I, just for a moment, ask unanimous consent for a transitional prop, if I might briefly hold this up.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. This is my favorite ESPN parka. It gives you an indication of about what I am going to speak. It is in some sense as cultural as the first part of my comments. It does involve the influence of television on the American culture. But today, in this part of it, the news is good and the occasion is one to celebrate, particularly for those who may find some meaning in words that might confuse visitors from another planet, such as ``en fuego'' or ``boo-yaah.'' Twenty years ago, a small cable television enterprise, tucked away in the woods of central Connecticut, introduced itself to America with these words: If you're a fan, what you'll see in the minutes, hours and days to follow may convince you that you've gone to sports heaven. True to that prophecy, the past 20 years have marked our national elevation into another world of sublime sports saturation. In recognition of its outstanding contribution in shaping the sports entertainment industry, I wish to speak today--and I believe I speak for all of my colleagues, at least a great majority--in offering our kudos to an American sports institution and the pride of Bristol, CT-- the ESPN Network which turned 20 years old last month, on September 7. The folks at ESPN aired an anniversary special that night duly celebrating the network's unique constructive contribution to our culture, and yesterday there was a congressional reception in honor of that anniversary. Those of us who attended not only had the chance to toast ESPN but to meet an extraordinary group of American heroes: boxing legend Muhammad Ali, football great Johnny Unitas, and Olympian Carl Lewis. So I take the floor to pay tribute to one of my favorite corporate constituents, and I think one of America's favorite networks. The story of how ESPN came to be is really an American rags to riches classic, and that network's unbreakable bond with the small Connecticut city of its founding is part of that story. Bristol, CT, population 63,000, is a wonderful town, 20 minutes west of Hartford. Most famous previously for being the cradle of clockmaking during the industrial age, Bristol seemed an unlikely candidate to emerge as the cradle of electronics sports media, but it did. Believe it or not, ESPN probably would not exist today--certainly not in Bristol--if the old New England Whalers of the World Hockey Association had not had a disappointing season in 1978. The Whalers' public relations director, a man named Bill Rasmussen, one of several employees to lose his job in a front-office shakeup at the end of that season, decided he had an idea he wanted to try. He was a Whalers man at heart, and he figured he could stay involved with his team by starting a new cable television channel that would broadcast Whalers games statewide. He even had a second-tier dream of someday possibly broadcasting University of Connecticut athletics statewide as well. Rasmussen rented office space in Plainville, CT, near Bristol, and thought up the name Entertainment and Sports Programming Network, or ESPN. But before he had even unpacked in Plainville, he ran into his first problem--the town had an ordinance which prohibited satellite dishes. Undeterred, Rasmussen scrambled to nearby Bristol, found a parcel of land in an industrial park in the outskirts of the city, which he promptly bought, sight unseen, I gather, for $18,000. The rest, as they say, is history. Today, ESPN, from this same location, generates $1.3 billion a year in revenues and is seen in more than 75 million American homes. ESPN realized that second-tier dream that Rasmussen had. Earlier this year, his station provided exhaustive coverage of UConn athletics when the Huskies won the NCAA men's basketball championship--only the game was not broadcast statewide; it was broadcast worldwide. Twenty years after its founding, ESPN commands an international audience that watches every sport--from baseball to badminton to Australian rules football. The network's flagship, SportsCenter, is currently the longest running program on cable television, with more than 21,000 episodes logged--truly, the Cal Ripken of network television. In a measure of its enormous influence on our culture, the catch phrases coined by SportsCenter's quick-witted anchors routinely find their way into the American vocabulary, such as the aforementioned ``en fuego'' and ``boo-yaah.'' The program also has broadened sports appeal by peppering broadcasts with references to literature, history, and other high-minded fields not always connected with sporting events. The father of this breed of broadcasting, of course, is Chris Berman, probably my most famous constituent. He was hired from a Waterbury, CT, radio station at the age 24 to become one of ESPN's pioneering voices. What a great professional and source of great joy Chris Berman is. A testament to his place among sportscasting greats can be heard across ballparks in America each time a home run ball is struck. If you listen closely, as the ball nears the fence, you may think that the ballfield is being overtaken by a herd of chickens clucking: ``Back, back''--I am restraining myself here on the floor, Mr. President, but you get the idea--``back, back, back, back, back,'' in homage to the Swami's classic call. Berman is also the father of the modern sports nickname, concocting such classics as: Burt ``Be Home'' Blyleven, John ``I Am Not A'' Kruk, and Roberto ``Remember The'' Alomar. There are certain individuals unnamed in the Democratic Cloakroom who have attempted to emulate this style of nicknaming for sports figures, and they are not doing badly. Oh, and lest we forget another household name, ESPN introduced us to the man who genuinely put the ``Madness'' into March Madness--the nattering nabob of Naismith, the great Dick Vitale. So thanks to Chris Berman, to Dick Vitale, and to all the others who have made ESPN part of our lives. ESPN is today to sports what Walter Cronkite once was to politics and public affairs--the authoritative voice fans turn to when a major story breaks. As political columnist George Will once wisely said: ``If someone surreptitiously took everything but ESPN from my cable television package, it might be months before I noticed.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Despite ESPN's national prominence and its countless opportunities to relocate to a larger media market, the network has steadfastly stayed with bucolic Bristol, as it is endearingly referred to on the air. ESPN maintains its foothold in the same industrial park where it began 20 years ago, although the Bristol campus, as it is now called, spans today 43 acres and the network has 210 employees. We in Connecticut are very proud of this relationship and particularly of ESPN's leaders and broadcasters who have happily put down roots and raised their families in central Connecticut. I think John Leone, former mayor of Bristol, now head of the Bristol Chamber of Commerce, may have summed up the relationship between the city and its network best when he said: In New York, ESPN would be just another network. Here in Bristol, ESPN is the king. So to the king of Bristol--and their royalty of American sports television--I say happy 20th, ESPN, and many more. Before I yield the floor, I want to give a special thank you to Eric Kleiman of my office staff who truly inspired this statement of gratitude and tribute to a great television network. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, last evening after the final vote occurred, my friend and colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, took the floor and offered an amendment which he then withdrew. I was not able, because of my personal schedule, to be here at that time. But as an original sponsor of the original legislation offered by Senator Brownback, which would have created a special committee on cultural matters, I did want to simply say a few words about this. I know this became controversial within the Senate, but I felt from the beginning that Senator Brownback's intentions were not only worthy but they were relevant; that the cultural problems which the committee, or later the task force, would have addressed are real, as every family in America knows when their children turn on the television or go to a movie or listen to a CD or play a video game. The problems are not only real, but they are actually relevant to so many of the matters we more formally discuss on the floor of the Senate--such as the solitary explosions, violent criminal behavior, problems such as teenage pregnancies, I think all of which are affected by the messages our culture gives our children and, indeed, adults about behavior. Of course, I am talking about the hypersexual content, hyperviolent content in too much of our culture. In this case, this effort by Senator Brownback, with the withdrawal of the amendment last night, was not to culminate successfully. But the battle will go on. Clearly, the standing committees of the Senate will--I certainly hope they will; I am confident they will--continue to pursue cultural questions because they are so important, they are so central to the moral condition and future of our country. I look forward to working on those with Senator Brownback and other colleagues as we go forward.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a milestone in the extraordinary life of one of America's most distinguished statesmen, former President Jimmy Carter, who celebrates his 75th birthday today. Twenty-three years ago, in the turbulent aftermath of Watergate, Americans yearned for a leader of honesty and integrity who would steward the country into an uncertain future. We found that man in James Earl Carter, Jr., a submariner and farmer-turned-Georgia-Governor who we elected our 39th President. President Carter served very honorably and ably during his term in office, earning distinction for diplomatic successes such as overseeing in the signing of the Panama Canal Treaty and the Camp David Accords. And in his 19 years since leaving office, President Carter has demonstrated himself to be one of the world's great humanitarians. In 1982, he founded the Carter Center--a nonprofit, nonpartisan center dedicated to promoting democracy, human rights, and conflict- resolution throughout the world. The center's work has been remarkable. In the past two decades--whether fighting to eradicate Guinea worm disease, thwarting conflict in Haiti, or helping to free political prisoners across the globe--President Carter has carved out a deserved reputation as one of the most active, humane, and accomplished ex- Presidents in American history. President Carter talked candidly about his Presidential legacy and his gratifying years after office in a profile recently written by White House correspondent Trude B. Feldman to commemorate his 75th birthday. To pay tribute to one of America's eminent leaders, I ask that Ms. Feldman's article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From Los Angeles Times Syndicate International] President Carter at 75 (By Trude B. Feldman) Atlanta, Ga.--Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter turns 75 on October 1st and says he is in good shape and determined not to let aging get the better of him. In an interview to mark the milestone, he adds: ``My health is fine. I've had a full and gratifying life, but now is the best time of all.'' Does the energetic Carter feel 75 years of age? ``Not really,'' he tells me. ``I feel young. I'm still doing the same things I did twenty years age. I haven't given up active sports, although I cut back on some. I run fewer miles a day and play less tennis. In softball, my pitch is as accurate as ever, but I have little power in my drives, and base running is slower. Still, I don't feel tired and worn out. I continue to explore new opportunities, so I don' feel I'm growing old. But I do know what the calendar says.'' Twenty years ago when Carter turned 55, October 1st, by striking coincidence, fell on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism. Reflecting on that unusual concurrence in 1979, then President Carter told me: ``Reassessment of the past and plans for the future are important on one's birthday. So all the more important when a birthday falls on the same day as Yom Kippur--a supreme moral and spiritual moment, a time to take stock of one's personal life as well as to evaluate one's role in society . . . We all need a new spirit, a new heart . . . and we can do better by reviewing our past . . . to discover where we went wrong.'' America's 39th president, Jimmy Carter lost his re-election bid in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, and was ``devastated, disappointed and frustrated'' at not being able to complete his goals. Two years later, with his disappointment diverted by the writing of his memoir, Carter reverted to his passion for the power of positive thinking, and established, with his wife Rosalynn, The Carter Center, within which he could pursue some of the programs and interests that ``were interrupted when I was forced into involuntary retirement.'' The Carter Center, located on 30 acres of a now landscaped hill in Atlanta, from which General William Tecumseh Sherman watched the fledgling city burn in 1864, consists of The Carter Presidential Library and Museum and The Carter Center in four linked circular pods. It is governed by an independent Board of Trustees and yet is a part of Emory University. It brings people and resources together to resolve conflict, promote peace, democracy, and human rights, as well as to fight disease, hunger, poverty, and oppression worldwide. It was at The Carter Center that President William J. Clinton last month presented, separately to Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor. ``They have done more good things for more people in more places than any other couple,'' Clinton stated. ``The work they do through this extraordinary Center to improve our world is unparalleled in our Nation's history . . . Their journey is one of love and faith, and this Center has been their ministry.'' Clinton also remarked that to call Jimmy Carter the greatest former president in history, as many have, doesn't do justice either to him or his work. ``For, in a real sense, this Carter Center . . . is a continuation of the Carter presidency,'' he said. ``The work he did in his four years (1977-81) in the White House not only broke important new ground, it is still playing a large role in shaping today's world.'' In accepting the Medal, Carter told the assembled guests-- family and friends--that President Clinton's words made him ``almost speechless with emotion,'' and he described the event as ``one of the most beautiful of my life.'' Carter went on to say that he and Rosalynn find much satisfaction in The Carter Center, and that it has given them, in effect, a new life, a life of pleasure, challenge, adventure, and unpredictability. ``We have formed close relationships with people in small villages in Africa, and those hungry for freedom and democracy in Indonesia, Haiti, Paraguay, and other countries,'' he stated. ``We try to bring them the blessings of America in an unofficial, but personal way.'' He added that he and Rosalynn visited some 115 foreign countries and learned about the people--their despair, hopelessness and lack of self respect. ``We also learned that close relations are necessary between governments throughout the world and civilian organizations--non-governmental ones like The Carter Center.'' During his birthday interview, I asked Carter if his 75 years were his to live over (again), what would he have done differently? ``As for my life in the White House, the one thing I would have handled differently is the hostage crisis,'' he says. ``From a human aspect, it was the most infuriating experience of my presidency. And had I been successful in rescuing the 52 American hostages in Iran, I believe I would have been re- elected president. ``I don't feel grieved that I lost the second term, but what I would have done differently during that ordeal is to send one more helicopter to the desert, one which would have likely resulted in a successful rescue operation.'' In Nov. 1979, after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and one year before Carter's defeat for re-election, radical students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took some 66 Americans as hostages. Although some were subsequently released, 52 were held captive for 444 days--till the end of Carter's presidency. On April 24, 1980, he ordered a covert snatch operation to pluck them out of the embassy. During the operation, two aircraft collided in a desert staging area, killing eight servicemen. In Nov. 1980, the militants relinquished the hostages to the Iranian government. With Algeria acting as an intermediary, a deal was finally struck as Carter's presidency was ending. The hostages were released at noon--U.S. time--on Jan. 20, 1981, just as Carter turned over the U.S. government to its 40th president, Ronald Reagan. When the freed hostages arrived in Wiesbaden, Germany, Carter was there to greet them; and today, he still remembers each of their names, knows their whereabouts and remains in touch with most of them. And they still show their appreciation to him, emotionally, for the political toll that his ``wisdom and patience'' meant for their ultimate safe release. ``I often think about that ordeal,'' Carter says. ``From the outset I felt responsible for their well being. And I remain convinced that the wisest course for a strong nation, when confronted with a similar challenge, should be one of caution and restraint.'' As to what he would have done differently in his personal life, Carter says his marriage to Rosalynn has been the best thing that happened to him. ``So, even though she didn't accept my first proposal, I would not have married any differently,'' he adds. ``Rosalynn is the only woman I ever loved. We married 53 years ago and are still bound together with increasing bonds as we grow older and need each other more. When we're apart for even a day, I have the same hollow feeling of loneliness as when I was at sea (in the Navy) early in our marriage. Now, in our golden years, our primary purpose is not just to stay alive, but to savor each opportunity for fulfillment.'' Carter admits that, yes, they still argue, but are mature enough not to dwell on disputes, and after a cooling off period, they either ignore their differences or reason with each other. They are close to their three sons, Jack, 52; James Earl 3d (Chip), 49; and Jeffrey, 47; and daughter, Amy. Their ten grandchildren are ``an indescribable blessing . . .''--the most recent one born July 29 to Amy and her husband. Carter muses: ``You remember Amy. She was like a separate family for us because she was born when our youngest son was 15 years old. I think that made her special in the minds of people around the world who knew her as a nine year old child in the White House. Now they see her as a 31 year old mother and realize they, too, are now 22 years older. So Amy is a kind of measuring stick for about how much we all have aged.'' Also remembered for having brought a child's book to read at a State Dinner, Amy Carter told me that celebrating her dad's 75th birthday means a lot to her because she looks up to him as ``very special'' and one who has always been there for her. ``Dad has always made me feel like I was his priority,'' she says. ``When we lived in the White House, there wasn't a door I couldn't open or a meeting I couldn't interrupt, if it was important that I talk with him. ``He is also wonderful at telling people that he cares about them. That trait is what I hope I have inherited from him.'' She adds: ``I'm also grateful that when I was young, he shared with me his love of books because reading has been such a pleasure, and I intend to pass that on to my son. I have fond memories of sitting on my dad's lap while he would help me sound out words in the newspapers. ``There are other nice memories, but one of the least well- known things about my dad is one of the greatest--he has a hilarious and unflinchingly sarcastic sense of humor . . . often directed at himself. Days later, I will suddenly remember something he said, and I laugh out loud. He is still a lot of fun.'' Amy's grandmother, Allie Smith, who will celebrate her 94th birthday on Christmas, has known Jimmy Carter since he was born. (The Carters lived next door to the Smiths until the Carters moved to a farm when Rosalynn Smith was one year old.) ``I've watched Jimmy as a boy and as a man, and especially when he began courting Rosalynn,'' Mrs. Smith told me. ``He was a handsome midshipman, and I was pleased when they married. ``At first, he was pretty dominant, but over the years, he and Rosalynn developed into equal partners. Now they share almost everything. Watching them grow older together has been a blessing to me. Jimmy is a fine son in law, just like one of my own sons. He has always worked hard and has been a success in whatever he did.'' What is it that drives Jimmy Carter to care about other human beings to the extent that he now does? ``What I do now is what I've done most of my life--to take my talents, abilities, and opportunities and make the most of them,'' he responds. ``It is exciting, challenging, and adventurous. I try new things, go to different countries, make new friends and take on various projects for The Carter Center. I don't consider my activities a sacrifice because they are all personally satisfying.'' Asked if the satisfactions are that good, he says, ``Yes, they really are. I am not exaggerating. And what also drives me to stay busy is that I know the time will come--because of health reasons or because of deterioration, physically and mentally--when I will have to somewhat back off. For now, I'm still as aggressive, active, and innovative as I was years ago, and this is the kind of life I enjoy.'' Rosalynn Carter, who joins her husband in most of his activities and travels, and shares his work at The Carter Center, says that several things drive him. ``As a boy, Jimmy worked on the family farm with his father, who was a taskmaster,'' she recalls. ``Later, in the Navy, he worked for Admiral (Hyman) Rickover, who had a major influence on him. The Admiral was a driving force, demanded long hours and perfection, and wouldn't waste a moment. ``With that background and the Navy discipline, Jimmy always tried to make his life count for something. He has been given extraordinary opportunities, and he wants to use them . . . As a governor and president, he saw the enormity of the world's problems, and has been driven by his faith and his belief that he needs to help less fortunate people.'' Terrence B. Adamson, Senior Vice President for Law, Business & Governmental Affairs of the National Geographic Society, met Carter in 1968 when Terry was a high school senior and Carter was a State Senator in the Georgia General Assembly. Now a close confidant, Adamson says that Carter's love of humanity and of God is what drives him. ``His basic Judaic Christian underpinning is at his core,'' he adds. ``Awards and accolades and wealth aren't important to him. He has grown comfortable with The Carter Center as his legacy--as a viable ongoing institution pursuing advances in health and democracy.'' Asked what has motivated Carter in his post presidency, Adamson's response is that Carter is no different now in his core beliefs and values from when he was president. ``Of course, he has matured and grown wiser,'' he says. ``But in 1976, he was a sudden entrant on the national scene, not well-known. Over the past 18 years, he has validated, by his conduct, the values he espoused during his presidency. At the time, they were too frequently seen by a cynical public soured by the Watergate scandals as just the mouthings of another politician.'' Perhaps Jimmy Carter, an idealist and a realist, was President of the United States before his time. In his final Oval Office interview in Jan. 1981, President Carter told me that he agreed with President Kennedy that no matter what you expect before you become president, there is nothing that prepares you for the difficulties, complexities, or satisfactions of the job. ``Sitting and working in this office is awesome, but I never felt overcome by it,'' he then said. ``I tried to minimize the trappings so that people would be comfortable and not intimidated. I always wanted frank assessments of what was going on around me so I would be aware of the attitude people had towards me and my administration. I liked this job of being President. I didn't find it toilsome. I discovered that when problems were the most severe, that is when my advisers were most often split 50-50 with their advice. And the solution was left to me, as President.'' Regarding the qualities a president should have, Carter says: ``A willingness to work hard, a sense of the importance of the office historically and a sense of the common good and general welfare, above and beyond specific interests and pressures.'' He adds that a president's responsibilities are constant because something is always happening in some part of the world with which he must concern himself. ``In an emotional, intellectual, and, in some ways, a physical sense, the job is very taxing,'' he relates. ``But so are other important, worthwhile positions which involve much pressure, effort, and conscientiousness.'' What specifically had Carter learned from his presidency? ``One thing I learned is that an incumbent president discovers that there are no answers which make everyone happy,'' he replies. ``And sometimes there are no answers that make anyone happy.'' Carter went on to say that, had he merely wanted to get rich, he would have remained in the peanut warehouse business or pursued other business opportunities. ``But I've never cared about financial gain. I've always cared about the people in our country and the world,'' he says. ``I wanted to make a difference in people's lives and wanted to change--for the better--the world situation.'' When asked how he wants history to regard his presidency, Carter puts it this way: ``As one who did my best to act in the long-term interest of America, and one who did so with an understanding of--but without too great a consideration of-- whatever adverse political consequences might flow from it . . . ``You know, the presidency has enriched my life in that I am a better man for having served. And in all humility, I hope that America will consider itself a better place because of my service as president.'' In Carter's view, what were the misconceptions of him? ``First, when I was a presidential candidate, I think many people underestimated my tenacity and determination,'' he reflects. ``There were some formidable candidates, including (former Senators) Hubert Humphrey, Henry Jackson, Mo (Morris K.) Udall, Edmund Muskie, Frank Church, and Birch Bayh. They too, underestimated how hard I would work and my desire to win. That was one misassessment of me. ``As President, some people got the impression that I was weak because I didn't send armed forces into battle and didn't bomb or fire missiles at anyone. When there was a serious problem, I tried to work it out through negotiation and mediation, and peaceful, patient policies. I spent much time working on the Panama Canal Treaties, the Mid East Peace process, normalizing relations with China, and helping Rhodesia become an independent nation in southern Africa. ``So, because I was working for peace, emphasizing human rights and not launching missile attacks, the perception was promoted by some that I was weak and not a strong, macho president.'' However, former President Gerald R. Ford, who in 1976 lost the Presidency to Jimmy Carter, told me that President Carter had earned high marks in foreign diplomacy in his White House years. ``Today, he should be highly complimented for his continuing leadership in foreign policy under the auspices of The Carter Center,'' Mr. Ford adds. ``America has had an excellent diplomat in Jimmy Carter on a global basis.'' And President Clinton recently stated that Carter's noteworthy foreign policy accomplishments include the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp David Accords, the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, the Salt II treaty with the Soviet Union, and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. ``. . . And I was proud to have Carter's support when we worked together to bring democracy back to Haiti and to preserve stability on the Korean Peninsula,'' Clinton observed. ``I'm grateful for the detailed incisive reports he sent me from his trips to troubled nations all across the globe, always urging understanding of their problems and their points of view, always outlining practical steps to progress.'' Further citing Carter's influence, Clinton said, ``Any elected leader in Latin America today will tell you that the stand Jimmy Carter took for democracy and human rights in Latin America put America on the right side of history in our hemisphere. He was the first president to put America's commitment to human rights squarely at the heart of our foreign policy. Today, more than half of the world's people live in freedom, not least because he had the faith to lend American support to brave dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Vaclav Havel, and Nelson Mandela. And there were thousands of less well known political prisoners languishing in jails in the 1970's who were sustained by a smuggled news clipping of Carter championing their cause.'' Rosalynn Carter concurs with her husband about the misconceptions of him, namely that working for peace and human rights gave the impression of weakness. ``War is popular,'' she notes, ``but peace takes time, often with an appearance of inaction.'' Another misconception, she adds, is that he was not an affective president, ``But I think so much attention was paid to problems that were not of his making, that people were unaware of how much was accomplished,'' she says citing, for instance, the oil crisis that caused the inflation that he inherited and that only began to improve as he left the presidency. ``Yet,'' Mrs. Carter concludes, ``despite the misconceptions, history will treat him well . . . as one of America's best presidents.'' Jimmy Carter's clout continues to span some of today's headlines. In the controversy surrounding President Clinton's conditional commutation of the sentence of the Puerto Rican activists, White House aides defend his decision by singling out Carter's support of the President's clemency. Carter considers the pardon a correct decision, but is surprised at the attention focused on his support. He says that he did not personally contact President Clinton on the matter, but that 2 years ago he wrote letters about it to Attorney General Janet Reno. He points out that some of the interest in Clinton's pardon of the Puerto Ricans has been heightened by the fact that his pardon power ``has rarely been exercised'' during his Presidency. For some 6 years, Carter has pursued--directly with President Clinton--a presidential pardon for Patty Hearst, the newspaper heiress. As President, Carter commuted her sentence for bank robbery to the approximately 2 years she had served. But he has long believed that Hearst, who was kidnapped and brutalized by radicals in 1974 as a college student, should receive a presidential pardon because of the ``model'' life she has led for the 20 years since her prison release. Of special concern to Carter today is the chaos and violence in East Timor. He had traveled to Indonesia twice this year, as recently as in July, to lead an international delegation to observe the national election after 38 years of military dictatorship in the world's most populous country-- striving to be the third most populous democracy. He says that The Carter Center was also involved, at Indonesia president B.J. Habibi's invitation, in monitoring the August election on independence in East Timor. And his recent personal involvement has contributed to the United Nations peacekeeping mission to East Timor. Even while a resident in the White House, Carter was not impressed with the trappings of pomp and circumstance that surrounded the presidency. He brought informality to the Executive Mansion. He would often carry his own luggage to and from helicopters. Also, when he saw how members of the media were ``contained'' behind ropes while covering his events, he would often walk over and remove the iron chain or untie the ropes. Yet, Carter's National Security Adviser, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, now Counselor at The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), says that the mass media were extremely unfair regarding President Carter's tenure . . . his performance as former President should generate a reassessment of his presidency.'' Thomas P. (``Tip'') O'Neill, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, once said that when it comes to understanding the issues of the day, Jimmy Carter is the ``smartest pubic official I knew--the range and extent of his knowledge are astounding. He can speak with authority on almost any topic.'' Carter, who has been knighted in Mali and made an honorary tribal chief in Nigeria and Ghana, singles out international human rights as his greatest foreign policy achievement. ``Before I was president, the only president who had emphasized human rights to any degree was Harry Truman,'' Carter notes. ``Now, much attention is paid to global human rights . . . so I hope my legacy as President will include protection of human rights.'' Secretary of State Madelein Albright, who worked in the Carter White House as a staff member of the National Security Council, told me that President Carter created an outstanding foreign policy record. ``He put human rights at center state, and the principle has stood the test of time,'' she says. ``Those who worked for him reflect those achievements with great pride. And not only does he have the respect of Americans, but of citizens throughout the world.'' Today, Jimmy Carter says he is convinced that he made a difference--in the U.S. and abroad--a difference that is reflected in the work of The Carter Center, now in 35 different nations and Africa. ``In most of the 35 countries, the people see America as a country that may well be on a different planet--a rich, strong, arrogant, and self- satisfying country,'' he says. ``I represent The Carter Center at villages in backward nations in Africa and let the people know that the U.S. really cares about them; that they don't need to suffer from a particular disease, or that they can increase their production of coal, rice and wheat, or that they can find peace . . . for the first time.'' What difference has Carter made in Latin America, where his popularity is among the highest in the world? ``The primary difference is the result of my commitment to human rights,'' he responds. ``If you note the history of most of the Latin American countries, including Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaraqua, Panama, Columbia, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Paraquay, each had military dictatorships. When I became President, we impressed on the political leaders and private citizens the significance of basic human rights, democracy and freedom. Now, almost everyone of these countries is a democracy. America's commitments, public and private, are to promote human rights and demand them--not only for Americans but also for others.'' Argentina's Ambassador to the U.S. Diego Ramiro Dueler, has often publicly credited Carter for having saved his life, as well as the lives of many current leaders of Argentina. ``During my presidency, thousands of people in Argentina were imprisoned, disappeared while in jail, or were executed,'' Carter says, ``and no one yet knows what happened to them.'' He adds that his administration put pressure on the military dictators in Argentina, Chile, and others in Latin America that ultimately forced them to honor human rights and led to the development of democracy in the Americas. ``Frequently,'' Carter humbly notes, ``someone, now in business or government in Latin America, will approach me to say that he owes his life to my emphasis on human rights--and that's quite moving and gratifying.'' Robert M. Gates, former Director of the CIA under President George Bush, points out in his book, ``From the Shadows'' (Simon & Schuster, 1996) that Jimmy Carter's contribution to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War had been under appreciated. ``Carter was the first President during the Cold War to challenge publicly and consistently the legitimacy of Soviet rule at home,'' Gates writes. ``His (Carter's) human rights policy, building on the important and then largely unrecognized role of the Helsinki Final Act, by the testimony of countless Soviet and East European dissidents and future democratic leaders, challenged the moral authority of the Soviet government and gave American sanction and support of those resisting that government. . .'' Five years ago at The Carter Center, Richard H. Solomon, President of the U.S. Institute of Peace, presented Jimmy Carter its first Spark M. Matsunaga Medal of Peace. The Institute recognized his ``efforts to advance the cause of human rights by making it a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy'' and his ``leadership, determination, and personal diplomatic skills in concluding the Camp David Accords.'' On a par with his human rights accomplishments, Carter believes that another of his achievements was initiated at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains, which he made a household name. There, for 13 days and nights in Sept. 1978, Carter provided the mechanism by which Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egypt's President Anwar Sadat came together . . . ``to realize their own commitments and hopes.'' The intense summit--originally suggested by Rosalynn Carter--resulted in two agreements: establishing a framework for peace in the Mideast; and a framework for the conclusion of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Premier Begin and President Sadat were subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their joint achievement. Harold Saunders, then Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, says that the agreement at Camp David and the Peace Treaty ``could not have been achieved without President Carter's tenacity, his personal command of the issues and the relationships he developed with the two leaders and key members of their teams.'' On the second anniversary (1980) of the Camp David Accords, Carter told me that when the history books are written, one thing he hopes to see is that he, an American President-- representing the United States--``contributed successfully to the security of Israel on a permanent basis and to the peace in the Mideast between Israel and all her neighbors.'' Now, as Jimmy Carter reaches his 75th, birthday, I asked him about his vision for the next century. ``My vision for America is that, as the only unchallenged superpower in the world, it will become a true champion of the moral values that have made ours a great nation-- involving peace, freedom, democracy, human rights, environmental quality, and the alleviation of human suffering,'' he tells me. ``We should be known by everyone as dedicated to the peaceful resolution of disputes, both involving ourselves and others. If two antagonists are willing, especially among the poorer and more ignored nations, we should be ready and eager to provide assistance, in mediation or negotiation, and our government should reach out to non-governmental organizations to help.'' Carter notes, for instance, what the Norwegian government did with an academic group of social scientists to achieve the Oslo peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. ``America should be just as eager to promote freedom and democracy among people now afflicted with totalitarian and abusive regimes,'' he adds. ``This issue should be on the table when our leaders have discussions with others.'' He adds that as a non-governmental organization, and with no authority at all, The Carter Center has many such requests each year, and is able to respond only to a few of the most compelling. Carter went on to say that the U.S. should always ``raise high the banner of human rights,'' and be as consistent as possible in the application of this policy. ``No other nation can take an effective lead in carrying out commitments made at the international environmental meeting (held in Rio de Janeiro) in eradicating land mines, in eliminating nuclear arsenals, in protecting the rights of children, or in establishing an effective international Criminal Court.'' He concludes: ``The most important single issue to be addressed in the next century is the widening gap between rich people and poor people, both within nations and between the richest and poorest countries. Few Americans know that all other industrialized nations are more generous than we in giving development assistance to the most needy people in the world. In fact, whenever a Norwegian gives a dollar, one of our citizens gives a nickel. To be generous to others would not be a financial sacrifice for us, but a great investment that would pay rich dividends.'' Born James Earl Carter, Jr. of English heritage on October 1st, 1924 in Wise Hospital, in Plains, Ga., Jimmy Carter was the first president to be born in a hospital. There was no running water or electricity in his home during his early childhood. At age 5, he was selling boiled peanuts to neighbors and friends. His father, a stern disciplinarian, often spanked him for wrong doings, like taking a penny from his church's collection plate, and for shooting his sister with a BB gun. Nicknamed ``Hot Shot,'' and then ``Hot,'' Jimmy Carter's behavior in elementary school was excellent. He was eager to learn almost anything, but his interests then were history and literature. At age 12, when a teacher told him about a book named WAR AND PEACE, he thought it was about cowboys and Indians. With his mother's urging, he became a book enthusiast, and has long been a speed reader. While in the Navy in 1951, Carter began to work for Hyman G. Rickover, who was leading America's nuclear submarine fleet. Carter had responsibility for building the nuclear power plant that would go into the second atomic submarine, the U.S.S. Sea Wolf. ``Admiral Rickover had a tremendous effect on my life,'' Carter says. ``He led the program that developed the world's first use of atomic power for peaceful uses, the production of electricity, and the propulsion of ships.'' When Rickover was past 80 and still in charge of the Navy's nuclear power program, President Carter awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And recently the Navy recognized Carter, a graduate of the Naval Academy, by naming a Seawolf-class submarine for him. Jimmy Carter cites three turning points in his long, dynamic and fruitful life: (1) In 1953, when he resigned from the Navy because of his father's death and returned home to run the family peanut warehouse business. (2) In 1962, when he first ran for public office--the State Senate in Georgia. And (3), in 1981, when he left the White House after one term as President of the United States. Looking back, does he still have regrets about losing his re-election bid? ``Well, yes, I do,'' he tells me. ``Anyone who is once elected President of the U.S. certainly prefers to have a second term. At first, there is the disappointment about the unfinished promise of your goals. When my four years ended, I was disheartened. I had not expected to be defeated and I had no plans, at a relatively young age, of how to utilize my time and be productive.'' Rosalynn Carter describes his defeat as a startling regret, adding: ``Although I now know that Jimmy is pleased that he had the opportunity to establish The Carter Center--because through it, much has been accomplished--he also believes that if he had been re-elected president, the Center, which has exceeded all of our expectations, probably never would have come into being.'' Reflecting on the changes--over the years--in his philosophy, Carter says, ``I think I've become more tolerant of opposing views, and I have learned to accommodate the opinions of people who disagree with me. One reason is that I'm not now in a competitive world. I can live side by side with those who think and act differently from me. I'm not competing with anyone for money, political office, or publicity.'' Carter, a lay preacher, adds: ``I'm also more broadminded about things not so narrowly defined in my religious philosophy. As you know, my basic religious faith has never changed. It has been fairly constant. As a Christian, I remain devout, and I read and teach the Bible. I feel an inner peace, an inner sense of commitment and calm that comes from my religious beliefs.'' In 1976, then Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley remarked: ``Jimmy Carter talks about true values. He also has a religious tone in what he says . . . and maybe we should have a little more religion in our communi- ties. . . .'' The Rev. Billy Graham--who remembers that Jimmy Carter predicted that he would be President before he even became a candidate--describes Carter as ``a man of faith and sterling integrity . . . who was one of our most diligent presidents-- persistent and painstaking in his attention to his responsibilities.'' In his book, JUST AS I AM (Harper Collins, 1997), Rev. Graham also writes that he respects Jimmy Carter's intelligence and his genuine and unashamed Christian commitment. ``After the disillusionment of Watergate, Americans were attracted by Carter's summons to a moral revival,'' Rev. Graham states . . . ``And other political leaders would do well to learn from his moral and spiritual ideals.'' Rosalynn Carter says that her husband has mellowed and is now more relaxed than she has ever seen him. ``Yet,'' she adds, ``I notice that he has become more concerned about the various problems in the world--more so than even before he was elected governor of Georgia (1970).'' One issue that Carter continues to be genuinely concerned about is the moral and spiritual crisis that has gripped America since before he was in the White House. ``In today's world, the main difference is that what was then referred to as `political malaise' is much worse,'' he says. ``As I stated twenty years ago in a speech on the crisis of confidence, that is even more relevant and pertinent today. Together, we need to commit ourselves to a rebirth of the American spirit. There is still a crisis of confidence, a crisis that strikes at the heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our lives and in the loss of unity of purpose for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and political fabric of America.'' How has the presidency evolved since Carter left the White House? ``There are major changes,'' he emphasizes. ``The presidency was once respected as a place of honor. I think our political community has deteriorated tremendously since Gerald Ford and I served as presidents, and we often talk about our concerns and those changes. Rather than politics as usual, strong leadership and honest answers are needed.'' He says that, for instance, as President, he had gotten along with the Republicans in the House and Senate; that he had often gotten the support of many Republicans on major legislation, sometimes even better than with the Democrats. ``Now, the two parties are bitterly divided, with little cooperation between them,'' he adds. ``Also, nowadays, the success of many political campaigns is predicated on how well you can damage the reputation of your opponent. That turns off the average citizen, and leads to a partisan and personally destructive situation. He also points out that Congress continues to be pulled in all directions by well financed and powerful special interests. ``But we cannot change the course until we face the truth,'' he says. ``Restoring faith and confidence to America is now still our most important task . . . and now it is a solid, significant challenge.'' In recent years, Carter has given a lot of thought to the virtues of aging, especially as it relates to Social Security. He notes that in 1935, when Social Security legislation was passed, its purpose was to give older people a subsistence income. ``Today,'' he says, ``because of improvements in health and health care, many senior citizens are still in a position to contribute to society. We elderly should be allowed to work as long as we wish--or are able to.'' However, Carter voices concerns about the future of Social Security. ``The oldest baby boomer will start to receive Social Security in the year 2010,'' he notes. ``By the time my newest grandson, now two months old, is a middle aged wage earner, one in four Americans will be over 65.'' Emphasizing that our Social Security system is in trouble and that something will have to change, he recalls that when Social Security was established there were about 40 wage earners supporting each retiree with tax contributions. ``By 2010, only two persons will be paying for the retirement and medical expenses of one senior citizen,'' he says. ``We should be more vigilant and forceful in protecting those who are in need of financial assistance. Today, there are numerous senior citizens who cannot afford health care and many older citizens with little money, or whose savings are expended before their lives end.'' Carter says he tries to practice what he preaches. In his book, ``The Virtues of Aging'' (Times Books, 1998), he notes that the virtues of aging include the blessings that come as one grows older and what we have to offer that might be beneficial to others. ``Each of us is old when we think we are,'' he writes. ``When we accept an attitude of dormancy, dependence on others, a substantial limitation on our physical and mental activity, and restrictions on the number of people with whom we interact. . . . As I know from experience, this is not tied closely to how many years we live.'' He cites, as one example, his mother--a compassionate woman who always tried to help others. She joined the Peace Corps at age 68 in 1996 and served for two years in the village of Vikhroli, near Bombay, India. In Feb. 1977, Lillian Carter as First Mother revisited that village when she represented the U.S. at the funeral of India's President Ali Ahmed Fakhruddin. And during hundreds of speeches about her experiences in the Peace Corps, she encouraged others not to allow old age to put a limit on their lives. ``You know,'' Carter says, ``There is a huge difference between getting older and growing old.'' When my father died, my mother was 55 years old, past retirement age for most registered nurses. Yet she continued to age for 30 more years, but she never grew old. Until she died of cancer at age 85, she was full of life and determined to make each day a new adventure. ``Mother had the most influence over me, and was an inspiration for me. Except for Rosalynn, she affected my life more than any other person.'' If there is any secret to Carter's looking and feeling younger than his years, he reveals that perhaps it is because Rosalynn is a stickler for nutrition and an expert on ``exactly what we should or should not eat . . . and how much and when. . . . ``Then, I'm always exercising,'' he adds, ``and luck could also be a factor.'' For exercise and recreation, Carter keeps fit and trim by hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing and bowling. He also jogs, fly fishes, does woodworking, cabinet making and plays tennis. Behind his home he built--by himself--a tennis court. (It was the topic of conversation with network commentators when he attended the recent Women's Finals of tennis' U.S. Open in New York). He also says that, so far, he and Rosalynn have been blessed with good health--``perhaps because of our various activities--living a diverse life, with different elements to it--that kind of life is less likely to be afflicted with illness.'' He adds: ``Today, we combine taking care of our farm with other activities. One nice aspect about having been president is that we have an unlimited menu because different people invite us to join in their projects, and now we are free to do what gives us pleasure. ``We have climbed mountains in Nepal, to the tops of Kilimajaro and Mt. Fuji. We visited game preserves in Tanzania and have become bird watchers.'' And as a hunter, Carter says he still tries to harvest two wild turkeys each year for his family's thanksgiving and Christmas meals. Jimmy Carter, the most visible member of Habitat for Humanity, also says that every year he goes to a different site to help build at least one house for a poor family. For one week, he works with the family and other volunteers. They start with a concrete slab and by week's end, they complete the job as a finished landscaped house. ``Habitat and I get a lot of publicity for each other even though I only work one week a year,'' he explains. ``But the satisfaction is great.'' Last year, he chose the Philippines, where he and two former and a current president of the Philippines joined together to build one house for a large family. In the same week, 293 other houses were built in the Philippines by some 10,000 volunteers. Asked if he considers himself a role model for other senior citizens, Carter says he believes that we all can learn from one another. ``With few exceptions,'' he says, ``anyone can find an exciting and fulfilling life after reaching retirement age. I think senior citizens who have setbacks or a surprising retirement--as I had--ought to analyze what they have and decide how to live a meaningful life. Sometimes, an unanticipated life, one you thought would be a disappointment, can turn out to be even better than the one you wanted to cling to. Carter sums up: ``As we get older, senior citizens need to avoid mental dormancy and keep our minds occupied. Mental and physical activities strengthen us and give us a foundation for successful aging. Even though my health is now good and I'm still active in sports, I am often reminded that I face inevitable changes in health as I grow older.'' All in all, does aging bother Jimmy Carter? ``Aging doesn't bother me--yet,'' he replies with a wry smile, ``but I'm already preparing for a reduced capacity. I expect to cut the time I devote to overseas work--from peace negotiations; to monitoring elections; to eradicating disease, to eliminating suffering . . . and then I can spend more time at home in Georgia. ``There is a leadership succession plan for The Carter Center, but any transition is a high priority of mine.'' For some 17 years, Carter has been a ``distinguished professor'' at Emory University, where he spends one week each month during the academic year. He lectures on numerous topics, including theology, medicine, journalism, creative writing, business, political science, history, and anthropology. He also meets with undergraduate and graduate students, adding a different kind of rigor to doctoral examinations. At times, he deals with current history--history that he himself helped to make.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Brownback, Kerry, and others in introducing this important legislation today. America is a deeply religious nation, and fostering a society in which all Americans can worship according to the dictates of their conscience has been of prominent importance to this country since its beginning. Indeed, the Founders of this great Nation saw preserving Americans' ability to worship freely as so important that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights' very first amendment. Unfortunately, a number of Americans today are not able to take full advantage of America's promise of religious freedom. They are instead being forced to make a choice no American should face: one between the dictates of their faith and the demands of their job. Whether by being forced to work on days their religion requires them to refrain from work or by being denied the right to wear clothing their faith mandates they wear, too many Americans of faith are facing an unfair choice between their job and their religion. This legislation would provide much needed help for those confronted with that choice. It would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee's religious observance or practice, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. The bill would not, it is worth emphasizing, give employees a right to dictate the conditions of their job, because it does not demand that employers accede to unreasonable requests. Instead, it requires only that an employer grant a religiously based request for an accommodation to an employee's religious belief or practice if the accommodation would not impose significant difficulty or expense on the employer. Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue. I hope that we can see it enacted into law soon.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that my esteemed colleagues and I bring to the Senate's attention for the eighth time in 18 years the plight of Iran's Baha'is by submitting today the Baha'i Resolution of 1999. Since the 1997 election of President Mohammad Khatami, the world has watched Iran with great anticipation of change. Indeed, under Khatami, Iran has witnessed some small, incremental steps toward democratization, transparency, and an attempt to assert the rule of law. As recent demonstrations at Tehran University have shown, the Iranian people are eager for reform, the kinds of changes that would allow Iran to become a member in good standing of the international community. The Iranian people have suffered much in the last 20 years. A regime desperate to maintain control at all costs has executed hundreds of thousands of Iranians of all religious and political backgrounds. Iran's economy is in shambles, many of its best and brightest have fled, and the government's pursuit of policies supporting terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction have made Iran a pariah state in the international community. It is good to remember, as we focus on the plight of specific groups in Iran, that all of Iran's citizens, Shi'a, Sunni, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i, have been victimized by the Iranian regime. However, today we focus on the group that, man for man and woman for woman, has fared the worst under Iran's revolutionary government--the Baha'is. Since the Islamic Revolution and consequent seizure of power by the Ayatollah Khomeni, the Baha'is have endured tremendous hardships that continue to this day. Large numbers have been killed and many other have disappeared and are presumed dead. Unlike other religious minorities in Iran such as Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, the Baha'is are not recognized in the Iranian Constitution and subsequently do not enjoy the rights, minimal though they may be, normally granted Iranian citizens. The refusal of Iran to protect the rights of the Baha'i community is ironic. The Baha'is do not advocate insurrection, violence, or political partisanship. Their faith requires them peacefully to observe the laws of the country. For the Iranian government to regard the Baha'is as a threat, when all they desire is to be able to live in accordance with their religious beliefs is truly outrageous. Now, imagine if you will what it would be like to live in a world where you and your children are not recognized as citizens simply because of your religion. Imagine your government seizing your only outlet for a higher education. Imagine fearing arrest simply for adhering to a set of beliefs and a way of life that you and your family hold dear. Unfortunately, this nightmarish scenario is all too real for 300,000 members of the Baha'i religion in Iran who need not expend any effort imagining such a situation, because they have the misfortune of living it. Even after their signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the recent election of President Khatami, the Iranian government still shows no sign of easing its subjugation of Iran's largest religious minority. Tehran continues to oppress, persecute, and undermine the Baha'i's way of life. Under such pressure, we fear that an already tragic past can only lead to a bleaker future. Since 1979 the Baha'i community has been denied the right to assemble officially, conduct religious ceremonies--including the proper burial of their dead--and attend Iranian schools of higher education. Baha'is are denied the same job and pension opportunities as their non-Baha'i neighbors and by law. They cannot even collect on insurance policies. The denial of access to schools of higher education has been a particular hardship to the Baha'is, who hold as one of the central tenets of their faith the supreme importance of education. In order to educate their youth, the Baha'is have created a network of university level courses, accredited by the University of Indiana and taught in the homes of Baha'i professors. Over 900 Baha'is have enrolled in the Open University and many more have benefited from their programs. In the Fall of 1998, for no other reason than to harass the Baha'i community, Iranian police raided over 500 homes associated with the Open University. Police arrested hundreds of professors and seized massive amounts of classroom and laboratory equipment, computers, and textbooks. To this day, three professors remain in jail. One has been sentenced to a ten year imprisonment and two have received seven year terms all for the `sin' of involving themselves in teaching Baha'i studies which, according to the Iranian authorities constituted ``crimes against national security.'' (In recent years, the Iranian government has gradually stepped up its harassment of the Baha'is, as exemplified in the 1998 raids on the Open University. With the raids came the realization that Tehran was not afraid to publicly display its maltreatment of the Baha'is. It was in this same year that Iran executed Mr. Ruhollah Rowhani.) Mr. Rowhani was accused by the Iranian government of forcibly converting a Muslim woman to the Baha'i faith. Before Mr. Rowhani's hanging in July 1998, the woman totally refuted the charges, stating that she had been raised as a Baha'i, making it impossible and unnecessary for Mr. Rowhani to impress his religion upon her. Mr. Rowhani spent the nine months prior to his execution in solitary confinement, and most telling, no sentence was ever passed. It is in recognition and in memory of the recent one-year anniversary of Mr. Rowhani's execution that we submit this resolution. The Baha'i Resolution expresses our strong disapproval of the Iranian government's treatment of the Baha'is and reminds Iran that the development of a relationship between our two countries depends greatly on Tehran's record of human rights. Equally important, it is a statement of America's values. It sends a message to perpetrators of persecution everywhere that our eyes will not be averted. And it reassures Iran's Baha'is, indeed all of those persecuted in Iran, that America is with them and will continue to shine sunlight on the abuses of Iran's government while we plead, and pray for change there.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Brownback, Kerry, and others in introducing this important legislation today. America is a deeply religious nation, and fostering a society in which all Americans can worship according to the dictates of their conscience has been of prominent importance to this country since its beginning. Indeed, the Founders of this great Nation saw preserving Americans' ability to worship freely as so important that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights' very first amendment. Unfortunately, a number of Americans today are not able to take full advantage of America's promise of religious freedom. They are instead being forced to make a choice no American should face: one between the dictates of their faith and the demands of their job. Whether by being forced to work on days their religion requires them to refrain from work or by being denied the right to wear clothing their faith mandates they wear, too many Americans of faith are facing an unfair choice between their job and their religion. This legislation would provide much needed help for those confronted with that choice. It would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee's religious observance or practice, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. The bill would not, it is worth emphasizing, give employees a right to dictate the conditions of their job, because it does not demand that employers accede to unreasonable requests. Instead, it requires only that an employer grant a religiously based request for an accommodation to an employee's religious belief or practice if the accommodation would not impose significant difficulty or expense on the employer. Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue. I hope that we can see it enacted into law soon.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a reauthorization bill of critical importance to the future of Connecticut's most valuable natural resource, the Long Island Sound. This bill, which I offer with my colleagues Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Moynihan, reauthorizes the Long Island Sound Office through the year 2005, and increases the grant authorization amount to $10 million. The Long Island Sound is among the most complex estuaries in the National Estuary Program, both in terms of the physical features and scientific understanding of the estuary system, and in the context of ecosystem management. Unlike most estuaries, Long Island Sound has two connections to the sea. Rather than having a major source of fresh water at its head, flowing into a bay that empties into the ocean, Long Island Sound is open at both ends, flowing to the Atlantic Ocean to the east and to New York Harbor to the west. Most of its fresh water comes from a series of south-flowing rivers, including the Connecticut River, the Housatonic, and the Thames, whose drainages reach as far north as Canada. The Sound's 16,000 square mile drainage basin also includes portions of New York City and Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties in New York State. The Sound combines this multiple inflow/outflow system with a diverse and complex shoreline, and an uneven bottom topography. Taken together, they produce unique and complex patterns of tide and currents. The interaction between the Sound and the local human population is also complex. The Sound is located in the midst of the most densely populated region of the United States. In total, more than 8 million people live in the Long Island Sound watershed and millions more flock yearly to the Sound for recreation. The Sound provides many other valuable uses, such as cargo shipping, ferry transportation and power generation. It is largely because the Sound serves such a concentrated population that the economic benefits of preserving and restoring the Sound are so substantial. More than $5.5 billion is generated annually in the regional economy from water quality-dependent activities such as boating, commercial and sport fishing, swimming, and beach going. In 1994, the Long Island Sound Management Conference, sponsored by the EPA, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, completed a $15 million Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). That plan was adopted by the Governors of New York and Connecticut and the EPA Administrator. The EPA Long Island Sound Office coordinates the implementation of the plan among the many program partners, consistent with the Long Island Sound Improvement Act of 1990. The office is small, staffed by two EPA employees, whose salaries are covered by EPA's base budget, and a Senior Environmental Employment Program secretary. In addition, the office supports two outreach positions, with one in each state. It avoids duplicating existing efforts and programs, instead focusing on better coordination of federal and state funds, educating and involving the public in the Sound cleanup and protection, and providing grants to support implementation of the Long Island Sound restoration effort. By coordinating the activities of numerous stakeholders involved in the Sound's management program, in addition to serving as an educational and informational interface with the public, the Long Island Sound office provides an integral local outreach and meeting point. While the quality of the Sound has improved dramatically over the years, there is still much work to be done. Implementation of the CCMP will help restore fish populations that have been impacted by hypoxia, will improve and restore degraded wetlands, and will begin to address the toxic mercury pollution that has lead to health advisories for fish consumption in many of the Sound's waters. Specific near term goals of the office include reducing nitrogen loadings which degrade water quality by depleting the Sound of oxygen, supporting local watershed protection efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution, monitoring and expanding scientific understanding of the Sound, and educating the public and regional stakeholders about the sound and cleanup activities. Federal, State, and private funds have been well-spent over the years to research the conditions in the Sound and to identify conservation needs. We are now moving to apply critical funding toward implementing these projects, directly improving the water quality and habitat of the Long Island Sound. Overall, recent federal funding of the program and the office are small relative to state commitments. New York State has approved $200 million for Long Island Sound as part of a $1.75 billion bound act. Connecticut has awarded more than $200 million in the past three years to support upgrades at sewage treatment plants and is a national leader on wetlands restoration. The Long Island Sound Office now faces a daunting task, orchestrating a multi-billion dollar effort to implement efforts to reduce nitrogen loadings that degrade the waters of the Sound. The modest increase in the authorization levels, and the reauthorization of the Long Island Sound Office, therefore represent timely, important contributions to the cooperative regional effort to restore the waters of the Long Island Sound.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a reauthorization bill of critical importance to the future of Connecticut's most valuable natural resource, the Long Island Sound. This bill, which I offer with my colleagues Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Moynihan, reauthorizes the Long Island Sound Office through the year 2005, and increases the grant authorization amount to $10 million. The Long Island Sound is among the most complex estuaries in the National Estuary Program, both in terms of the physical features and scientific understanding of the estuary system, and in the context of ecosystem management. Unlike most estuaries, Long Island Sound has two connections to the sea. Rather than having a major source of fresh water at its head, flowing into a bay that empties into the ocean, Long Island Sound is open at both ends, flowing to the Atlantic Ocean to the east and to New York Harbor to the west. Most of its fresh water comes from a series of south-flowing rivers, including the Connecticut River, the Housatonic, and the Thames, whose drainages reach as far north as Canada. The Sound's 16,000 square mile drainage basin also includes portions of New York City and Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties in New York State. The Sound combines this multiple inflow/outflow system with a diverse and complex shoreline, and an uneven bottom topography. Taken together, they produce unique and complex patterns of tide and currents. The interaction between the Sound and the local human population is also complex. The Sound is located in the midst of the most densely populated region of the United States. In total, more than 8 million people live in the Long Island Sound watershed and millions more flock yearly to the Sound for recreation. The Sound provides many other valuable uses, such as cargo shipping, ferry transportation and power generation. It is largely because the Sound serves such a concentrated population that the economic benefits of preserving and restoring the Sound are so substantial. More than $5.5 billion is generated annually in the regional economy from water quality-dependent activities such as boating, commercial and sport fishing, swimming, and beach going. In 1994, the Long Island Sound Management Conference, sponsored by the EPA, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, completed a $15 million Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). That plan was adopted by the Governors of New York and Connecticut and the EPA Administrator. The EPA Long Island Sound Office coordinates the implementation of the plan among the many program partners, consistent with the Long Island Sound Improvement Act of 1990. The office is small, staffed by two EPA employees, whose salaries are covered by EPA's base budget, and a Senior Environmental Employment Program secretary. In addition, the office supports two outreach positions, with one in each state. It avoids duplicating existing efforts and programs, instead focusing on better coordination of federal and state funds, educating and involving the public in the Sound cleanup and protection, and providing grants to support implementation of the Long Island Sound restoration effort. By coordinating the activities of numerous stakeholders involved in the Sound's management program, in addition to serving as an educational and informational interface with the public, the Long Island Sound office provides an integral local outreach and meeting point. While the quality of the Sound has improved dramatically over the years, there is still much work to be done. Implementation of the CCMP will help restore fish populations that have been impacted by hypoxia, will improve and restore degraded wetlands, and will begin to address the toxic mercury pollution that has lead to health advisories for fish consumption in many of the Sound's waters. Specific near term goals of the office include reducing nitrogen loadings which degrade water quality by depleting the Sound of oxygen, supporting local watershed protection efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution, monitoring and expanding scientific understanding of the Sound, and educating the public and regional stakeholders about the sound and cleanup activities. Federal, State, and private funds have been well-spent over the years to research the conditions in the Sound and to identify conservation needs. We are now moving to apply critical funding toward implementing these projects, directly improving the water quality and habitat of the Long Island Sound. Overall, recent federal funding of the program and the office are small relative to state commitments. New York State has approved $200 million for Long Island Sound as part of a $1.75 billion bound act. Connecticut has awarded more than $200 million in the past three years to support upgrades at sewage treatment plants and is a national leader on wetlands restoration. The Long Island Sound Office now faces a daunting task, orchestrating a multi-billion dollar effort to implement efforts to reduce nitrogen loadings that degrade the waters of the Sound. The modest increase in the authorization levels, and the reauthorization of the Long Island Sound Office, therefore represent timely, important contributions to the cooperative regional effort to restore the waters of the Long Island Sound.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, America is experiencing one of its most prosperous times, yet despite a booming national economy some 5.3 million families are spending more than half of their income on housing or are living in severely substandard housing. In Hartford, Connecticut alone, there are 19,000 families suffering in worst case housing. Most distressing, more than one million elderly and over two million families with children face an affordable housing crisis. Recent data indicate that this trend is worsening as housing costs rise faster than the incomes of low-income working families, and the number of affordable public housing units drops. In fact, more than 2 million public housing units were lost between 1973 and 1995, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development indicates that as many as 1,000 more units are being lost each month. As a result, more than one million Americans languish on waiting lists for public housing or Section 8 vouchers. In Connecticut, the average time for waiting lists for public housing is 14 months and Section 8 vouchers is 41 months. Last year, Congress passed a significant measure to streamline many public housing programs and focus more resources on families most in need of assistance. This included almost 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers. Tragically, the bill before us today provides no funding for these vouchers. In light of the tremendous need, and the gap that has grown in housing assistance over the past few years, providing fund for these new rental assistance vouchers is a modest, but crucial step. These vouchers are not a free ride--families still must pay at least 30 percent of their incomes for rent. Without the vouchers, however, millions of working families and elderly citizens will be unable to secure affordable housing. Mr. President, I'd like to take a few additional moments to address another program of great importance. Under the leadership of Secretary Cuomo, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has made great strides to create a new, innovative approach to government through the Community Builders Program. Unfortunately, this appropriations bill would kill this initiative by terminating the 400 Community Builder fellows hired to serve in field offices around the country. This program is the first agency-run program in the Federal Government for experienced local professionals to perform short-term, public service in their communities. It represents a new way of thinking about government service and creates an opportunity to tap well-qualified talent in the community. Under the program, HUD recruits, hires and trains professional individuals--who have extensive backgrounds in community and economic development, and housing--to serve 2-4 years as community change agents in field offices. To date, 400 people have been hired. In Hartford, Connecticut, Community Builders have formed a partnership with state officials and national housing financial institutions to cross-train staff on the wide variety of housing finance programs and financing mechanisms available for the development of affordable housing. In addition, they have partnered with the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, the Connecticut Housing Finance Agency, the National Equity Fund, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston to improve coordination and ``layering'' of programs and delivery of services. These professionals bring a fresh perspective, the ability to think ``outside the box,'' and creative outlook on housing and community development programs. Community Builders in Connecticut illustrate the diversified experience and knowledge brought to HUD operations with professional backgrounds in the areas of architect, municipal government, law and business management. Community Builders are truly change agents in our community. They are knowledgeable about HUD programs, make customer service more efficient, are professionally competent, and are bringing their expertise to make government work better. I hope that the Senate will reconsider the significance of this program and provide continued support to ensure that our government maintains innovative, customer service oriented programs such as the Community Builders Program. I thank Senator Kerry and Secretary Cuomo taking action to ensure that working poor families have access to affordable housing and promoting new, innovative approaches to government management. I am proud to stand in support of their efforts.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the bipartisan effort to remove yet another anti-environment rider from an important appropriations bill. This rider, which is attached to the House Transportation Appropriations bill, would prohibit the Department of Transportation from even considering an increase in the corporate average fuel economy standard (CAFE). This rider would prevent DOT from evaluating, in any way, the cost-effectiveness and pollution-prevention dividends that could result from requiring greater fuel efficiency from cars and trucks. I am particularly concerned with this anti-CAFE rider, in part, because it is another in a long line of riders designed to limit our government's ability to consider meaningful, appropriate, effective, and economical strategies to combat local and regional air pollution as well as global climate change. More than 117 million Americans live in places where smog makes their air unsafe to breathe. Nearly one-third of this pollution, which aggravates respiratory diseases, especially among vulnerable groups such as children, asthmatics, and the elderly, is emitted from car and truck tailpipes. Cost-effectively protecting people's health by improving local air quality requires that we consider each of the sources that contribute to the pollution problem. It just makes sense that any efficient, fair, and reasonable pollution prevention strategy should consider all sources of pollution, including vehicles. There are many ways to address pollution from cars and trucks. For example, more rigorous emissions limits are currently being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Efficiency standards represent another approach. The original CAFE standards have helped keep fuel consumption nearly 30 percent lower than if CAFE had not been implemented. Efficiency standards led to dramatic improvements in other sectors as well, such as major appliances. The purpose of the clean air resolution is not to mandate one approach over another but to allow the Administration to explore the benefits and costs of all the options. From a global perspective, there is a growing scientific and international consensus that air pollution, largely caused by burning fuels such as coal and oil, is causing changes in the earth's climate. I believe that America has a moral obligation to meet the tremendous challenge of climate change head on rather than leaving a bigger problem for our children and grandchildren. As the world's biggest emitter of the pollution that contributes to climate change, the United States has the responsibility to lead the international community toward a solution. And because our cars and trucks currently represent nearly one-third of America's greenhouse gas emissions, and projections suggest that our miles driven will increase by roughly 2% a year through the next decade, vehicle emissions are a big part of a giant challenge. A recent report by the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and several other groups, found enhanced CAFE standards to be an essential part of a comprehensive strategy to address global climate change. The study found that increased CAFE standards could be part of a plan to achieve a 10% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions while creating 800,000 jobs and saving $21 billion annually in reduced oil imports. Improving the gas mileage of the cars and trucks we drive would provide many other benefits to both the consumer and the country. Whereas less money spent at the pump means more money in Americans' pockets, less money spent at the pump also means less dependence on unpredictable imported oil. Unfortunately, there is an active misinformation campaign underway opposing the clean air resolution and CAFE standards. Chief among the claims is that the CAFE standards we have had for the last 25 years kill people. This is a ludicrous argument underpinned by contorted misinterpretations of long-since refuted assumptions. One simple observation puts CAFE opponents faulty logic to rest: since CAFE standards were adopted in 1973, the number of deaths per mile driven have been cut in half. The increased safety of our vehicles is largely attributable to material and design improvements that increase fuel efficiency at the same time they improve acceleration, braking, handling, durability and crashworthiness. Finally, I would alert my colleagues to a poll released yesterday regarding fuel efficiency standards. The poll, which was conducted by the Mellman Group for the World Wildlife Fund, indicates that 72% of sport utility vehicle (SUVs) owners believe that minivans and trucks should be held to the same efficiency standards as passenger cars. In addition, nearly two-thirds SUV owners support Congressional action to require equitable emissions requirements for cars and light trucks. The clean air resolution introduced today by Senators Gorton, Feinstein, Bryan, and Reed ensures that enhanced CAFE standards are on the menu of options when the Department of Transportation considers the implications of vehicle efficiency for local, regional, and global air pollution, consumer protection and satisfaction, and energy security. I encourage my colleagues to support the clean air resolution.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I note I support the resolution and yield back the remainder of the time on this side as well.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North Carolina had yielded back his time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my regret that the Interior Appropriations bill under consideration here includes no money for the Save America's Treasury Campaign. I would like to describe one of the many important projects that will go unrealized for lack of funding. This valuable project is the preservation of the Mark Twain House in Hartford, Connecticut, and construction of a complementary education and visitor center near the house. Mark Twain wrote seven major books, including ``Tom Sawyer'' and the ``Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,'' while living with his family in the house, which he built in 1874. It is projected that the visitor's center would help double--to a total of 100,000--the annual number of visitors to Mark Twain House and contribute an estimated 12 million dollars every year to the Connecticut economy. If money does come available for the Save America's Treasures Campaign, would you agree that the Mark Twain House should be high on the priority list?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank Senator Gorton. I appreciate his hard work on this important legislation. glacier bay np visitor facilities funding

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer introductory remarks on the Natural Resources Reinvestment Act, a bill that I am introducing today with my colleagues Mr. Chafee, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Jeffords. Before we adjourned for the summer recess, Congress spent many weeks preoccupied with weighty fiscal matters like how to divvy up a hypothetical budget surplus, whether to grant tax cuts with money that may or may not exist, or whether to do the responsible thing and pay off the national debt with any surplus that might actually materialize. Make no mistake, these are important issues, but they are not the only issues that should cause us concern. Recent visits with citizens in Connecticut reinforced my conviction that one of the most critical, but commonly overlooked, issues facing our nation today is the conservation debt that we have amassed in recent years. This conservation debt is difficult to define because it cannot be measured in dollars and cents. It is not dependent on interest rates or stock market gyrations. It is not a debt that can be paid off by signing a check when eventually we realize that we have short-changed our children's environmental inheritance. This conservation debt grows as urban sprawl spreads across prime farmland and degrades wetlands. It is a debt that multiples every time a community misses a chance to acquire the watershed lands that help to purify their drinking water. It is a debt that grows irreversibly every time another endangered species is driven down the one-way road to extinction. It is a debt that increases each time an untended urban park is ceded to drug-peddlers through neglect and inattention. It is a debt that builds every time a structure representing our cultural heritage is demolished rather than renovated. It is a debt that we can no longer afford to ignore. Unfortunately, too little has been said or done recently in Washington to define the steps we--as a nation--should take to pay off the conservation debt and ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit a planet that is healthy, productive, and blessed with abundant, clean, green open space. Because I am committed to preserving a rich environmental legacy for our children, today I join with Mr. Chafee, from Rhode Island, the esteemed Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I serve, and Mr. Leahy and Mr. Jeffords from Vermont to introduce the Natural Resources Reinvestment Act of 1999. The principle behind our bill is simple: as we deplete federally- owned, non-renewable natural resources such as oil and gas, we should reinvest the proceeds to establish a reliable source of funding for State, local, and federal efforts to conserve land and water, provide recreational opportunities, preserve historic resources, protect fish and wildlife, and preserve open space. The Natural Resources Reinvestment Act honors this principle by re-establishing America's long-standing commitment to protecting land, fish and wildlife, and our cultural heritage and by re-doubling Federal commitments that help states and localities protect the open space and recreational opportunities that Americans cherish so deeply. Notwithstanding our current conservation debt, America has made many wise conservation investments over the years. Therefore, the Natural Resources Reinvestment Act is not spun entirely from whole cloth, but also improves upon those things we have done well. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has served as the primary Federal source of funds for the acquisition of recreational lands since 1965, has been a tremendous success by any measure. It has helped protect more than seven million acres of open space and contributed to the development of 37,000 parks and recreation areas across the country. Everglades and Saguaro National Parks, the Appalachian Trail, the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site, and Niagara Falls are few examples of treasured places across the country that have been created or protected with help from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Because the Outer Continental Shelf petroleum royalty system is already in collecting billions of dollars every year, rather than introducing new taxes, this bill would simply ensure that taxes historically raised for conservation purposes actually result in conservation activity. Despite the notable successes and broad bipartisan support and authorization for $900 million dollars, Congress has failed to appropriate sufficient money for Land and Water Conservation Fund. More than $11 billion dollars of authorized conservation funding has been funneled back into the general treasury since the Fund was established. Again, this bill requires no new taxes----it simply ensures that existing revenues are spent on the conservation priorities that communities across the country have identified. The stateside portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--the money that is supposed to help states and local communities direct their own conservation and recreation goals--has gone completely unfunded since 1995. This is particularly troubling for me because Connecticut has the smallest percentage of federally-owned land of any state in the union. The Natural Resources Reinvestment Act ensures that the Land and Water Conservation Fund will receive full authorized funding every year. The bill also builds on the success of the Fund, by authorizing a new program for State Lands of National or Regional Interest to help protect areas of unique ecological, recreational, aesthetic, or regional value that would not be eligible for traditional Land and Water Conservation Fund support. We also provide full funding for other successful programs with an existing claim on Outer Continental Shelf revenues, including the Historic Preservation Fund, and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program. Every year our bill will reinvest $250 million dollars of Outer Continental Shelf petroleum revenues in State fish and wildlife conservation efforts, with special emphasis on projects that protect nongame and threatened or endangered species. The Natural Resources Reinvestment Act also creates a $900 million Environmental Stewardship Fund to be distributed to States for the purposes of conserving, protecting, and restoring their natural resources beyond what is required by current law. The Environmental Stewardship Fund is designed so that States have the flexibility to devise innovative solutions to their individual conservation challenges. This commitment to helping, but not dictating how, communities achieve their conservation goals is exceptionally important. Over the last year, the State of Connecticut has acquired 3,725 acres of open space worth more that $15 million dollars in 24 different municipalities. These open space purchases represent important steps toward the state goal of setting aside 21% of Connecticut land as open space. However, that goal is still more than 345,000 acres away from being reality. Each state has unique conservation and recreation priorities and the NRRA ensures that they will have flexible federal assistance they need to put their plans into practice. Because the NRRA would support diverse ideas and approaches to conserving and protecting the nation's natural and cultural resources, each state will also benefit from the innovation and lessons learned by other states from coast to coast. Finally, the Natural Resources Reinvestment Act clarifies and improves existing laws to leverage opportunities to protect farmland and watersheds, and mitigate the extent to which transportation projects encroach on open and green space. While these improvements are made in federal laws, they affect local decisions. For example, the NRRA amends the 1996 Farm Bill so that state and local conservation organizations can help acquire easements designed to maintain productive farmland as productive farms. This provision of the NRRA gives communities a powerful tool to help make sure that family farms are not squeezed out of American communities as cities and towns grow and prosper in the 21st century. By amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act so that up to 10% of the State Revolving Loan Fund can be used for matching grants to purchase land that protects watersheds, the NRRA recognizes that flexibility is critical for cost-effective delivery of clean and healthy drinking water to American homes and businesses. This provision of the NRRA recognizes that protecting watersheds--the Earth's natural water filtration and purification systems--by preserving open space can be an important and relatively inexpensive component of municipal water supply strategies. America's world-class network of roads and highways represents the foundation of our national commerce. It also embodies many families' tickets to staying in touch with friends and relatives across the country and their passports for exploring the beauty and history of our nation. The NRRA amends the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century so that highway development funds can be used to purchase open space and green corridors that will help mitigate the effects of transportation-related growth and development. The Natural Resources Reinvestment Act represents a strong, renewed federal commitment to protecting our natural and historical resources nationwide at local, state, and regional levels. It demonstrates our dedication to ensuring that revenues from oil and gas leasing on federal lands are reinvested in our heritage for current and future generations alike. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer introductory remarks on the Natural Resources Reinvestment Act, a bill that I am introducing today with my colleagues Mr. Chafee, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Jeffords. Before we adjourned for the summer recess, Congress spent many weeks preoccupied with weighty fiscal matters like how to divvy up a hypothetical budget surplus, whether to grant tax cuts with money that may or may not exist, or whether to do the responsible thing and pay off the national debt with any surplus that might actually materialize. Make no mistake, these are important issues, but they are not the only issues that should cause us concern. Recent visits with citizens in Connecticut reinforced my conviction that one of the most critical, but commonly overlooked, issues facing our nation today is the conservation debt that we have amassed in recent years. This conservation debt is difficult to define because it cannot be measured in dollars and cents. It is not dependent on interest rates or stock market gyrations. It is not a debt that can be paid off by signing a check when eventually we realize that we have short-changed our children's environmental inheritance. This conservation debt grows as urban sprawl spreads across prime farmland and degrades wetlands. It is a debt that multiples every time a community misses a chance to acquire the watershed lands that help to purify their drinking water. It is a debt that grows irreversibly every time another endangered species is driven down the one-way road to extinction. It is a debt that increases each time an untended urban park is ceded to drug-peddlers through neglect and inattention. It is a debt that builds every time a structure representing our cultural heritage is demolished rather than renovated. It is a debt that we can no longer afford to ignore. Unfortunately, too little has been said or done recently in Washington to define the steps we--as a nation--should take to pay off the conservation debt and ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit a planet that is healthy, productive, and blessed with abundant, clean, green open space. Because I am committed to preserving a rich environmental legacy for our children, today I join with Mr. Chafee, from Rhode Island, the esteemed Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I serve, and Mr. Leahy and Mr. Jeffords from Vermont to introduce the Natural Resources Reinvestment Act of 1999. The principle behind our bill is simple: as we deplete federally- owned, non-renewable natural resources such as oil and gas, we should reinvest the proceeds to establish a reliable source of funding for State, local, and federal efforts to conserve land and water, provide recreational opportunities, preserve historic resources, protect fish and wildlife, and preserve open space. The Natural Resources Reinvestment Act honors this principle by re-establishing America's long-standing commitment to protecting land, fish and wildlife, and our cultural heritage and by re-doubling Federal commitments that help states and localities protect the open space and recreational opportunities that Americans cherish so deeply. Notwithstanding our current conservation debt, America has made many wise conservation investments over the years. Therefore, the Natural Resources Reinvestment Act is not spun entirely from whole cloth, but also improves upon those things we have done well. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has served as the primary Federal source of funds for the acquisition of recreational lands since 1965, has been a tremendous success by any measure. It has helped protect more than seven million acres of open space and contributed to the development of 37,000 parks and recreation areas across the country. Everglades and Saguaro National Parks, the Appalachian Trail, the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site, and Niagara Falls are few examples of treasured places across the country that have been created or protected with help from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Because the Outer Continental Shelf petroleum royalty system is already in collecting billions of dollars every year, rather than introducing new taxes, this bill would simply ensure that taxes historically raised for conservation purposes actually result in conservation activity. Despite the notable successes and broad bipartisan support and authorization for $900 million dollars, Congress has failed to appropriate sufficient money for Land and Water Conservation Fund. More than $11 billion dollars of authorized conservation funding has been funneled back into the general treasury since the Fund was established. Again, this bill requires no new taxes----it simply ensures that existing revenues are spent on the conservation priorities that communities across the country have identified. The stateside portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--the money that is supposed to help states and local communities direct their own conservation and recreation goals--has gone completely unfunded since 1995. This is particularly troubling for me because Connecticut has the smallest percentage of federally-owned land of any state in the union. The Natural Resources Reinvestment Act ensures that the Land and Water Conservation Fund will receive full authorized funding every year. The bill also builds on the success of the Fund, by authorizing a new program for State Lands of National or Regional Interest to help protect areas of unique ecological, recreational, aesthetic, or regional value that would not be eligible for traditional Land and Water Conservation Fund support. We also provide full funding for other successful programs with an existing claim on Outer Continental Shelf revenues, including the Historic Preservation Fund, and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program. Every year our bill will reinvest $250 million dollars of Outer Continental Shelf petroleum revenues in State fish and wildlife conservation efforts, with special emphasis on projects that protect nongame and threatened or endangered species. The Natural Resources Reinvestment Act also creates a $900 million Environmental Stewardship Fund to be distributed to States for the purposes of conserving, protecting, and restoring their natural resources beyond what is required by current law. The Environmental Stewardship Fund is designed so that States have the flexibility to devise innovative solutions to their individual conservation challenges. This commitment to helping, but not dictating how, communities achieve their conservation goals is exceptionally important. Over the last year, the State of Connecticut has acquired 3,725 acres of open space worth more that $15 million dollars in 24 different municipalities. These open space purchases represent important steps toward the state goal of setting aside 21% of Connecticut land as open space. However, that goal is still more than 345,000 acres away from being reality. Each state has unique conservation and recreation priorities and the NRRA ensures that they will have flexible federal assistance they need to put their plans into practice. Because the NRRA would support diverse ideas and approaches to conserving and protecting the nation's natural and cultural resources, each state will also benefit from the innovation and lessons learned by other states from coast to coast. Finally, the Natural Resources Reinvestment Act clarifies and improves existing laws to leverage opportunities to protect farmland and watersheds, and mitigate the extent to which transportation projects encroach on open and green space. While these improvements are made in federal laws, they affect local decisions. For example, the NRRA amends the 1996 Farm Bill so that state and local conservation organizations can help acquire easements designed to maintain productive farmland as productive farms. This provision of the NRRA gives communities a powerful tool to help make sure that family farms are not squeezed out of American communities as cities and towns grow and prosper in the 21st century. By amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act so that up to 10% of the State Revolving Loan Fund can be used for matching grants to purchase land that protects watersheds, the NRRA recognizes that flexibility is critical for cost-effective delivery of clean and healthy drinking water to American homes and businesses. This provision of the NRRA recognizes that protecting watersheds--the Earth's natural water filtration and purification systems--by preserving open space can be an important and relatively inexpensive component of municipal water supply strategies. America's world-class network of roads and highways represents the foundation of our national commerce. It also embodies many families' tickets to staying in touch with friends and relatives across the country and their passports for exploring the beauty and history of our nation. The NRRA amends the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century so that highway development funds can be used to purchase open space and green corridors that will help mitigate the effects of transportation-related growth and development. The Natural Resources Reinvestment Act represents a strong, renewed federal commitment to protecting our natural and historical resources nationwide at local, state, and regional levels. It demonstrates our dedication to ensuring that revenues from oil and gas leasing on federal lands are reinvested in our heritage for current and future generations alike. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Colchester Lions Club of Colchester, CT. On October 30, they will be celebrating their 50th anniversary of service to the Colchester community. The Colchester Lions Club was established on August 2, 1949, and through the support of area residents, they have reached out to assist many members of the community. The Lions Club has lent its support to such worthwhile local causes as the D.A.R.E. Program for schools, academic scholarships for local students, and area food banks, and senior centers. They also have reached far beyond the Town of Colchester by raising funds for organizations such as the Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation and Lions Clubs International. As the Colchester Lions Club has grown over the years, their numerous good works have touched many lives and demonstrated the true value of volunteerism. The people of Connecticut thank the Colchester Lions Club and all its members for their service, dedication, and contribution to our State.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a few remarks on an amendment I have at the desk. The amendment, which I intend to withdraw, would provide a $2 million increase in funding for the Parks Service Account. This money would be used to help a dedicated coalition of Connecticut citizens, conservation groups, and local and state government acquire 668 acres in the Trout Brook Valley. The Trout Brook Valley, like much of the remaining open space in Connecticut, is currently under threat of development and the Aspetuck Land Trust is trying to save it. They are not asking the Federal Government to foot the entire bill in the effort to preserve this countryside for the enjoyment of future generations. Far from it, the locally-led effort to save Trout Brook Valley is convinced that they can and will raise $10.5 million of the $12.5 million dollars that the property will cost. My amendment would have provided Federal matching funds equal to less than one-sixth of the total cost of acquiring this land for conservation. I am deeply disappointed that the current Interior Appropriations bill allocates no funding to the stateside portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Trout Brook Valley project represents an excellent example of why we need to appropriate adequate resources for stateside portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which tragically has gone unfunded since 1995. I am encouraged to learn, however, that an agreement to appropriate funds to the stateside LWCF account is currently under discussion. Am I correct in that understanding?

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I rise to oppose this conference report and the $800 billion tax cut it contains. I do not rise reflexively. In fact, my reflex, similar to most of my colleagues, is to support tax cuts, not to oppose them. I was proud just 2 years ago to be a lead cosponsor, for instance, of the cut in the capital gains tax and to support so many of the initiatives of the chairman of the Finance Committee in encouraging savings. However, I am going to oppose this tax cut as I would tax cuts at any time when they were not needed to help our economy, not justified by the availability of money to support the tax cut. These are similar arguments I made against the reconciliation bill, this tax cut, when it was before the Senate last week. It reappears as a conference report. It is essentially the same. The chairs have been shuffled on this Titanic, but the fact remains that this big luxury liner of a tax cut is headed for an iceberg. It may well take the American economy down with it. The iceberg here is the cold, hard reality that there is no surplus to pay for the cut that this enacts. In fact, this Congress, in an act of legislative schizophrenia, is on one side saying there is a surplus, beginning with next year, that justifies this tax cut; on the other side, through fictional emergency appropriations, through double counting, through overspending, is spending more than the surplus projected for next year. So that the reality is that ``there is no there there.'' There is no surplus there to pay for this tax cut. My colleagues cite the Congressional Budget Office saying there will be, for instance, a $14 billion surplus next year and almost $1 trillion over the 10 years. But, as has been said on the floor, CBO, after making those surplus projections, also issued a report which makes very clear that they are based on Congress exercising self- control, the kind of self-control over spending we are showing each day of this session we are unable to exercise. If you take the $1 trillion surplus the Congressional Budget Office estimated and then simply assume that Congresses over the next 10 years spends only the amount of money to operate our Government that we are spending this year, in 1999, adjusted only for inflation--real dollars--then that projected surplus of $1 trillion suddenly becomes $46 billion. What does it require to hold the $1 trillion surplus? Cuts in spending that we all know are untenable. They are not going to happen. This Congress, and no Congress over the next decade, would enact them. I am privileged to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I think in that capacity I have learned some about the needs of our national security and our military, our defense. To achieve the $1 trillion surplus and live within the caps that currently exist would require cuts in defense spending over the next decade of approximately $200 billion. We cannot fulfill our constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense of the United States of America over the next decade with $200 billion in cuts. I have too much confidence in my colleagues who serve today, as well as those who will serve over the next decade, to believe we would ever so jeopardize our security. It is just another way of saying the surplus projections are not real, and therefore enacting a tax cut which will not be backed up by available revenue will take America back down the road to a deficit before we hardly have had a chance to even appreciate the possibilities of a surplus. Let us remember also a $1 trillion surplus estimate is based not only on a capacity in Congress to cut spending that we have clearly shown already in this session we do not possess because it is based on a projection of continued 2.4-percent growth in our economy over the next decade, extending what is already the longest peacetime growth in an economy in our history. Just look at the news in the last week or two and consider the probability that we will continue to grow over this next 10 years, unimpeded by the world and events in the world. The value of the dollar has weakened in recent weeks, creating great alarm in other industrialized democracies, particularly in Europe and Japan, our close allies, for fear of what that will do to their economies, and also for fear of what that will do to the foreign dollars that are currently invested in our economy that may be withdrawn and the consequences that would have for our economy. Have you been following the stock market in recent days and watching the extraordinary gyrations in the American market which show underlying unease? Do we want to put into that situation a large tax cut, a tax cut of this immense size that will further threaten inflation and instability in our economy? Why? Why take the risk? Fiscal responsibility helped to bring our economy to the point it is today: An unprecedented combination of high growth, low unemployment, low inflation. Why risk it all for a tax cut that is not needed to stimulate the economy and not demanded by the people of the United States of America? I think we have to be conscious of how our fiscal actions affect the very global economy which helps to give us our strength. We are the only G-7 country running a budget surplus today. We are the only leading industrial economy that is positioned to deal with the global demographic challenge of retiring baby boomers, if we discipline ourselves. As Asia and South America struggle through economic difficulties, we must remember that any sign of economic instability here could trigger an economic crisis there that will come back to bite us. We must have a strong economy. We have one now. Why jeopardize it? Why encumber it with debt? Why not save this money, pay down the debt, store it up to weather any economic crisis that may come our way? There are times when I think of the famous Biblical story where Joseph advised Pharaoh in good times to put some away because good times would not last forever. I think we are in such a time now so we dare not let the cows and corn absorb themselves, as occurred in Joseph's dream. The result, I fear, is by passing a major tax cut, one paid by an imaginary surplus, we would incur sizable debts for years to come. Besides the effects on the financial markets and on our economy, we would leave little or no money available for building the solvency of Medicare and Social Security and thus raise the specter of a major tax increase down the line when we will least be able to afford it to compensate for our profligacy now. Finally, as has been said, I think anybody who has been following what Chairman Greenspan has been saying does not have to pick at the tea leaves. It has been very clear. If we cut taxes to this size now, the Federal Reserve will increase interest rates soon after. That will help to depress the economy and also hit average working Americans literally where they live, driving up the cost of their mortgages, their car payments, their credit card bills, and student loans to the point it would dwarf any tax benefit they might receive from this conference report. I present as evidence an analysis done for Business Week magazine by Regional Financial Associates of West Chester, PA, which says that wiping out the debt, the national debt, by 2014 would raise the economy's growth rate by more than one-quarter of 1 percent at the end of the 15 years, and that real annual household income would grow by $1,500. That is more than three times, this study shows, what a tax cut of this size would boost the GDP and household income. A tax cut such as the one passed in the House, according to this study, would raise household income by $400; whereas paying down the debt would raise household income by $1,500. So I will vote against the conference report and say when the President vetoes this bill he will not just be making another smart partisan political move in a political chess game; he will be saving the American economy from real damage. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.