Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Chairman Thompson in introducing a bill that will re-authorize a small but highly effective program, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, or EFS for short. The EFS program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, supplements community efforts to meet the needs of the homeless and hungry in all fifty states. I am pleased that my friend, Chairman Thompson, is sponsoring this legislation. Our Committee on Governmental Affairs has jurisdiction over the EFS program, and it is my hope that together we can generate even more bipartisan support for a program that makes a real difference with its tiny budget. The EFS program is a great help not only to the Nation's homeless population but also to working people who are trying to feed and shelter their families at entry-level wages. Services supplemented by the EFS funding, such as food banks and emergency rent/utility assistance programs, are especially helpful to families with big responsibilities but small paychecks. One of the things that distinguishes the EFS program is the extent to which it relies on non-profit organizations. Local boards in counties, parishes, and municipalities across the country advertise the availability of funds, decide on non-profit and local government agencies to be funded, and monitor the recipient agencies. The local boards, like the program's National Board, are made up of charitable organizations including the National Council of Churches, the United Jewish Communities, Catholic Charities, USA, the Salvation Army, and the American Red Cross. By relying on community participation, the program keeps administrative overhead to an unusually low amount, less than 3%. The EFS program has operated without authorization since 1994 but has been sustained by annual appropriations. The proposed bill will re- authorize the program for the next three years. It will also authorize modest funding increases over the amounts appropriated in recent years. From 1990 the EFS program was funded at approximately $130 million annually, but that number was cut back by appropriators in fiscal year 1996 and has held steady at $100 million since then. Creeping inflation has taken an additional bite: $130 million in 1990 dollars is equivalent to $165.6 million today. The draft legislation will authorize increases to $125 million in the coming fiscal year and an additional five million dollars each of the following two years. Although the increases will not bring the program's funding up to its previous levels, they will provide additional aid to community-based organizations struggling to meet the needs of the homeless and working poor in an era of steep budget cuts. In summary, Mr. President, FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program is a highly efficient example of the government relying on the country's non-profit organizations to help people in innovative ways. The EFS program aids the homeless and the hungry in a majority of the nation's counties and in all fifty states, and I ask my colleagues to support this program and our re-authorizing legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Chairman Thompson in introducing a bill that will re-authorize a small but highly effective program, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, or EFS for short. The EFS program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, supplements community efforts to meet the needs of the homeless and hungry in all fifty states. I am pleased that my friend, Chairman Thompson, is sponsoring this legislation. Our Committee on Governmental Affairs has jurisdiction over the EFS program, and it is my hope that together we can generate even more bipartisan support for a program that makes a real difference with its tiny budget. The EFS program is a great help not only to the Nation's homeless population but also to working people who are trying to feed and shelter their families at entry-level wages. Services supplemented by the EFS funding, such as food banks and emergency rent/utility assistance programs, are especially helpful to families with big responsibilities but small paychecks. One of the things that distinguishes the EFS program is the extent to which it relies on non-profit organizations. Local boards in counties, parishes, and municipalities across the country advertise the availability of funds, decide on non-profit and local government agencies to be funded, and monitor the recipient agencies. The local boards, like the program's National Board, are made up of charitable organizations including the National Council of Churches, the United Jewish Communities, Catholic Charities, USA, the Salvation Army, and the American Red Cross. By relying on community participation, the program keeps administrative overhead to an unusually low amount, less than 3%. The EFS program has operated without authorization since 1994 but has been sustained by annual appropriations. The proposed bill will re- authorize the program for the next three years. It will also authorize modest funding increases over the amounts appropriated in recent years. From 1990 the EFS program was funded at approximately $130 million annually, but that number was cut back by appropriators in fiscal year 1996 and has held steady at $100 million since then. Creeping inflation has taken an additional bite: $130 million in 1990 dollars is equivalent to $165.6 million today. The draft legislation will authorize increases to $125 million in the coming fiscal year and an additional five million dollars each of the following two years. Although the increases will not bring the program's funding up to its previous levels, they will provide additional aid to community-based organizations struggling to meet the needs of the homeless and working poor in an era of steep budget cuts. In summary, Mr. President, FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program is a highly efficient example of the government relying on the country's non-profit organizations to help people in innovative ways. The EFS program aids the homeless and the hungry in a majority of the nation's counties and in all fifty states, and I ask my colleagues to support this program and our re-authorizing legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to praise S. 296, the Federal Research Investment Act of 1999, legislation designed to reverse a downward trend in the Federal Government's allocation to science and engineering research and development (R&D). S. 296 authorizes a 5.5% increase in funding per year for federally funded civilian R&D programs, through 2010. While the future of individual agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation, remains with the authorizing committees, the bill establishes a long term commitment to sustaining the aggregate research and development portfolio during the annual budget cycle. The bill also puts in place a number of review and accountability measures to assure the public and Congress that, each year, the R&D funds are well spent. I am pleased to report that S. 296 passed the Senate last week, on July 28, 1999, by unanimous consent. It had 41 cosponsors, about equally divided between the two parties, including the Majority and Minority leaders. The magnitude of support for this bill reflects the growing realization that technological progress is the single largest factor, bar none, in sustaining economic growth. Today we find ourselves in a ``New Economy.'' Everything about it defies conventional wisdom. Our unemployment rate is extremely low, but at the same time, our interest rates are low. The boom itself keeps going, defying expectations. In fact, the current economic boom is soon to be the longest one in our nation's history. Even our national debt has fallen far faster than economists had ever predicted it could. In retrospect, these happy miscalculations reflect a flaw in economic growth theory. Conventional economic wisdom at first underestimated the strength and depth of our New Economy because it ignored the substantial productivity gains generated by advances in technology, in this particular case, information technology. However, had we paid attention to history, we would have known better. Almost a dozen major economic studies, including those of Nobel Prize laureate Robert Solow, have tracked economic growth over prior decades. These studies found that in every time period studied, approximately half of all economic growth was due to technological progress. The preponderance of the evidence provided by these economic studies has led Alan Greenspan to note in many of his recent speeches that in addition to the traditional forces of labor and capital, a very substantial portion of economic growth is now recognized to be due to technological innovation and the productivity increases it brings to the workplace. That technological innovation is what is sustaining our boom today. Beyond the effects of interest rates and fiscal policy, there are the dot.com's and the gazelle stocks, pushing our nation's technological wunderkind into untold riches, and pulling the rest of the nation along with them. In an industrialized nation, the technological innovation so necessary for robust economic growth is generated by research and development (R&D). R&D is directly responsible for creation of the new products and processes which account for half or more of the growth in output per person, thereby fueling our economy. The private sector recognizes these connections--earlier this summer, Business Week devoted a entire issue, over a hundred pages, to highlighting the greatest scientific and technological innovations of the past 100 years. As the noted economist Lester Thurow puts it, ``The payoff from social investment in basic research is as clear as anything is ever going to be in economics.'' To drive home the economic impact of scientific R&D, I would like to bring up the specific example of biomedical research, which at least one analysis finds has a rate of return that is greater than $13 for every dollar invested. This correlation between technology and economic growth is especially compelling today, and not just for the biomedical arena. On a local scale, scores of governors are striving to bring high tech corridors into their states. They know, intuitively, that future economic growth for their states depends on high tech. America's research-intensive industries have been growing at about twice the rate of the average economy over the past two decades. Job opportunities in information technology flood the newspaper want ads, an illustration of the Internet sector's 1.2 million new jobs in 1998. Moreover, high tech wages are 77% greater than the private sector average. However, we have reached a cross-roads in this era of technological growth. We must remember that the ultimate origins of today's high-tech companies, and hence the dramatic economic gains we now see, were a few seminal discoveries made in the mid-1960's. It was at that time that we, as a country, were seriously investing in research and development. Because of the 20-30 year time lag between basic scientific discovery and market product, that substantial federal investment is now bearing fruit in the form of our exceptionally robust economy in the 1990's. Unfortunately, since the mid-1960's we have not maintained our investment in R&D. As a fraction of the federal budget, the federal government's support of R&D has dropped by \2/3\ over the past 34 years. When expressed as a fraction of GDP, federal funding of R&D has declined to half its mid-1960's value. For certain individual disciplines, the future is bleak. A recent report from the National Academy shows that in the years between 1993 and 1997, federal funding for research in mechanical engineering declined 50.4%, that for electrical engineering declined 35.7%, that for physics declined 28.7%, and that for chemical engineering declined 12.9%. These decreases are not just abstract reductions in facilities and personnel at research labs, and students and professors in universities. They represent the very seed corn of our economic prosperity. We no longer have as robust a pool of ideas to germinate into fundamentally new industries; we no longer have the technically trained populace capable of fully cultivating and implementing those ideas. Meanwhile, other countries are stepping in to fill the gap. Thirteen countries now have greater funding for basic research as a fraction of GNP than we do. For non- defense research, Japan spends more than the US, even in absolute dollars. The problem of declining US R&D funding is especially acute, and demands action now, because of the dynamics of the global economy. In order to compete in the global economy, industry R&D funding has become overwhelmingly (84%) and increasingly concentrated on product development/refinement, i.e, the last stage of R&D. Thus, for new product concepts, industry is correspondingly more dependent on the basic and applied research sponsored by the government. The connection is a direct one. Currently, 73% of all papers cited in industrial patents are the product of government and non-profit funded research. With our declining investment in government-funded R&D, coupled with the increased appetite of industry for new market products and technologically literate workers, the government is stripping US industry of the knowledge base required to derive new products and compete in new industries. We must also understand that this falloff in R&D will have serious economic repercussions into the future. Our investments in science and technology have an impact which stretches out over a twenty to thirty year horizon. Recognition of this fact is particularly crucial because of the projected dramatic rises in entitlement spending when the baby boom generation retires. To pay for Social Security, for Medicare, for all the hopes and dreams of our country, we will need a healthy economic harvest in years to come. Increasing our commitment to R&D today is the surest way to provide for the robust economy that is essential to our future social commitments. As Judy Carter, President and CEO of Softworks, points out, ``Without a growing economy, Americans' standard of living, and our ability to support the needs of our aging population will be in jeopardy. Faced with a static or decreasing workforce as U.S. demographics shift, U.S. lawmakers must focus on encouraging technology development to increase productivity, enabling a smaller workforce to support a growing population of retirees.'' We are doing well now economically because of our past R&D investments, but the declining R&D accounts bode poorly for our future. The Council on Competitiveness put it succinctly when it concluded, ``the United States may be living off historical assets that are not being renewed.'' It is time now to renew those investments. With its small but steady increases in the nation's R&D accounts and its commitment to thoughtful planning and review of our R&D portfolio, The Federal Research Investment Act, S. 296, begins the replenishment of our consummate national treasure--our knowledge base.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I understand that, and respectfully withdraw my amendment. land acquisition and state assistance for national park service

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I believe the Senator from Virginia yielded a couple minutes to me earlier.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I first thank those who have finally brought the nomination of Richard Holbrooke to the floor of the Senate, particularly the senior Senator from North Carolina and the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, who have done yeoman's work here in the national interest. Secondly, I wanted to say this about the nominee himself, who I have been privileged to come to know. In my opinion, Richard Holbrooke is one of America's great natural resources. Certainly, he is one of our great diplomatic resources. He has had a career that has been described in detail here that puts him at the top ranks of those who have served America in the international arena. He is a person of principle, purpose, intellect, and enormous energy and talent. He combines the sense of American purpose, which, incidentally, is reflected in his work on behalf of the policy of the United States, representing the Commander in Chief of the United States in regard to the Balkans, about which my friend from Texas has just spoken. He combines that sense of American principle and the continuing vitality of America's morality in the world with extraordinary, tough-minded, practical, and interpersonal diplomatic skills. We are fortunate to have a person of this talent willing to serve our Nation. I am confident that he will advance our national security and principled interests in the United Nations. I am proud to support the nomination. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan. I am delighted to stand in support of defending S. 335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. I commend my colleague from Michigan, along with Senators Collins, Cochran, and Edwards, for the way they have worked together with my former colleagues, the State attorneys general, the AARP, and the sweepstakes industry itself to put together this important consumer protection legislation. I think their combined efforts stand as a model not only of cooperation but of thoughtful legislating from which we can all learn. I am very proud to join them as a cosponsor of this bill. No marketing effort should be based on misleading advertising. That principle is at the core of the legislation before the Senate. It reminds everyone that occasionally the Federal Government has to step in to make sure that the free market we celebrate and benefit so much from truly remains free. That freedom is so often based on the truthfulness of representations made by those who are marketing. The purpose of this bill is to eliminate deceptive practices in the sweepstakes industry. We have all seen them. Who wouldn't be tantalized by a letter proclaiming you may already be a winner? It is hard not to open that one up. Everybody wants to be a winner. Most of us have probably fantasized about how we would spend a sudden windfall that dropped into our bank accounts. Unfortunately, sweepstakes mailings often involve sophisticated marketing techniques that persuade recipients to spend money in the hope of finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but it is a long way off in almost all cases. Often the mailings are targeted at the elderly or the financially vulnerable who don't realize that sweepstake companies are not in business primarily to rain riches down upon them. Sweepstakes companies are in business to sell products that make a profit, plain and simple. That is legitimate so long as they do it fairly and truthfully. It is a big business. The fact is that sweepstakes and telemarketing firms take in more than $400 million a year from promotional campaigns in my State of Connecticut alone. Nationally, estimates are that the sweepstakes in telemarketing firms have gross revenues between $40 and $60 billion a year. This legislation makes sure that before consumers take a chance on the sweepstakes, they know it is just that, a chance-- not a winning ticket, not a prize, but a chance. They will know the odds are not improved no matter how many subscriptions they buy. This legislation requires a clear statement that no purchase is necessary to win, as well as terms and conditions of the promotion in language that is easy to find, to read, and to understand. It prohibits abuses we have seen such as symbols or statements that imply Federal Government endorsement, and it provides meaningful disclosures to let consumers know the actual odds of winning. Further, the bill sets up a mechanism for consumers and those who care for them to stop unwanted sweepstake solicitations and a recordkeeping requirement to assure that such requests are properly implemented. Finally, the bill gives the Postal Service the additional enforcement authority it needs to stop unlawful sweepstake schemes, particularly those that flirt with fraud and skip from State to State. I strongly support this legislation as a tool to help consumers negotiate their way through the high pressure sales tactics sometimes employed by marketers using sweepstakes to sell their products. I am very grateful to colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee for the leadership they have shown. I am delighted to join this bipartisan effort to protect our citizens--again, particularly the aged--from these deceptive marketing tactics. I urge the Senate to vote for this strong consumer protection measure. I hope the House will then join in adopting this bill and sending it to the President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in the interest of legislative efficiency, let alone fiscal responsibility, Senator Levin and I are withdrawing our motion to strike the entire tax cut and joining to raise the same issue with Senator Hollings on this amendment which says you can't have a tax cut if the surplus is not there, and there is no evidence the surplus is there.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask the Senator from Delaware if I might have 2 more minutes off the bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment before the Senate introduced by my friends from Rhode Island and Louisiana. But in doing so, I rise to oppose all of the amendments that have been offered to cut taxes. It is particularly difficult for me to rise and speak against this amendment offered by this centrist group. It contains some of my dearest friends and closest collaborators in the Senate. I have parted company with them only after much consternation and consideration. I do so because, if they will allow me to say so, I think the centrist course we would best follow in this case is to stay right in the middle of the road that has brought the American economy to the extraordinary point of growth and strength it occupies today, and that is the road of fiscal responsibility. It took a lot of hard work to get us to this plentiful place that we are enjoying today, with high growth, low unemployment, a surprisingly high stock market, and surprisingly low inflation. I think the Federal Government helped to begin it all by creating the climate for sustained economic growth by exercising some real fiscal discipline. Then most of the prosperity has come, as it always does in America, from the private sector, from millions of businesses and individuals, innovating, cooperating, and profiting. Now, as a result, for the first time in a generation it looks as if the Federal Government may actually go into surplus--if we let it. Oscar Wilde once wrote, ``I can resist everything except temptation.'' I fear the same may well be said of this Congress as it giddily proceeds to spend a surplus that no one knows is really there, that would take our Nation back into deficit and endanger the critical economic gains we have made over the past several years. So I ask, why not stay the course that has raised the standard of living of millions of American families? Why not wait for at least another year to see if the surplus projections are real, if the economy will continue to grow, if Congress is prepared to exercise the required spending discipline? That is the question Senator Levin and I will ask later on a motion to strike the entire tax cut before us, which would mean we would wait a year. It is the question that Senator Hollings will ask in an amendment we will offer later which would recommit this tax cut to committee. I must say, as all of us here, I suppose my reflex is to propose tax cuts, not to oppose them. I was very active in support of the tax cuts we passed--just 2 years ago. I think sometimes we forget that in this debate. Just 2 years ago, I cosponsored the cut in the capital gains tax and supported so many of the incentives that the chairman of the Finance Committee offered to increase savings in our country. I would welcome the opportunity to vote for a balanced, thoughtfully crafted tax reduction package such as the one the Senators from Rhode Island and Louisiana have offered today if I were convinced we could afford it, if I were convinced the money was there to support the tax cut, or, in the alternative, if I thought, as Chairman Greenspan has suggested, that the economy needed it, needed to be stimulated. But the more I have looked at these protections of a $1 trillion surplus over the next decade, the more it looks to me like a Potemkin surplus--not a real one, a facade with nothing behind it because it is based on projections of 2.4-percent growth over the next 10 years, which may happen but would extend what is already the longest peacetime expansion of our economy in history. It is possible, but I would not bank on it, or at least I would not spend in tax cuts the profits of such unprecedented projected growth until I knew they were in the bank. Of course, both baselines, OMB's and CBO's, assume cuts in spending that are massive and unsustainable. These are cuts that few in either House would ever support and, in fact, are not supporting right now, as Congress simply exceeds the budget almost every day, exceeds the caps through transparent accounting gimmicks, calling excess spending emergency spending and double counting when necessary. In other words, we do not have to wonder whether Congress over the next decade will be able to hold the spending line on which the surplus, which would fund these tax cuts, is contingent because Congress is already proving today that it cannot so control itself. The result is that by passing a major tax cut, paid for by a surplus that probably will not be there, we would likely incur sizable deficits for years to come.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator. On top of that, of course, we would leave little or no money available for building the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, for supporting our national security--defense--and we would thus raise the specter of a major tax increase down the line to compensate for our profligacy right now. It seems quite clear from what Alan Greenspan is saying, if we cut taxes now, the Fed will increase interest rates soon thereafter, which would put a drag on the economy, slow down business investment, and probably lower the stock market, and it would hit average working Americans literally where they live, driving up the cost of their mortgages, car payments, credit card bills, and student loans to the point where it would dwarf any tax benefit most Americans would receive from this bill. In other words, we would be robbing Paul to pay--Paul, while simultaneously robbing our economy of the dynamism we have labored so hard to create. And to what purpose? None that I have heard, except to return to the American people a surplus that is not going to be there. What we need now, I argue, is a little more of the fiscal discipline and responsibility that helped bring this economy to the point of great growth it is at now. I thank the Senator from Delaware, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Mr. Domenici's amendment to the Department of Energy reorganization amendment. I have been a strong supporter of the need to reorganize the defense labs in order to improve security and I applaud the sponsors of the reorganization amendment that we will be considering. It is of overriding importance that we take all necessary actions to protect our national security. However, as I have considered the very serious need to address security threats, I have also been listening closely to the debate about how environment, safety, and health protections can best be incorporated into the Department of Energy's operations as they relate to the weapons labs. The legacy of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy regarding environmental protection is not a proud one. Since the first days of the Atomic Energy Commission over 40 years ago, weapons production programs and facilities emphasized production and too often neglected environmental safety. By the 1980s, the history of mismanagement caught up with the Agency, when 17 major plants in 13 states, employing 80,000 people were brought to a standstill because of a series of accidents and leaks. Over 10,000 individual sites have been documented where toxic or radioactive substances were improperly abandoned or released into soil, groundwater, or surface waters. ``Tiger Teams'' of trained investigators were sent to plants to ensure compliance with environmental and safety requirements. The Agency and the public have paid for the cost of this mismanagement: the price tag of past mistakes is now at about $250 billion dollars, or $6 billion a year. Clearly we have to learn from the past as we think about how to deal with environment and safety in the future. Based on the Rudman report, there is a strong case made for treating environment and safety issues separately. Our former colleague Warren Rudman himself has said that environment and health issues ``ought to stay where they ought to stay, with the Secretary . . . because I know what we all went through back during the 1980s.'' GAO has testified on numerous occasions that independent oversight is critical to ensuring adequate protection of health and safety. They have said explicitly that this oversight needs to encompass on-site reviews of compliance with environmental and safety laws. Much has changed since the time that rampant disregard for environmental protections at the labs was discovered. Over time, we as a society, within industry, and within government have come to incorporate environment and health concerns more fully into both policy and practice. And I have no reason to believe that there would be any intentional disregard for environmental and health concerns if the those functions were put under the supervision of the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship. However, given the potential magnitude of problems that could be caused even by simple, honest mistakes, the best course of action is to be prudent. I therefore support the Domenici amendment because it allows the Secretary of the Department of Energy to ensure compliance with all environmental, safety and health requirements, while protecting the security of the weapons labs. I am pleased that we were able to work out this issue as part of the restructuring proposal.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have been proud to join with Senators Chafee, Graham, and other colleagues to express our shared dissatisfaction with the Senate's progress in reaching agreement on a strong patients' bill of rights, and to prepare a balanced, thoughtfully-crafted alternative that we believe would protect the rights of health consumers and could attract the support of a bipartisan majority of the Senate. Listening to the deeply partisan discussions we have heard on the floor this week, I am reminded of the movie ``As Good As It Gets,'' which has become a cultural touchstone of sorts for venting the popular hostility toward HMOs. It is not any particular scene I am thinking of, but the title itself. I am moved to wonder if this debate, which seems to be operating on political autopilot and showing no signs of producing anything other than a Presidential veto, is as good as we get in the U.S. Senate, and as good it gets for the American people, who don't know a second degree amendment from a first degree amendment, but who do know that our managed care system badly needs a transfusion of basic fairness and accountability. We are here today to say that we can and should do better for America's families, that despite the apparent legislative logjam it is still possible to pass a constructive reform proposal, and that we are eager to offer a plan that Senators Chafee, Graham, and many of us have been fine-tuning over the last few days which fits that bill. While Sherlock Holmes had the 7% solution, we are offering a 70% solution. Our bipartisan alternative includes roughly 70 percent of the patient protections that most Members already agree on, and strikes some balanced compromises on the remaining issues that continue to divide us. The liability provisions in our bill are an example of our success in finding a sensible middle ground. This case, the managed care case, reminds me why we have tort law; why we have negligence law; why we have a system of civil justice. There has been this odd result that ERISA has given total immunity to managed care plans who are today making life and death decisions about our lives. The question is, how do we respond to that, how do we reform it? I think, with all respect that the Democratic bill goes too far. It opens up the system to the unlimited right to sue and creates the same prospect for the lotteries that have been going on elsewhere in the tort system. I am concerned that those ills will be repeated here-- some will get rich and others, many others, will not be adequately compensated for the injuries they suffer as the result of the managed care plan decisions. And some small businesses and individual people will be priced out of health insurance by the costs that will be added as a result of runaway judgements. I think the Republican plan, on the other hand, is not real reform because it essentially allows a patient, who is harmed by a negligent decision of a managed care plan, to be denied any significant compensation for their injury. Under the Republican plan, patients have to traverse an elaborate series of procedural hurdles to be eligible for compensatory damages. First, the patient has to fight their way through the appeals process. Then the independent appeals body must grant a decision in favor of the patient. Finally, if the plan doesn't accept and deliver that treatment, then, under the Republican bill, the only right the aggrieved health care consumer has, is to go to court for the value of that lost treatment, plus $100 a day. The amendment on liability which Senator Gregg offered went far beyond striking the liability provisions from the Democratic bill and would deny efforts to adequately compensate patients injured because of managed care plan decisions. That's just not enough. I think we've struck a reasonable compromise in our bipartisan bill. You're entitled to sue for economic loss which includes not only the cost of your health care, but lost wages, replacement services, and the value of lost wages and replacement services for the rest of your life based on the injury you've suffered. And it allows for pain and suffering up to $250,000 or three times economic loss whichever is greater. It has pain and suffering but with a limit on it. Another good example of our success in finding a sensible middle ground comes in the form of our plan's consumer information section, on which I have worked. Both the Democratic and Republican bills provide beneficiaries with information about coverage, cost sharing, out-of- network care, formularies, grievance and appeals procedures. One area of sharp difference is health plan performance. The Republican bill does not include any requirement that the performance of the plan, its doctors, and hospitals in preventing illness and saving lives be reported. Our bipartisan alternative requires provider performance report cards because we believe this is critical information for consumers to have in deciding which managed care plan to choose. We also reached back to an earlier bipartisan bill I sponsored with Senator Jeffords to include waivers and other language to ease the difficulty of administration for HMOs, PPOs, and providers. The bottom line here is that patients rights don't have to lead to political fights. There is a path to dependable consumer protections that does not require detours to bash HMOs or our colleagues. We have pled with our leadership to give us the opportunity to offer our alternative as an amendment today and prove our case. If not, I am prepared, and I believe our coalition is as well, to offer this proposal as an amendment to another legislative vehicle in the Senate this session. The American people deserve more from this critically important debate than high-glossed veto bait. We must show them that we take their concerns and our responsibilities seriously, and pass a law that will in fact improve the quality of health care for millions of American families.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Florida. It has been a spirited debate. We must acknowledge there have been impressive displays of party unity on both sides, but to what end? The end of the sound and fury is we will produce a bill we know the President will veto, and therefore there will be nothing done to help the American people with the problems they have with health care. It didn't have to be that way. There was a third way. There was a third way that would have recognized and expressed something else the debate has concealed: The fact that across party lines we agree on about 70 percent of the topics we talked about. It was the aim of our bipartisan group to put that majority round of agreements on the bill. Unfortunately, we didn't have an opportunity to have it heard by our colleagues in this debate. We will be back. We are going to submit our proposals and there will be another day. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my distinguished colleague from Vermont to introduce the Clean Energy Act of 1999. This landmark legislation provides a comprehensive, long-term blueprint for fulfilling the promise of fishable rivers, swimable streams, and clean, breathable air as envisioned by the ground-breaking Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. As Senator Jeffords has explained, the Clean Energy Act would reduce emissions of the full range of pollutants that damage human health and the global environment. The public health standards embodied in this bill are ambitious. But they reflect the significant strides Northeastern utilities have made in recent years to reduce pollution from electric power plants. They also reflect the reality that goals can, and must, be achieved regionally and nationally if we are to ensure clean air and clean water for every community. As utilities invest in control technologies to help them meet existing and future clean air requirements, they face difficult choices. Some technologies control for one pollutant, while exacerbating emissions of another and often utilities make large capital investments without knowing what pollutant reductions may be required of them in the future. The Clean Energy Act will bring order to the equation by providing a comprehensive but flexible guide for controlling the full range of pollutants associated with electricity generation, including nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, mercury, and carbon. The Clean Energy Act will help reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides that lead to smog that makes it difficult for children, asthmatics, and the elderly to breathe. It will help reduce acid rain by reducing the amount of sulphur that our smokestacks pump into the air. The bill will accelerate efforts to make the fish in rivers safe to eat by lowering the amount of mercury introduced into the food chain. And it will help reduce the U.S. contribution to the problem of climate change by recognizing carbon dioxide as a pollutant of the global atmosphere. Last year, I introduced a bill designed to close a loophole in the Clean Air Act that exempts older power plants from rigorous environmental standards. We know that to ensure fairness in an era of increasing competitiveness, we must strengthen pollution controls so that dirty power plants don't gain an unfair share of the market while polluting at higher rates than cleaner, more efficient utilities. The Clean Energy Act builds on the effort begun last year, by requiring all plants, no matter what their vintage, to meet the same standards. Electricity deregulation carries the promise of enormous benefits for the consumer--mainly in reduced electric bills--which I strongly support. But electricity deregulation can also cause adverse environmental and public health consequences if we don't do it right. The principles behind the Clean Energy Act--comprehensive control of pollutants and equitable across-the-board standards, enhanced by emissions trading--provide a vision for how the electricity industry and our economy can grow even as we improve the quality of our air and water for generations to come.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, our society is suffering from the deterioration of the married, two-parent family. According to a recent report by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers, ``The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America,'' marriage rates are at a 40-year low and there are fewer social forces holding them together. As the number of marriages has declined, unwed births have dramatically grown. Unfortunately, the result is more and more children are being born into fragile families. As the report states, ``Marriage is a fundamental social institution . . . It is the `social glue' that reliably attaches fathers to children.'' Nearly 25 million children, more than 1 out of 3, live absent their biological father, and 17 million kids live without a father of any kind. Even more troubling, about 40 percent of the children living in fatherless households have not seen their fathers in at least a year, and 50 percent of children who do not live with their fathers have never stepped foot in their father's home. This growing problem of father absence is taking a terrible toll on those children, who are being denied the love, guidance, discipline, emotional nourishment and financial support that fathers usually provide. Parents act as a nurturing and stable foundation for children. They are a guiding force to which children readily open their arms. In a recent poll conducted by Nickelodeon and Time magazine, three-quarters of the children, ages six to 14, polled stated that they wished they could spend more time with their parents. In addition, kids consistently ranked parents at the very top of the list when asked to name the people they look up to. More than friends or teachers, parents shape their children's value systems. As dads disappear, the American family is becoming significantly weaker, as are the values we depend on families to transmit. In turn, the risks to the health and well-being of children are becoming significantly higher. Social science research repeatedly shows that children growing up without fathers are far more likely to live in poverty, to fail in school, experience behavioral and emotional problems, develop drug and alcohol problems, commit suicide, and experience physical abuse and neglect. We have seen the devastating results of this breakdown in our culture as the number of violent incidences among young males, in particular, rises. Statistics reveal that violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers. Concerned citizens and grass-roots groups are paying attention to the statistics, and they are actively seeking solutions neighborhood by neighborhood across the nation. A shining example of this united effort is the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) which was formed to help raise awareness of the problem of father absence and its consequences and to mobilize a national response to it. To date, the NFI has made tremendous progress, working in communities across the country to set up educational programs and promote responsible fatherhood. There are limits to what we in government and here in Congress can do to change society's attitudes toward marriage and out-of-wedlock births, but we are not powerless. I am proud to sign on to the proposal introduced by my colleagues Senators Evan Bayh and Pete Domenici, ``The Resppnsible Fatherhood Act of 1999,'' that will help strengthen fragile families and promote responsible fatherhood, as well as promote the formation and maintenance of married, two-parent families. I would like to highlight a few key provisions that will significantly increase efforts at the state and local level to reconnect fathers and families, thereby ensuring a brighter, more secure future for our youth. Unfortunately, few television shows and movies produced today highlight the value of marriage. Cohabitation and out-of-wedlock sex are handled so casually that young people see little incentive for marriage. This bipartisan legislation authorizes a challenge grant to encourage states and local communities to initiate media campaigns that promote responsible fatherhood and the importance of a married, two- parent family in a child's life. Rather than the typical barrage of negative images, young people need to see positive messages on fatherhood and marriage. States, localities and community organizations are already helping lead the fight at the local level for responsible fatherhood. Their efforts must be bolstered, not hindered. This proposal authorizes a Responsible Parenting Block Grant to provide support for state and local government, nonprofit, charitable and religious organizations' efforts. No one solution exists that will reconnect fathers and families, but a combined effort can make a difference. That is why a national clearinghouse would be established to facilitate the exchange of ideas and sharing of success stories. Such a clearinghouse also would produce and distribute resources to aid those leading the charge at the community level. The National Fatherhood Initiative has been highlighted as an exemplary group to house such a clearinghouse. Although many fathers desire to make a financial contribution to their family, they are unable to because they lack the necessary skills to obtain jobs. In 1997, Congress passed Welfare to Work legislation to help the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients and low-income, non- custodial parents move into jobs. Unfortunately, many states have not been able to use their full funding because of restrictive federal guidelines. The Responsible Fatherhood Act will provide states and cities the flexibility they need to serve a broader group of low- income, non-custodial fathers, and provide services to increase the employment and parenting skills of eligible fathers. Under the current system, fathers with children on welfare are discouraged from paying child support as payments are instead typically shifted to state agencies to offset welfare benefits. Research demonstrates that fathers are more connected with their children and more likely to pay child support when they believe their payment is going directly to their family, and not the government. Children on welfare are precisely the children who have been identified as group most in need of father involvement, and we should eliminate any barriers that prevent this critical bond from taking place. Therefore, this legislation would establish the federal government as a partner to states that want to exercise an option to pass-through up to $75 of child support payments per month directly to the family without impacting welfare eligibility. Implementing new innovative fatherhood initiatives should not be a rigorous, burdensome process. States should have the flexibility to use child-support funds on programs that support and promote fatherhood instead of paying funds back to TANF. Getting fathers back to work and reconnected to their families will do more to move families off of welfare permanently. The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999, I believe, marks a major turning point in the politics of the family as is evidenced by the solid bipartisan consensus coalescing behind this proposal. Promoting responsible fatherhood does not take away from the efforts of single mothers, but helps ensure that children receive the benefits provided by two caring parents. Addressing the critical role fathers play in the lives of their children is no longer a politically taboo topic. The research is convincing and, unfortunately, mounting every year-- children need the support and involvement of both parents to lead happy, healthy, productive lives. I thank Senators Bayh and Domenici for leading this effort. I am proud to join them as a cosponsor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my distinguished colleague from Vermont to introduce the Clean Energy Act of 1999. This landmark legislation provides a comprehensive, long-term blueprint for fulfilling the promise of fishable rivers, swimable streams, and clean, breathable air as envisioned by the ground-breaking Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. As Senator Jeffords has explained, the Clean Energy Act would reduce emissions of the full range of pollutants that damage human health and the global environment. The public health standards embodied in this bill are ambitious. But they reflect the significant strides Northeastern utilities have made in recent years to reduce pollution from electric power plants. They also reflect the reality that goals can, and must, be achieved regionally and nationally if we are to ensure clean air and clean water for every community. As utilities invest in control technologies to help them meet existing and future clean air requirements, they face difficult choices. Some technologies control for one pollutant, while exacerbating emissions of another and often utilities make large capital investments without knowing what pollutant reductions may be required of them in the future. The Clean Energy Act will bring order to the equation by providing a comprehensive but flexible guide for controlling the full range of pollutants associated with electricity generation, including nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, mercury, and carbon. The Clean Energy Act will help reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides that lead to smog that makes it difficult for children, asthmatics, and the elderly to breathe. It will help reduce acid rain by reducing the amount of sulphur that our smokestacks pump into the air. The bill will accelerate efforts to make the fish in rivers safe to eat by lowering the amount of mercury introduced into the food chain. And it will help reduce the U.S. contribution to the problem of climate change by recognizing carbon dioxide as a pollutant of the global atmosphere. Last year, I introduced a bill designed to close a loophole in the Clean Air Act that exempts older power plants from rigorous environmental standards. We know that to ensure fairness in an era of increasing competitiveness, we must strengthen pollution controls so that dirty power plants don't gain an unfair share of the market while polluting at higher rates than cleaner, more efficient utilities. The Clean Energy Act builds on the effort begun last year, by requiring all plants, no matter what their vintage, to meet the same standards. Electricity deregulation carries the promise of enormous benefits for the consumer--mainly in reduced electric bills--which I strongly support. But electricity deregulation can also cause adverse environmental and public health consequences if we don't do it right. The principles behind the Clean Energy Act--comprehensive control of pollutants and equitable across-the-board standards, enhanced by emissions trading--provide a vision for how the electricity industry and our economy can grow even as we improve the quality of our air and water for generations to come.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, our society is suffering from the deterioration of the married, two-parent family. According to a recent report by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers, ``The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America,'' marriage rates are at a 40-year low and there are fewer social forces holding them together. As the number of marriages has declined, unwed births have dramatically grown. Unfortunately, the result is more and more children are being born into fragile families. As the report states, ``Marriage is a fundamental social institution . . . It is the `social glue' that reliably attaches fathers to children.'' Nearly 25 million children, more than 1 out of 3, live absent their biological father, and 17 million kids live without a father of any kind. Even more troubling, about 40 percent of the children living in fatherless households have not seen their fathers in at least a year, and 50 percent of children who do not live with their fathers have never stepped foot in their father's home. This growing problem of father absence is taking a terrible toll on those children, who are being denied the love, guidance, discipline, emotional nourishment and financial support that fathers usually provide. Parents act as a nurturing and stable foundation for children. They are a guiding force to which children readily open their arms. In a recent poll conducted by Nickelodeon and Time magazine, three-quarters of the children, ages six to 14, polled stated that they wished they could spend more time with their parents. In addition, kids consistently ranked parents at the very top of the list when asked to name the people they look up to. More than friends or teachers, parents shape their children's value systems. As dads disappear, the American family is becoming significantly weaker, as are the values we depend on families to transmit. In turn, the risks to the health and well-being of children are becoming significantly higher. Social science research repeatedly shows that children growing up without fathers are far more likely to live in poverty, to fail in school, experience behavioral and emotional problems, develop drug and alcohol problems, commit suicide, and experience physical abuse and neglect. We have seen the devastating results of this breakdown in our culture as the number of violent incidences among young males, in particular, rises. Statistics reveal that violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers. Concerned citizens and grass-roots groups are paying attention to the statistics, and they are actively seeking solutions neighborhood by neighborhood across the nation. A shining example of this united effort is the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) which was formed to help raise awareness of the problem of father absence and its consequences and to mobilize a national response to it. To date, the NFI has made tremendous progress, working in communities across the country to set up educational programs and promote responsible fatherhood. There are limits to what we in government and here in Congress can do to change society's attitudes toward marriage and out-of-wedlock births, but we are not powerless. I am proud to sign on to the proposal introduced by my colleagues Senators Evan Bayh and Pete Domenici, ``The Resppnsible Fatherhood Act of 1999,'' that will help strengthen fragile families and promote responsible fatherhood, as well as promote the formation and maintenance of married, two-parent families. I would like to highlight a few key provisions that will significantly increase efforts at the state and local level to reconnect fathers and families, thereby ensuring a brighter, more secure future for our youth. Unfortunately, few television shows and movies produced today highlight the value of marriage. Cohabitation and out-of-wedlock sex are handled so casually that young people see little incentive for marriage. This bipartisan legislation authorizes a challenge grant to encourage states and local communities to initiate media campaigns that promote responsible fatherhood and the importance of a married, two- parent family in a child's life. Rather than the typical barrage of negative images, young people need to see positive messages on fatherhood and marriage. States, localities and community organizations are already helping lead the fight at the local level for responsible fatherhood. Their efforts must be bolstered, not hindered. This proposal authorizes a Responsible Parenting Block Grant to provide support for state and local government, nonprofit, charitable and religious organizations' efforts. No one solution exists that will reconnect fathers and families, but a combined effort can make a difference. That is why a national clearinghouse would be established to facilitate the exchange of ideas and sharing of success stories. Such a clearinghouse also would produce and distribute resources to aid those leading the charge at the community level. The National Fatherhood Initiative has been highlighted as an exemplary group to house such a clearinghouse. Although many fathers desire to make a financial contribution to their family, they are unable to because they lack the necessary skills to obtain jobs. In 1997, Congress passed Welfare to Work legislation to help the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients and low-income, non- custodial parents move into jobs. Unfortunately, many states have not been able to use their full funding because of restrictive federal guidelines. The Responsible Fatherhood Act will provide states and cities the flexibility they need to serve a broader group of low- income, non-custodial fathers, and provide services to increase the employment and parenting skills of eligible fathers. Under the current system, fathers with children on welfare are discouraged from paying child support as payments are instead typically shifted to state agencies to offset welfare benefits. Research demonstrates that fathers are more connected with their children and more likely to pay child support when they believe their payment is going directly to their family, and not the government. Children on welfare are precisely the children who have been identified as group most in need of father involvement, and we should eliminate any barriers that prevent this critical bond from taking place. Therefore, this legislation would establish the federal government as a partner to states that want to exercise an option to pass-through up to $75 of child support payments per month directly to the family without impacting welfare eligibility. Implementing new innovative fatherhood initiatives should not be a rigorous, burdensome process. States should have the flexibility to use child-support funds on programs that support and promote fatherhood instead of paying funds back to TANF. Getting fathers back to work and reconnected to their families will do more to move families off of welfare permanently. The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999, I believe, marks a major turning point in the politics of the family as is evidenced by the solid bipartisan consensus coalescing behind this proposal. Promoting responsible fatherhood does not take away from the efforts of single mothers, but helps ensure that children receive the benefits provided by two caring parents. Addressing the critical role fathers play in the lives of their children is no longer a politically taboo topic. The research is convincing and, unfortunately, mounting every year-- children need the support and involvement of both parents to lead happy, healthy, productive lives. I thank Senators Bayh and Domenici for leading this effort. I am proud to join them as a cosponsor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Robb-Murray amendment, which provides our mothers, wives, daughters and sisters with direct access to OB/GYN care and strengthens the ability of a woman and her doctor to make personal medical decisions. The sponsors of this amendment, along with most women and most Americans, believe that a woman should have the choice and the freedom to select an OB/GYN physician as her primary care provider and to determine, in consultation with her doctor, how long she should stay in the hospital following surgery. Those critical and deeply personal judgments should not be trumped by the arbitrary guidelines of managed care companies. The women in our lives deserve better than drive-by mastectomies. With the Robb-Murray amendment, we will say so in law, and ensure that women receive the services they need and the respect they are owed. Studies show that when women have a primary care physician trained in OB/GYN, they receive more comprehensive care and greater personal satisfaction when they are treated by doctors trained in other specialties. We should consider, too, that breast cancer is the second leading killer of women in this country. New cases of this disease occur more than twice as often as second most common type of cancer, lung cancer. More than 178,000 women in this country were diagnosed with breast cancer in 1998. I have no doubt we will someday find the origin and cure for this terrible malady. Until then, though, we have a duty to make the system charged with treating these women respectful and responsive to their needs. Sadly, the evidence suggests we have a long way to go. We continue to receive disturbing reports about the insistence of some insurance companies to force women out of the hospital immediately after physically demanding and emotionally traumatic surgeries. We have been shocked by stories of women being sent home with drainage tubes still in their bodies and groggy from general anesthesia. This is distressing to me not just as a policy-maker, but as a son, father, and husband. Now, some critics of the Robb-Murray Amendment want to sidestep this problem, and suggest that we are legislating by body part. To that, I say: Those who oppose this provision are wasting a valuable opportunity to increase the quality of physical health care for over half the population of the United States. Those who oppose are ignoring the suffering and inconvenience of women throughout this country trying to receive the basic health care that they have every right to expect. Those who oppose are failing to right a wrong that we have tolerated for too long. Mr. President, women are being denied the quality of care they are paying for and to which they have a moral right. And this Senate has a chance today to begin fixing this inequity. I urge my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric and see the very simple and fair logic that calls for the passage of this amendment, and join us in supporting it. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Lugar and myself to note the passing of another milestone for former President George Bush, a man the State of Connecticut considers a native son. President Bush recently celebrated his 75th birthday in his typically exuberant fashion, by jumping out of an airplane, just as he did on his 70th birthday. After such a long and distinguished career of public service--which started in the South Pacific, where he put his life on the line for the cause of freedom, and which culminated in the Persian Gulf, where he put his Presidency on the line to stand up to the brutal aggression of Saddam Hussein--it's hard for some to believe that President Bush would have the interest, let alone the energy, to pursue his sky-diving habit as a septuagenarian. But no one has ever accused the man who assembled and led the Gulf War coalition to victory of taking the easy way out. And today, much as we have grown to appreciate the fortitude and unobtrusive dignity he brought to the Presidency, so too can we admire the vitality and vigor he has brought to his life outside the Oval Office. He has shown himself to be a man for all seasons, not to mention all altitudes. Those estimable characteristics were vividly captured in a profile recently penned by White House correspondent Trude B. Feldman to commemorate President's Bush's birthday. To pay tribute to President Bush on the passing of this important milestone, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, I would join with Senator Lugar in asking unanimous consent to print the full text of Ms. Feldman's article in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about S. 376, the international satellite reform legislation. While I commend my colleagues who have worked hard on this very important issue, I am concerned that there is still more work to do to ensure reform that results in a truly competitive market. Comprehensive satellite reform is long overdue. The 1962 Communications Satellite Act is based on a 1960s era notion that telecommunications services must be provided by national or international monopolies. This thinking gave rise to two treaty organizations, INTELSAT and Inmarsat, to provide international satellite communications services. Comsat, a private company, was created by Congress in 1962 and has been the U.S. representative--known as the Signatory--to these intergovernmental organizations. Today, we know that technology and the marketplace demand that this monopoly, governmental model must give way to private competition. S. 376 may be a first step toward reaching the goal of privatizing the treaty organizations and reforming the 1962 Act. But more remains to be done. One important issue that is very troubling to me involves the legal immunity that Comsat enjoys as the U.S. Signatory to INTELSAT. This is a critical issue. The FCC has found that Comsat's immunity gives it significant competitive advantages. Comsat is a publicly-traded private company. Legal immunity is an extraordinary advantage in the marketplace. It is rare for Congress to grant such a powerful advantage to a private commercial company. We must be very careful here. I understand that Comsat might remain as the U.S. Signatory until INTELSAT is fully privatized, and, therefore, it would retain some official responsibility to represent the U.S. government. I understand that, in that capacity, it might need legal immunity when it is acting at the instruction of the U.S. government. But in every other action it takes, at INTELSAT or elsewhere, it should not and does not enjoy legal immunity. S. 376 limits Comsat's legal immunity. My concern here is a simple one. If Congress by law is bestowing legal immunity on a private company, Congress has an obligation to be very clear and precise as to what actions are protected. The provisions in S. 376 that limits Comsat's immunity is not precise and specific enough. However, the intent and wording is plain that as long as Comsat represents the U.S. officially at INTELSAT prior to its privatization, it may enjoy legal immunity, but that immunity is clearly limited to the actions it takes pursuant to the written instruction it receives from the U.S. government. While the intent is clear that Comsat obtains immunity only when it is acting under written government instruction, the language in this bill regarding immunity requires further clarification at conference. We have a duty to be clear and precise when we grant such an extraordinary benefit as legal immunity to a private company. I raise this today because I want this issue to be further resolved in the Conference Committee, prior to enactment. I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senators Hollings, McCain, Lott, Stevens, Burns and others on the Commerce Committee to ensure that this clarification problem is corrected.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joining today with my friends and colleagues, Senators Specter, Levin, and Collins, in introducing the Independent Counsel Reform Act of 1999. With this bill, we hope to convince our colleagues, disillusioned perhaps by the conduct of particular investigations, that the Independent Counsel statute serves an essential purpose, and has served us well over the past twenty years. We want to convince our colleagues that our legislation will preserve the essential ideals that motivated the enactment of this statute in the years after Watergate, that no person is above the law, and that our highest government officials must be subject to our laws in the same way as any other person. If they are guilty, they must be held accountable. If they are not, they must be cleared. The American people are more likely to trust the findings of an Independent Counsel's investigation and conclusions. Officials who are wrongly accused will receive vindication that is far more credible to the public than when it comes from the Department of Justice. As a result, the public's confidence in its government is enhanced by the Independent Counsel statute. We have drafted new provisions that will curb the excesses we have seen in a few recent investigations. These changes are substantial. The Committee on Governmental Affairs held five hearings on the Independent Counsel statute. We heard from numerous witnesses who had served as Independent Counsel, and as Attorney General, from former prosecutors and from defense attorneys. Many witnesses supported the statute, even defense attorneys who had represented targets in Independent Counsel investigations. Both witnesses who opposed the statute outright, and those who advocated keeping it in some form, suggested a number of improvements to the statute. We carefully considered those recommendations before we sat down to draft a bill that retains the essential features of the old law while reducing its scope, limiting the powers of the Independent Counsel, and bringing greater transparency into the process. As a result of our bill, there will be far fewer Independent Counsel appointed, they will be appointed only to investigate the highest government officials, and their actions will be constrained by the same sorts of guidelines and practical restraints that govern regular federal prosecutors. For example, officials covered by the statute will be limited to the President, the Vice President, the President's Chief of Staff, and Cabinet members. This is a major reduction in the number of officials currently covered by the Independent Counsel statute. We can trust the Department of Justice to investigate the mid-level officials listed in previous versions of the statute. If any other investigation raises a conflict of interest, the Attorney General retains the authority to appoint her own Special Counsel. The purpose of our bill is to reserve the extraordinary mechanism of a court-appointed Independent Counsel for those rare cases involving allegations against our highest Executive Branch officials. In another change that will reduce the number of Independent Counsel appointed, the threshold for seeking the appointment of an Independent Counsel will be raised, so that a greater amount of evidence to back up the allegation will be required. The Attorney General will also be entitled for the first time to issue subpoenas for evidence and convene grand juries during the preliminary investigation, and would be given more time to conduct the preliminary investigation. This change responds to concerns that, in the past, the Attorney General's hands have been tied during the preliminary investigation stage. With our bill, the Department of Justice will be able to conduct a more substantial preliminary investigation. Each Independent Counsel will have to devote his full time to the position for the duration of his tenure. This will prevent the appearance of conflicts that may arise when an Independent Counsel continues with his private legal practice, and it will expedite investigations as well. The Independent Counsel will also be expected to conform his conduct to the written guidelines and established policies of the Department of Justice. The prior version of that requirement contained a broad loophole, which has been eliminated. There have been many complaints about runaway prosecutors, who continue their investigations longer than is necessary or appropriate. Our bill will impose a time limit of two years on investigations by Independent Counsel. The Special Division of the Court of Appeals will be able to grant extensions of time, however, for good cause and to compensate for dilatory tactics by opposing counsel. Imposing a flexible time limit allows Independent Counsel the time they genuinely need to complete their investigations, and deters adverse counsel from using the time limit strategically to escape justice. But the time limit will also encourage future Independent Counsel to bring their investigations to an expeditious conclusion, and not chase down every imaginable lead. Our bill makes another important change that will prevent expansion of investigations into unrelated areas. Until now the statute has allowed the Attorney General to request an expansion of an Independent Counsel's prosecutorial jurisdiction into unrelated areas. This happened several times with Judge Starr's investigation, and I believe those expansions contributed to a perception that the prosecutor was pursuing the man and not the crime. An Independent Counsel must not exist to pursue every possible lead against his target until he finds some taint of criminality. His function, our bill makes clear, is to investigate that subject matter given him in his original grant of prosecutorial jurisdiction. We also considered how we might impose greater budgetary restraints on Independent Counsel. Some have spoken of the need for a strict budget cap, but this idea strikes me as impractical, if not unworkable. It's just impossible to know in advance what crimes a prosecutor will uncover, how far his investigation will have to go to get to the truth, how expensive a trial and any appeals will be. Instead, we are bringing greater budgetary transparency to the process by directing Independent Counsel to produce an estimated budget for each year, and by allowing the General Accounting Office to comment on that budget. At the moment not enough is known about how Independent Counsel spend their money, and this greater transparency will provide more incentive for Counsel to budget responsibly. A final change that we all readily agreed to was to eliminate entirely the requirement that an Independent Counsel refer evidence of impeachable offenses to the House of Representatives. The impeachment power is one of Congress's essential Constitutional functions, and no part of that role should be delegated by statute to a prosecutor. This bill should be thought of as a work in progress. We hope to gather input from other Members and from outside experts, and to have committee hearings, and we intend to be flexible about incorporating suggestions. Some of the provisions contained in the bill may raise constitutional concerns, which need to be fully explored. For example, giving the Special Division of the Court of Appeals new authority to decide whether an Independent Counsel has violated Department of Justice guidelines may violate the doctrine of Separation of Powers. Other provisions expanding the Court's role may also have to be reformulated. I hope that all interested parties will be able to work together on amendments as harmoniously as the four of us did in drafting the original legislation. The occasion of our introducing this legislation is tomorrow's expiration of the current Independent Counsel statute. Many have dismissed any efforts to revive the Independent Counsel as wrong and futile. No doubt it will be an uphill struggle, and I do not expect peoples' minds to be changed overnight. But I do believe that over time several factors will work to change peoples' minds. First, I feel confident that we can convince our colleagues that this legislation is a better product than previous versions of the statute, and addresses the specific concerns raised by the law's opponents. Those who have predicted the death of the Independent Counsel statute had not seen our legislation. I will work tirelessly, with the bill's other co-sponsors, to convince our colleagues to give this issue a fresh look. Secondly, several controversial Independent Counsel investigations have clearly soured some people on the law. This is understandable, but it is regrettable, as I do not believe these investigations revealed any flaws in the Independent Counsel statute that cannot be fixed. The passions raised by Judge Starr's investigation of the President, in particular, must be allowed to subside, just as it took some time for the passions inspired by the Iran-Contra investigation to subside before the Independent Counsel statute could be re-authorized in 1994. Finally, as these passions subside I believe Members of Congress will gradually be reminded that the Independent Counsel statute embodies certain principles fundamental to our democracy. The alternative to an Independent Counsel statute is a system in which the Attorney General must decide how to handle substantive allegations against colleagues in the Cabinet, or against the President. Often the President and the Attorney General are long-time friends and political allies. The Attorney General will not be trusted by some to ensure that an unbiased investigation will be conducted. In other cases, many will question the thoroughness of an investigation directed from inside the Department. In a time of great public cynicism about government, the Independent Counsel statute guarantees that even the President and his highest officials will have to answer for their criminal malfeasance. In that sense, this statute upholds the rule of law and will help stem the rising tide of cynicism and distrust toward our government. The American people support the Independent Counsel statute because it embodies the bedrock American principle that no person is above the law. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joining today Senator Specter, Senator Levin and Senator Collins in introducing the Independent Counsel Reform Act of 1999. It has been a great pleasure working with these three colleagues across party lines in what were, first, long hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee on which we all serve, and then some very good collegial discussions about how to preserve the principles involved in the Independent Counsel Act while responding to what we have learned, particularly in its recent existence and implementation. We have achieved a good balance. The point to stress--and my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania has just done it--is this is all about the rule of law which is at the heart of what the American experience is about, that no one is above the law. There is no monarchy, there is no autocracy. Everyone is supposed to be governed by the same law. The question is, When the highest officials of our Government, the most powerful people in this land are suspected of criminal wrongdoing, is it appropriate to have those suspicions investigated by the people who are suspected themselves or by those whom they have appointed? Does that guarantee a thorough and independent investigation, and does it guarantee or at least encourage the kinds of broad-based public acceptance of the credibility of that investigation that is critical to the trust and respect that we hope the American people will have for their Government? The four of us have answered that what is required is a counsel who is not just special, as others would provide, including the current Attorney General, but one that is genuinely independent, not appointed by the Attorney General, and not able to be fired, dismissed by the Attorney General. My research has indicated that from the last century right through the Nixon administration, from President Ulysses Grant to President Richard Nixon, there were actually six special counsel appointed to investigate possible criminal behavior by high officials of the Government, and three of those were dismissed by the administration they served, presumably because they began to act in a way that unsettled that administration. That is the principle of the rule of law, trust in Government, which we tried to embody in this proposal with the changes that Senator Specter has mentioned. We have added a presumption of a limited term, a higher threshold for the appointment of an independent counsel, a smaller number of people to be subject to this statute--the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Members of the Cabinet and the Chief of Staff. The prevailing consensus in this body and the other body is that we should not renew this statute and it will, of course, expire tomorrow. Many have dismissed the efforts we are making now as either wrong or futile. No doubt it will be an uphill struggle, but I am convinced it is the right struggle, and we can convince our colleagues of the justness of our cause. I will say something else, Mr. President. There will be an independent counsel statute in the future. We are either going to adopt it at a time when we are not in crisis, when somebody high up in our Government is suspected of criminal wrongdoing--and that is our hope, that we do not adopt it in the spirit of crisis, or we will adopt it at that time when someone is suspected of criminal wrongdoing and Members of this body and the other body will demand there not be a special counsel appointed by the Attorney General but an independent counsel. I plead with my colleagues, as the law is allowed to expire tomorrow and as, hopefully, we have a cooling off period, to take a look at our proposal, to try to separate ourselves from the controversies surrounding Judge Starr's time as independent counsel and that of other recent independent counsel, and focus on the principle of the rule of law, that nobody is above the law in America, and to come to agree with us that the best way to preserve those principles is by readopting an Independent Counsel Act, one that is substantially reformed. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on June 28, I was unavoidably detained due to inclement weather which prevented my flight from taking off in Hartford, CT. Had I not been delayed, I would have voted ``no'' on all four cloture votes, numbers 184, 185, 186, and 187.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend and colleague from New York. I thank Senator Lott for agreeing to set aside this time this morning to honor the memory of Rabbi Moshe Sherer. I thank Senator Moynihan for providing the dignity that is always his but the intimacy that reflects the relationship he had with Rabbi Moshe Sherer. I thank my friend and college classmate from Missouri who just spoke so impressively about this extraordinary man. I am honored to have known Rabbi Moshe Sherer, a blessed memory. I met him after I became a Senator and benefited, as anyone did, from the opportunity to be in his presence, from his wisdom, insights--insights not just on matters of faith but on matters of the broader community. This was a man of extraordinary personal dignity and discipline, of hard work and of very good humor. He was a pleasure to be with. The life we celebrate today was a most extraordinary and consequential life, based on values that go back thousands of years, motivated by a single overriding towering motivation to honor God's name, to perform acts of Kiddish Hashem, the sanctification of God's name. That is to say, to do good works, to be true to the values that are set down in the Bible, in the Ten Commandments, in the broadly held ethical system that we call the Judeo-Christian tradition. Rabbi Moshe Sherer did that, magnificently rising to become, as we end this century, clearly one of the great leaders of the Orthodox Jewish community in America in this century, one of the great leaders of any faith-based community in America during this century. Those who have spoken before me have spoken of the extraordinary record of service and growth that Rabbi Sherer gave. I spoke to him several times about his involvement in 1943 when he was asked to take a position at this organization, Agudath of Israel. He spoke to friends and they told him he would be foolish to even consider it. This was an organization that had little credibility, few members. In fact, it was at a time when even within the American Jewish community there were predictions that the Orthodox community would not go with much vibrancy into the future. Somebody actually referred to the Orthodox community generally as a ``sickly weed.'' The resilience and feistiness of this man and his commitment to the values that were the foundation of his faith propelled him in the face of those pieces of wise counsel to go forward and prove them wrong. And did he ever do that, devoting the rest of his life to this organization, particularly in the context of the end of the Second World War, and the great suffering that occurred to so many suffering Jews in Europe during the war--watching the growth of this organization as a reaction, a kind of affirmation of faith and life after the temporary victories of death and antifaith, if I can put it that way, and anti-God certainly during the Second World War. This organization rose out of that experience, and enjoyed the extraordinary, unprecedented liberty that America provided to this community, becoming the great, strong organization it is today. It is as Rabbi Sherer passed away with thousands of members in this country and all over the world in an extraordinary array of religious, social service, and communal activities. It is a remarkable program of study. I don't know if anyone else has spoken of what is called the ``daf yomi'' program, a page-a-day of Talmud study done under the auspices of Agudath Israel. It takes 7\1/2\ years to finish the Talmud--a compilation of Jewish literature attempting to interpret the values and the specifics of the Torah, the Bible. On the last completion of that cycle, which occurred in September of 1997, if I am correct, 70,000 people gathered, filling Madison Square Garden in New York, Chaplain Ogilvie. It reminds me in some sense of the Promise Keepers or groups of other faiths coming together to do some of the work you have done with Reverend Graham, and others--70,000 people, first filling Madison Square Garden, and then in the halls and chambers all over America and all over the world on one night to celebrate what is called the A Siyum, the completion of the 7\1/2\ year day-by-day trek through this experience, a remarkable achievement, and a commitment to live by the values that were part of that organization and that experience. Rabbi Sherer, it has probably been said here--and I will say it briefly--not only built the inner strength of the American Orthodox Jewish community through study, through social service, through communal strength, but was a remarkable ambassador to the broader community of faith-based organizations working with people of other faiths, and then reaching out into the community, and particularly the political community during his time in recent years. He opened an office here in Washington, a kind of government relations office for the good of Israel--working again with other groups to support across religious lines commonly held principles, even when they were controversial. On the day that Rabbi Sherer was buried and his funeral occurred, there was a remarkable outpouring in New York to pay tribute to him. More than 20,000 people stood outside the synagogue where the service was held. They lined the streets to pay final honor to Rabbi Moshe Sherer. It was heartfelt, it was emotional, and it was also an expression of gratitude to all he had meant to the organization, to them personally, to their children, to the institutions from which they had benefited, and to their sense of freedom and confidence being religious people in the America context. And now, as we are taught the way to continue to honor his memory is to live by the principles that guided his own life, we are taught that when a person dies and leaves this Earth and their soul ascends to heaven that they are in that sense unable to do more to elevate themselves, that it is up to those of us who survive them here on Earth to try to do deeds that are good in their name, if you will, to be of support and strength to them. I think that is the work that has continued in the organization and in the lives of the individuals and all of us who were touched by Rabbi Moshe Sherer. I join my colleagues to pay tribute to him, and to those who continue the strong and important work for the good of Israel, and to offer condolences to his wife, to his children, to his grandchildren, and to his great grandchildren. May God come forth and give them the strength--as I know He will--to carry on the extraordinary good work that characterizes the life and times of a great Jewish American, Rabbi Moshe Sherer. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senators Jeffords, Kennedy and over 30 of our colleagues as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the Employment Non- Discrimination Act of 1999. By guaranteeing that American workers cannot lose their jobs simply because of their sexual orientation, this bill would extend the bedrock American values of fairness and equality to a group of our fellow citizens who too often have been denied the benefit of those most basic values. Our nation's foundational document, the Declaration of Independence, expressed a vision of our country as one premised upon the essential equality of all people and upon the recognition that our Creator endowed all of us with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Two hundred and twenty-three years ago, when that document was drafted, our laws fell far short of implementing the Declaration's ideal. But since that time, we have come ever closer, extending by law to more and more of our citizens--to African Americans, to women, to disabled Americans, to religious minorities and to others--a legally enforceable guarantee that, with respect to their ability to earn a living at least, they will be treated on their merits and not on characteristics unrelated to their ability to do their jobs. It is time to extend that guarantee to gay men and lesbians, who too often have been subject to incidents of discrimination and denied the most basic of rights: the right to obtain and maintain a job. A collection of one national survey and twenty city and state surveys found that as many as 44 percent of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers faced job discrimination in the workplace at some time in their careers. Other studies have reported even greater discrimination--as much as 68 percent of gay men and lesbians reporting employment discrimination. The fear in which these workers live was clear from a survey of gay men and lesbians in Philadelphia. Over three-quarters told those conducting the survey that they sometimes or always hide their orientation at work out of fear of discrimination. The toll this discrimination takes extends far beyond its effect on those individuals who must live in fear and without full employment opportunities. It also takes an unacceptable toll on America's definition of itself as a land of equality and opportunity, as a place where we judge each other on our merits, and as a country that teaches its children that anyone can succeed here as long as they are willing to do their job and work hard. This bill provides for equality and fairness--that and no more. It says only what we already have said for women, for people of color and for others: that you are entitled to have your ability to earn a living depend only on your ability to do the job and nothing else. In fact, the bill would even do somewhat less than it does for women and people of color, because it would not give gay men and women all of the protections we currently provide to other groups protected under our civil rights laws. Mr. President, this bill would bring our nation one large step closer to realizing the vision that Thomas Jefferson so eloquently expressed 223 years ago when he wrote that all of us have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.