Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with the economy in its 9th year of record growth, unemployment the lowest its been in over 25 years, and the stock market at an all time high, the following is worth noting: Fully a third of all American households have no financial assets to speak of. Another 20 percent have only negligible financial assets. Almost half of all American children live in households that have no financial assets. Over 10 million Americans don't even have a bank account. In our efforts to foster policies that encourage economic growth, we have not done enough for the group that needs it the most--hardworking low income Americans. We have established tax credits for retirement plans, for home mortgages, for college education, and so on, all of which make for good policy. The problem is that to take advantage of these policies, you must already have some wealth. You must already have some assets. To put it plainly, you cannot benefit from a home mortgage credit if you do not have the wealth to buy a home. So the challenge becomes creating a policy that helps low-income Americans reach the point where they can take advantage of these benefits. Any such policy must start with encouraging saving. Saving is empowering. It allows families to weather the bad times, to live without aid, and to deal with emergencies. Saving is also the first step to building assets. And having assets is a prerequisite for taking part in this economy. That is because assets offer a way up. Whether it is a home, an education, or a small business, assets can be leveraged to deal with the bad times and usher in the good. That is why I believe that our tax policies should provide more incentives for asset building. So Mr. President today along with Senators Santorum, Durbin, Abraham, Robb, and Kerrey of Nebraska, I offer tax legislation aimed at building assets for low-income families. The Savings for Working Families Act is centered around Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), an idea of Dr. Michael Sherraden of Washington University: create a savings account for low income workers that can be used to acquire assets, and allow the saver to receive matching funds towards the purchase of those assets. The Savings for Working Families Act allows for the creation by federally insured banks and credit unions of IDAs for U.S. citizens or legal residents aged 18 or over, with a household income of not more than 60 percent of area median income, and a household net worth that does not exceed $10,000 excluding home equity and the value of one car. The federal government will provide tax credits of up to $300 per account to financial institutions to reimburse them for providing matching funds for IDAs. All other sources of matching funds are welcome as well, including employers, charitable organizations, and the banks themselves. Before an individual can use money from an IDA, he or she must complete an economic literacy course that will be offered by participating banks and community organizations. The course will teach about saving, banking, investing, and IDAs. Two years from its establishment the Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to review the program for its cost-effectiveness and make recommendations as necessary to the Congress. We expect a cost of $200-500 million per year. This is not a handout. Because only earned income is matched, IDAs only help those who are already trying to help themselves. Small IDA programs already exist across the country and have been overwhelmingly successfully. IDAs change the outlook of the saver. When you have assets, you have a stake in the economy, and you act to protect that stake. For example, in Stamford, Connecticut a receptionist named Scharlene is saving to start her own business through the CTE IDA program. She had always thought of her interest in jewelry as a hobby. But after working with CTE IDA program she has not only saved over $700, but has also learned the basics of running a business. I met Scharlene, and I can tell you that win or lose, she is on the path to success. I might also add that the Connecticut State Treasurer, Ms. Denise Nappier, is also investigating ways to set up a state-side IDA program, and I would like to commend her for her efforts. In the Sierra Ridge, Texas IDA program describes the case of Charles, a 38 year old divorced father of two. He uses that IDA program to save money for his children's education. Charles says that since he entered the program he thinks more about where his money goes: ``Having to commit to a long term goal makes us more aware that our decisions today could have consequences for tomorrow.'' His oldest daughter is planning on attending college in two years. Another example comes from a Bonneville, Kentucky IDA program. There, Pam, a 37 year old factory worker and mother of two, has been saving to start her own business. ``I want to start a business and I will,'' Pam said. Together with the matching funds she has saved over $1700 towards a combination dry cleaners/video store. Her reasons are simple: ``I want more for my children.'' IDAs are good for business too. Financial institutions like IDAs because they bring some of the 10 million ``unbanked'' Americans into the system, and because it allows them to support low-income communities in a way that will ultimately be profitable for them. This is an idea that gives the right incentives to a deserving group in an effective and efficient manner. It is an idea that represents at once both our support of equal opportunity and our emphasis on self reliance. It is an idea whose time has come. Mr. President, with Senators Santorum, Durbin, Abraham, Robb, and Kerrey of Nebraska, I introduce the Savings for Working Families Act. I ask that the text of this bill be included in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with the economy in its 9th year of record growth, unemployment the lowest its been in over 25 years, and the stock market at an all time high, the following is worth noting: Fully a third of all American households have no financial assets to speak of. Another 20 percent have only negligible financial assets. Almost half of all American children live in households that have no financial assets. Over 10 million Americans don't even have a bank account. In our efforts to foster policies that encourage economic growth, we have not done enough for the group that needs it the most--hardworking low income Americans. We have established tax credits for retirement plans, for home mortgages, for college education, and so on, all of which make for good policy. The problem is that to take advantage of these policies, you must already have some wealth. You must already have some assets. To put it plainly, you cannot benefit from a home mortgage credit if you do not have the wealth to buy a home. So the challenge becomes creating a policy that helps low-income Americans reach the point where they can take advantage of these benefits. Any such policy must start with encouraging saving. Saving is empowering. It allows families to weather the bad times, to live without aid, and to deal with emergencies. Saving is also the first step to building assets. And having assets is a prerequisite for taking part in this economy. That is because assets offer a way up. Whether it is a home, an education, or a small business, assets can be leveraged to deal with the bad times and usher in the good. That is why I believe that our tax policies should provide more incentives for asset building. So Mr. President today along with Senators Santorum, Durbin, Abraham, Robb, and Kerrey of Nebraska, I offer tax legislation aimed at building assets for low-income families. The Savings for Working Families Act is centered around Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), an idea of Dr. Michael Sherraden of Washington University: create a savings account for low income workers that can be used to acquire assets, and allow the saver to receive matching funds towards the purchase of those assets. The Savings for Working Families Act allows for the creation by federally insured banks and credit unions of IDAs for U.S. citizens or legal residents aged 18 or over, with a household income of not more than 60 percent of area median income, and a household net worth that does not exceed $10,000 excluding home equity and the value of one car. The federal government will provide tax credits of up to $300 per account to financial institutions to reimburse them for providing matching funds for IDAs. All other sources of matching funds are welcome as well, including employers, charitable organizations, and the banks themselves. Before an individual can use money from an IDA, he or she must complete an economic literacy course that will be offered by participating banks and community organizations. The course will teach about saving, banking, investing, and IDAs. Two years from its establishment the Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to review the program for its cost-effectiveness and make recommendations as necessary to the Congress. We expect a cost of $200-500 million per year. This is not a handout. Because only earned income is matched, IDAs only help those who are already trying to help themselves. Small IDA programs already exist across the country and have been overwhelmingly successfully. IDAs change the outlook of the saver. When you have assets, you have a stake in the economy, and you act to protect that stake. For example, in Stamford, Connecticut a receptionist named Scharlene is saving to start her own business through the CTE IDA program. She had always thought of her interest in jewelry as a hobby. But after working with CTE IDA program she has not only saved over $700, but has also learned the basics of running a business. I met Scharlene, and I can tell you that win or lose, she is on the path to success. I might also add that the Connecticut State Treasurer, Ms. Denise Nappier, is also investigating ways to set up a state-side IDA program, and I would like to commend her for her efforts. In the Sierra Ridge, Texas IDA program describes the case of Charles, a 38 year old divorced father of two. He uses that IDA program to save money for his children's education. Charles says that since he entered the program he thinks more about where his money goes: ``Having to commit to a long term goal makes us more aware that our decisions today could have consequences for tomorrow.'' His oldest daughter is planning on attending college in two years. Another example comes from a Bonneville, Kentucky IDA program. There, Pam, a 37 year old factory worker and mother of two, has been saving to start her own business. ``I want to start a business and I will,'' Pam said. Together with the matching funds she has saved over $1700 towards a combination dry cleaners/video store. Her reasons are simple: ``I want more for my children.'' IDAs are good for business too. Financial institutions like IDAs because they bring some of the 10 million ``unbanked'' Americans into the system, and because it allows them to support low-income communities in a way that will ultimately be profitable for them. This is an idea that gives the right incentives to a deserving group in an effective and efficient manner. It is an idea that represents at once both our support of equal opportunity and our emphasis on self reliance. It is an idea whose time has come. Mr. President, with Senators Santorum, Durbin, Abraham, Robb, and Kerrey of Nebraska, I introduce the Savings for Working Families Act. I ask that the text of this bill be included in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to again join with Senator Roth in the very important bipartisan effort to designate the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness--forever. Today is Earth Day 1999. The introduction of the Arctic Wilderness Act is particularly appropriate on Earth Day because it will provide permanent protection for the unique and irreplaceable natural resources of an area that is the ``biological heart'' of the North Slope of Alaska. The coastal plain is a vital part of the tundra ecosystem that some have referred to as ``America's Serengetti.'' On Earth Day, we should take extra measure of special, rare, and threatened places. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain is one of these places. It is one natural treasure that we must protect as wilderness for current and future generations. The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife refuge represents the wildest and most pristine arctic coastal ecosystem in the United States. The coastal plain is where the calves of the awe-inspiring Porcupine caribou herd are born every year. It is also where snow geese feed in the fall and many female polar bears choose to den. During the summer, migratory birds such as the red-throated loon, American golden-plover, and semipalmated sandpiper and others flock to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in great numbers. In the fall, they return southward to and through the state of Connecticut among other places. By dedicating the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, we can help ensure that this ancient natural rite continues into the 21st Century. For more than a decade, Congress has repeatedly debated the advisability of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain to oil and gas exploration and development. Time and again, Congress and the American people have rejected the notion that we should sacrifice our last vestige of arctic coastal plain to petroleum development. The decision to prohibit coastal plain petroleum development reflects the tremendous value Americans place in the preservation of our great wilderness areas. The degradation caused by developing oil and gas in places worthy of wilderness designation is irreversible. Once developed, the wilderness value of a place is lost. The Alaska Wilderness Act designates the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness--an area to remain wild and undeveloped in perpetuity--and thereby preserves one of the last great natural treasures on the North American continent for generations to come.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to again join with Senator Roth in the very important bipartisan effort to designate the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness--forever. Today is Earth Day 1999. The introduction of the Arctic Wilderness Act is particularly appropriate on Earth Day because it will provide permanent protection for the unique and irreplaceable natural resources of an area that is the ``biological heart'' of the North Slope of Alaska. The coastal plain is a vital part of the tundra ecosystem that some have referred to as ``America's Serengetti.'' On Earth Day, we should take extra measure of special, rare, and threatened places. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain is one of these places. It is one natural treasure that we must protect as wilderness for current and future generations. The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife refuge represents the wildest and most pristine arctic coastal ecosystem in the United States. The coastal plain is where the calves of the awe-inspiring Porcupine caribou herd are born every year. It is also where snow geese feed in the fall and many female polar bears choose to den. During the summer, migratory birds such as the red-throated loon, American golden-plover, and semipalmated sandpiper and others flock to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in great numbers. In the fall, they return southward to and through the state of Connecticut among other places. By dedicating the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, we can help ensure that this ancient natural rite continues into the 21st Century. For more than a decade, Congress has repeatedly debated the advisability of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain to oil and gas exploration and development. Time and again, Congress and the American people have rejected the notion that we should sacrifice our last vestige of arctic coastal plain to petroleum development. The decision to prohibit coastal plain petroleum development reflects the tremendous value Americans place in the preservation of our great wilderness areas. The degradation caused by developing oil and gas in places worthy of wilderness designation is irreversible. Once developed, the wilderness value of a place is lost. The Alaska Wilderness Act designates the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness--an area to remain wild and undeveloped in perpetuity--and thereby preserves one of the last great natural treasures on the North American continent for generations to come.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President. I rise today to express my strong opposition to Senator Domenici's amendment ``The Social Security Surplus Preservation and Debt Reduction Act''. I supported the original legislation, S. 557, which was reported out of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and would have provided guidance for the designation of emergencies. But this amendment uses S. 557 as a vehicle to introduce a highly controversial and partisan proposal on Social Security. It also changes an important provision in the original bill regarding emergency designations, in a way that undermines the bipartisan compromise which we had reached in Committee. As Ranking Democrat of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I will limit my comments to the bill we reported out of committee, and to the reasons I object to the changes made to those emergency designation provisions. First, I would like to provide some background about why I support the unamended version of S. 557, and how it came to be reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Passed in 1990, the Budget Enforcement Act requires that the cost of appropriations legislation stay within spending caps and that the cost of all other legislation satisfies the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirements. At the time the bill was passed, however, there was a legitimate concern that these new limits on spending could impede Congress' ability to provide additional funds for emergencies. As a result, Congress provided that if the President designates a provision as an emergency requirement and the Congress agrees in legislation, then the spending caps and ``pay-go'' limitations do not apply to that provision. Congress did not provide any guidance regarding what constitutes an emergency. Not counting 1991, when emergency spending spiked because of the Persian Gulf War, the annual emergency expenditure had ranged from $16 billion to $5 billion before last year's Omnibus spending legislation set a new record, at $21.5 billion. The emergency spending designation has been used appropriately in many cases. Every year money is provided to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to respond to natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. Emergency spending has included military funding for Operation Desert Storm and for peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia. The emergency designation has also been used to provide funds after other cataclysmic domestic events, such as the riots in Los Angeles in 1992 and the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995. The 1999 emergency funds addressed a wider variety of needs than in prior years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, last year emergency funds were used for the first time for increased security at U.S. embassies, for price supports for U.S. farmers, to respond to the Year 2000 Computer problem, for counter-drug and drug interdiction efforts, for ballistic missile defense enhancements, and to address funding shortfalls in the defense health program, among other things. While these expenses may all be legitimate uses of tax dollars, Senators on both sides of the aisle feel that some of the past designations of emergency spending were inappropriate, and have been looking for a statutory solution. The problem is the complete absence of guidelines on what constitutes an emergency, as well as insufficient procedural safeguards to prevent the misuse of the subjective emergency designation. The provision on emergency spending originally contained in Senator Domenici's ``Budget Enforcement Act of 1999'' addressed this problem by establishing a 60-vote point of order against any emergency spending provision contained in a bill, amendment, or conference report. A number of Senators in the Committee on Governmental Affairs, myself included, felt that the super-majority point of order was neither necessary nor appropriate. It would have trampled on the rights of the Minority, and might have led to scenarios where aid is held up in cases of regional emergencies, particularly if a determined bloc of senators hoped to extract some unrelated legislative concession in return for the release of funds. We have seen cases where floods have ravaged the river valleys of the Dakotas, or tornadoes have decimated swaths of countryside in just one or two rural states. Severe droughts are emergencies to the farmers suffering their long-term effects, but may not seem quite so urgent to Senators representing other states. Allowing a reticent voting bloc to hold up funding for emergencies that are recognized by both the President and a majority of Senators seems to be an extreme measure to take, before having attempted a more measured response. Accordingly, I was quite pleased when we were able to work out an agreement with Senator Domenici and Chairman Thompson regarding emergency spending. Our compromise preserved the point of order against all emergency spending, but converted it from a super-majority point of order to a simple majority point of order. The agreement retained criteria defining what constitutes an emergency. The bill we reported out frames the debate whenever an emergency expenditure is challenged. The bill requires the President and congressional committees to analyze whether a proposed emergency funding requirement is necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent. If a proposed requirement does not meet one of these five criteria, the President or committee must justify in writing why the requirement still constitutes an emergency. Although the five criteria are not binding, the existence of this new statutory guidance, along with the explanations that may be contained in any accompanying report, will provide an essential framework for emergency spending designation decisions that has heretofore been lacking. A Senator raising a point of order against an emergency spending designation would have codified criteria to point to, and the process contained in this legislation encourages more challenges of abuses of the emergency spending designation. After our bipartisan bill was reported to the full Senate, Senator Domenici included in his budget resolution a 60-vote point of order against any emergency designation. During the ensuing consideration of the resolution, Senators Durbin, Byrd and I co-sponsored an amendment bringing back the simple-majority point of order. Senator Domenici accepted this amendment rather than hold a roll-call vote; nevertheless, our measure was subsequently stripped out in Conference. Accordingly, for the next year we will be governed by a Senate rule which requires a super-majority to designate emergencies, a rule which has not won the approval of even a simple majority of any Senate body. Now we have before us an amendment that goes even further than the provision contained in the budget resolution. The amendment would re- establish the 60-vote point of order against emergency designations which had been removed by consensus in the committee. This point of order would last for ten years, and it would be codified rather than be a Senate rule. For reasons that are not clear, there would be an exception for Defense emergencies, but not for any other type of emergency, including natural disasters. Importantly, the amended point of order applies to the emergency designation and not the spending itself. If it is raised and sustained, the bill's spending for scoring purposes would be increased, thereby potentially causing it to exceed its allocation. That would leave the entire bill vulnerable to a second point of order. This potential for procedural logjams would only complicate Congress' efforts to provide adequate funding to cope with real and pressing emergencies. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment to S. 557, and to accept instead the bill originally reported out of Committee, which addresses the issue of emergency designations in a sensible way, and which has won the support of members of both parties in the Committee.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, indeed.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Kentucky for his leadership. We intend to pursue this and urge our colleagues to consider it as quickly as possible so that we may do something concrete and tangible that really can alter the balance of power and the balance of morality and the balance militarily on the ground in Kosovo.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Kentucky is right, and there is a painful irony here. He is absolutely right both about our objectives on the ground and our objectives to maintain stability in the region which is being destabilized now by these large refugee flows. The victories, if one can call them that, that the tragic, brutal, barbaric victories that Milosevic's forces have had over the Kosovars are hollow. They are barbaric because this was an armed force fighting against unarmed, undefended people. It is a question that will hang in the air--and some later time we will come back to it--what might have been different if, in fact, the KLA had been better armed at the outset of this a month or two or three ago, because I think that might have deterred, certainly delayed the massive exodus and slaughter that has been carried out against this undefended indigenous population.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator is correct. It is more than a reasonable assumption. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. We recently had a hearing on Kosovo with Secretary Cohen and General Shelton. I was quite struck by two things: First, to hear General Shelton say that one of our aims of our air campaign is to degrade the Serbian military in Kosovo so that the UCK--the KLA--can achieve a balance of power with the Serbian forces there. So we have the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff linking us with them. Of course, the better way, the easier way to achieve that balance of power is by arming the Kosovars. The second is, one of the members of the committee echoed some of the criticisms of the KLA--terrorists, extremists, drug merchants. And Secretary Cohen, our Defense Secretary, serving with remarkable skill in this crisis, came to the defense of the KLA and said, yes, he couldn't say that everyone there was an angel, but that the balance of equities of morality was clearly on the side of the KLA.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. May I ask, Mr. President, for an additional 5 minutes for the Senator from Kentucky and myself?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. The Senator from Kentucky is quite right. That is my recollection, that there was a very good report given, with some surprise, but admiration, I say, by the intelligence communities that the numbers fighting with the KLA have, in fact, grown. There is such a painful irony here. As we both said, while the air campaign goes on, the suffering, the expulsion, the murder nonetheless goes on in Kosovo on the ground, and the only force there that can stop it now is the KLA, and we are hesitating to support them. I take them to be much more in the spirit of partisans who fought during the Second World War against overwhelming odds, perhaps even the freedom fighters in Hungary during 1956 and later in Prague, during the Prague spring. We have not only a strategic tie with them, it is much more consistent with our own history and values and our belief in democracy that we try to support this group, which, as the Senator says, is not being vanquished. The truth is, if I were Milosevic, the one thing I would fear is the United States and the West arming the KLA because he knows their zeal, their purpose, the will they have to fight. They are brave. They will take losses because they are fighting for a greater purpose, and, in fact, if I were Milosevic, the one thing I would fear, and what I believe he will face in any case, is a long-term indigenous insurgency, which I predict he will never be able to stop. The sooner we help them, the sooner we bring them to the result that they and we want.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Kentucky is absolutely right. That is the purpose. The purpose is to push this option, this act which will support our objectives, objectives for which we are spending billions of dollars and already risking American lives, to push us closer to achieving those objectives and also, if I may add, to hopefully force some discussion of this option among our NATO allies. One of the arguments we hear about why this is not being considered by the administration is that there is opposition to it among our NATO allies. But we also hear there is opposition among our NATO allies, which I understand at this point, to the introduction of NATO ground forces. If there is opposition in NATO, as there is in Congress and in the administration, as the Senator has said, to the introduction of ground forces, including Americans, then, again, isn't it both wise militarily and powerful morally for us to as soon as possible be helping the fighters on the ground, the KLA?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Kentucky, with whom I am proud to join in this effort, and I thank him, really, for his initiative and leadership in this regard. He was the first, that I am aware of, to make this proposal. It made a lot of sense to me when we talked about it. I must say, from the time we introduced it--which must be 4 weeks ago, now, when the NATO air campaign began--to today, it seems to me the logic and the morality that was behind the original proposal has grown greater. In fact, the support has grown for this proposal from those whom I respect, who think deeply about this matter. Some at the high levels of our Government, while not supporting our proposal to arm the Kosovars, nonetheless have increasingly spoken of the Kosovar Liberation Army positively, as the Senator from Kentucky indicated, referring to its members as our allies, and even defended them against some of the criticisms that have been heard against them. Yesterday I came to the floor to join with several colleagues on both sides of the aisle to introduce a resolution which would authorize the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all actions necessary to achieve the objectives that NATO has stated for our action in the Balkans: To remove the Serbian military and paramilitary from Kosovo, to allow the Kosovars to return to their homes to live in peace, and to provide for an international peacekeeping force. It seems to me one of the steps that might be taken--and taken as soon as humanly possible-- which supports the three NATO objectives, is exactly the proposal that Senator McConnell and I are making, which is to offer some truly minimal support to help arm and hopefully, at some point, better train the Kosovars who are fighting to defend their own communities, their own families, their own freedom, their own lives. I think there are compelling strategic and moral reasons that argue for this legislation. The fact is, we are engaged in a battle, and it is a difficult battle. I am one who believes the NATO aerial bombardments, which will probably continue for weeks, are hurting the Serbs. Hopefully this bombardment will bring the leadership in Belgrade to their senses so they will order the Serbian troops out of Kosovo, which is one of our objectives. But let's speak truthfully about this. There is no indication of any breaking of will in Belgrade at the current time. There simply is none. If, after weeks and perhaps months of bombardment and still Milosevic does not yield we will not have achieved our objectives. Then we will face a stark choice. What my friend from Kentucky and I are saying is, at that point we will ask ourselves, how can we alter the status quo on the ground, since the air campaign has not done it? And the only way to do that, of course, is with forces on the ground. Then we will face a very difficult choice, which I have said I believe we have to at least begin to think about and consider and plan for, if that is necessary. That is whether to introduce NATO ground forces, including American soldiers into conflict in the Balkans. But the fact is, as the Senator from Kentucky said, there are forces on the ground now fighting the Serbian invaders. They are the Kosovars themselves. They have by far the deepest and most genuine reason to fight, and they have the will to do so. They are fighting to defend themselves and their neighbors, their communities. They are fighting with remarkable resilience. The fact is, Milosevic had two aims in invading Kosovo. One was obviously to eliminate the Kosovars, to slaughter some of them, to torture and rape others, and expel the rest. A critical part of that strategy, the other aim was to defeat, totally defeat, the force on the ground, the indigenous force that is fighting Milosevic and frustrating his desires. That is the KLA, the Kosovar Liberation Army. Remarkably, He has failed totally at that. Of course many people who have worn the uniform and carried the flag of the KLA have lost their lives already, but the numbers in uniform there have grown as people from all over the world, not just from within Kosovo--including hundreds, maybe thousands, from the United States, Albanian Americans--have gone over there to fight this just fight. So they are on the ground, ready to fight. But they do not have enough to fight with. They do not have a lot of ammunition. In some cases they do not even have a lot of food. But we have a common enemy here. Remember the old slogan, ``The enemy of my enemy is my friend.'' The enemy of our enemy, Milosevic, is now our ally in this fight. Senator McConnell said it. Our military is talking to them every day. They are providing us with valuable information from the ground that has helped us to target enemy locations in Kosovo. So we have crossed that bridge. Why not do the next logical step to advance our military purposes and to support them with arms? I make a moral argument here, too, as well as a strategic argument. No matter what else was happening, these poor people have been victimized in a way we hate to imagine. But we have to imagine it because we see it on TV every day. We read about it in the newspaper. The fortunate ones do not look very fortunate at all. They are the ones who have been expelled. I say that comparatively, of course, because the ones who are less fortunate are the ones who have been slaughtered, who have lost their lives, who have been separated from their families and may well be trapped in areas of Kosovo now where they are starving. So these people are exercising not just their legal right but their moral right to defend themselves. That right is at the heart of our own history and our own moral system. What was our Revolution about? It was about a valiant attempt by a band of patriots, freedom fighters, to break loose of the Crown and the suppression it was imposing on colonial America--fortunately, much less brutal and barbaric than that imposed on the people of Kosovo by the Serbs, and by Milosevic particularly. So I think we cannot stand by and watch this slaughter. That is why we got involved in the first place. But I also think we cannot stand by and watch these brave people, against superior forces, equipped with much more than they have, fight, and not want to come to their defense. I know there are critics of these people, as Senator McConnell has said. Some say the KLA is composed of extremists, Marxists; they may have connection with groups in the world which we oppose. Some even say some of them are drug runners. I cannot vouch for every one of the thousands of members of the Kosovar Liberation Army. I cannot speak to every place they are receiving funds, though I would say that a starving person does not ask the ideology or source of income of a person offering him or her food. In the same way, in ways that we may not like, people who are fighting for their freedom against very difficult odds may not always question the sources of help they need so desperately. Of course, the best way for us to overcome these questions is for ourselves and, hopefully, some of our NATO allies to become the sources of financial support for the Kosovar Liberation Army. I will share with you my impression, based on all that I have read and studied about the Kosovar Liberation Army--the UCK, as they are called in their native language--and all that I have heard about them from their friends and relatives in this country, fellow Americans. If I may, it reminds me of that old line about what is the definition of a conservative? A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. That is from an earlier time. What is the definition of a member of the KLA? It is probably a citizen of Kosovo who has watched his house burn, his brother murdered and his daughter raped.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Kentucky, with whom I am proud to join in this effort, and I thank him, really, for his initiative and leadership in this regard. He was the first, that I am aware of, to make this proposal. It made a lot of sense to me when we talked about it. I must say, from the time we introduced it--which must be 4 weeks ago, now, when the NATO air campaign began--to today, it seems to me the logic and the morality that was behind the original proposal has grown greater. In fact, the support has grown for this proposal from those whom I respect, who think deeply about this matter. Some at the high levels of our Government, while not supporting our proposal to arm the Kosovars, nonetheless have increasingly spoken of the Kosovar Liberation Army positively, as the Senator from Kentucky indicated, referring to its members as our allies, and even defended them against some of the criticisms that have been heard against them. Yesterday I came to the floor to join with several colleagues on both sides of the aisle to introduce a resolution which would authorize the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all actions necessary to achieve the objectives that NATO has stated for our action in the Balkans: To remove the Serbian military and paramilitary from Kosovo, to allow the Kosovars to return to their homes to live in peace, and to provide for an international peacekeeping force. It seems to me one of the steps that might be taken--and taken as soon as humanly possible-- which supports the three NATO objectives, is exactly the proposal that Senator McConnell and I are making, which is to offer some truly minimal support to help arm and hopefully, at some point, better train the Kosovars who are fighting to defend their own communities, their own families, their own freedom, their own lives. I think there are compelling strategic and moral reasons that argue for this legislation. The fact is, we are engaged in a battle, and it is a difficult battle. I am one who believes the NATO aerial bombardments, which will probably continue for weeks, are hurting the Serbs. Hopefully this bombardment will bring the leadership in Belgrade to their senses so they will order the Serbian troops out of Kosovo, which is one of our objectives. But let's speak truthfully about this. There is no indication of any breaking of will in Belgrade at the current time. There simply is none. If, after weeks and perhaps months of bombardment and still Milosevic does not yield we will not have achieved our objectives. Then we will face a stark choice. What my friend from Kentucky and I are saying is, at that point we will ask ourselves, how can we alter the status quo on the ground, since the air campaign has not done it? And the only way to do that, of course, is with forces on the ground. Then we will face a very difficult choice, which I have said I believe we have to at least begin to think about and consider and plan for, if that is necessary. That is whether to introduce NATO ground forces, including American soldiers into conflict in the Balkans. But the fact is, as the Senator from Kentucky said, there are forces on the ground now fighting the Serbian invaders. They are the Kosovars themselves. They have by far the deepest and most genuine reason to fight, and they have the will to do so. They are fighting to defend themselves and their neighbors, their communities. They are fighting with remarkable resilience. The fact is, Milosevic had two aims in invading Kosovo. One was obviously to eliminate the Kosovars, to slaughter some of them, to torture and rape others, and expel the rest. A critical part of that strategy, the other aim was to defeat, totally defeat, the force on the ground, the indigenous force that is fighting Milosevic and frustrating his desires. That is the KLA, the Kosovar Liberation Army. Remarkably, He has failed totally at that. Of course many people who have worn the uniform and carried the flag of the KLA have lost their lives already, but the numbers in uniform there have grown as people from all over the world, not just from within Kosovo--including hundreds, maybe thousands, from the United States, Albanian Americans--have gone over there to fight this just fight. So they are on the ground, ready to fight. But they do not have enough to fight with. They do not have a lot of ammunition. In some cases they do not even have a lot of food. But we have a common enemy here. Remember the old slogan, ``The enemy of my enemy is my friend.'' The enemy of our enemy, Milosevic, is now our ally in this fight. Senator McConnell said it. Our military is talking to them every day. They are providing us with valuable information from the ground that has helped us to target enemy locations in Kosovo. So we have crossed that bridge. Why not do the next logical step to advance our military purposes and to support them with arms? I make a moral argument here, too, as well as a strategic argument. No matter what else was happening, these poor people have been victimized in a way we hate to imagine. But we have to imagine it because we see it on TV every day. We read about it in the newspaper. The fortunate ones do not look very fortunate at all. They are the ones who have been expelled. I say that comparatively, of course, because the ones who are less fortunate are the ones who have been slaughtered, who have lost their lives, who have been separated from their families and may well be trapped in areas of Kosovo now where they are starving. So these people are exercising not just their legal right but their moral right to defend themselves. That right is at the heart of our own history and our own moral system. What was our Revolution about? It was about a valiant attempt by a band of patriots, freedom fighters, to break loose of the Crown and the suppression it was imposing on colonial America--fortunately, much less brutal and barbaric than that imposed on the people of Kosovo by the Serbs, and by Milosevic particularly. So I think we cannot stand by and watch this slaughter. That is why we got involved in the first place. But I also think we cannot stand by and watch these brave people, against superior forces, equipped with much more than they have, fight, and not want to come to their defense. I know there are critics of these people, as Senator McConnell has said. Some say the KLA is composed of extremists, Marxists; they may have connection with groups in the world which we oppose. Some even say some of them are drug runners. I cannot vouch for every one of the thousands of members of the Kosovar Liberation Army. I cannot speak to every place they are receiving funds, though I would say that a starving person does not ask the ideology or source of income of a person offering him or her food. In the same way, in ways that we may not like, people who are fighting for their freedom against very difficult odds may not always question the sources of help they need so desperately. Of course, the best way for us to overcome these questions is for ourselves and, hopefully, some of our NATO allies to become the sources of financial support for the Kosovar Liberation Army. I will share with you my impression, based on all that I have read and studied about the Kosovar Liberation Army--the UCK, as they are called in their native language--and all that I have heard about them from their friends and relatives in this country, fellow Americans. If I may, it reminds me of that old line about what is the definition of a conservative? A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. That is from an earlier time. What is the definition of a member of the KLA? It is probably a citizen of Kosovo who has watched his house burn, his brother murdered and his daughter raped.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, indeed.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator is correct. It is more than a reasonable assumption. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. We recently had a hearing on Kosovo with Secretary Cohen and General Shelton. I was quite struck by two things: First, to hear General Shelton say that one of our aims of our air campaign is to degrade the Serbian military in Kosovo so that the UCK--the KLA--can achieve a balance of power with the Serbian forces there. So we have the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff linking us with them. Of course, the better way, the easier way to achieve that balance of power is by arming the Kosovars. The second is, one of the members of the committee echoed some of the criticisms of the KLA--terrorists, extremists, drug merchants. And Secretary Cohen, our Defense Secretary, serving with remarkable skill in this crisis, came to the defense of the KLA and said, yes, he couldn't say that everyone there was an angel, but that the balance of equities of morality was clearly on the side of the KLA.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. May I ask, Mr. President, for an additional 5 minutes for the Senator from Kentucky and myself?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. The Senator from Kentucky is quite right. That is my recollection, that there was a very good report given, with some surprise, but admiration, I say, by the intelligence communities that the numbers fighting with the KLA have, in fact, grown. There is such a painful irony here. As we both said, while the air campaign goes on, the suffering, the expulsion, the murder nonetheless goes on in Kosovo on the ground, and the only force there that can stop it now is the KLA, and we are hesitating to support them. I take them to be much more in the spirit of partisans who fought during the Second World War against overwhelming odds, perhaps even the freedom fighters in Hungary during 1956 and later in Prague, during the Prague spring. We have not only a strategic tie with them, it is much more consistent with our own history and values and our belief in democracy that we try to support this group, which, as the Senator says, is not being vanquished. The truth is, if I were Milosevic, the one thing I would fear is the United States and the West arming the KLA because he knows their zeal, their purpose, the will they have to fight. They are brave. They will take losses because they are fighting for a greater purpose, and, in fact, if I were Milosevic, the one thing I would fear, and what I believe he will face in any case, is a long-term indigenous insurgency, which I predict he will never be able to stop. The sooner we help them, the sooner we bring them to the result that they and we want.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Kentucky is absolutely right. That is the purpose. The purpose is to push this option, this act which will support our objectives, objectives for which we are spending billions of dollars and already risking American lives, to push us closer to achieving those objectives and also, if I may add, to hopefully force some discussion of this option among our NATO allies. One of the arguments we hear about why this is not being considered by the administration is that there is opposition to it among our NATO allies. But we also hear there is opposition among our NATO allies, which I understand at this point, to the introduction of NATO ground forces. If there is opposition in NATO, as there is in Congress and in the administration, as the Senator has said, to the introduction of ground forces, including Americans, then, again, isn't it both wise militarily and powerful morally for us to as soon as possible be helping the fighters on the ground, the KLA?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Kentucky for his leadership. We intend to pursue this and urge our colleagues to consider it as quickly as possible so that we may do something concrete and tangible that really can alter the balance of power and the balance of morality and the balance militarily on the ground in Kosovo.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Kentucky is right, and there is a painful irony here. He is absolutely right both about our objectives on the ground and our objectives to maintain stability in the region which is being destabilized now by these large refugee flows. The victories, if one can call them that, that the tragic, brutal, barbaric victories that Milosevic's forces have had over the Kosovars are hollow. They are barbaric because this was an armed force fighting against unarmed, undefended people. It is a question that will hang in the air--and some later time we will come back to it--what might have been different if, in fact, the KLA had been better armed at the outset of this a month or two or three ago, because I think that might have deterred, certainly delayed the massive exodus and slaughter that has been carried out against this undefended indigenous population.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Nebraska for yielding time to me. Mr. President, I come to the floor and to the decision to cosponsor this resolution with a deep sense of seriousness and purpose. These are fateful, historic and very consequential matters that we are discussing and engaged in today. Great nations such as this one, and great alliances such as NATO, do not remain great if they do not uphold their principles and keep their promises. That has always been true, of course, but it seems powerfully so today, as we prepare to welcome NATO and much of the rest of the world to Washington this week to commemorate the 50th anniversary of this great alliance. We are being tested. This alliance and this Nation are being tested in ways that a few months ago we never could have imagined would have been the case as we prepared for this commemoration. So it becomes now, in its way, less an unlimited celebration and more a renewal of commitment to the principles which animated and necessitated the organization of NATO 50 years ago. We are called on today to uphold those principles, the principles of a free and secure transatlantic community. We must keep the promises we have made in support of those principles. NATO must prevail in the Balkans, in Kosovo. Thugs, renegade regimes and power-hungry maniacs everywhere in the world are watching our actions in the Balkans and gauging our resolve. They must receive an unequivocal message. They must understand that they violate our principles, they ignore our promises and threats at their peril. That is the context in which I am proud to cosponsor this resolution, to stand by our national and alliance principles, to keep our promises and to send an unequivocal message to Milosevic and all the other thugs of the world: You cannot defy forces united for common decency and humanity; you cannot ignore our promises and threats. We will not end the 20th century standing idle, allowing a murderous tyrant to mar all that we together have accomplished in Europe and in this transatlantic community over the last five decades. Mr. President, I was privileged to go, almost 2 weeks ago now, to Europe with Secretary Cohen on a bipartisan, bicameral delegation of Congress. I brought home with me a heightened respect for the military machine that we and NATO--particularly in the United States--have developed. It is awesome in its capability and power, and our service men and women are, without a doubt, the best trained and the most committed that any nation has ever produced. I say that to say, as a matter of confidence, that no matter what it takes, they will prevail over Milosevic. I still believe that the current air campaign, which is being very effectively implemented, can succeed in achieving our goals in this conflict. That, of course, depends on the test of wills that is going on now and on the test of sanity that is going on now. If there is any sanity in an enlightened national self-interest left in the higher counsels of government in Belgrade, they will stop the NATO air bombardment of their country by accepting NATO's terms and restoring peace. However, it would be irresponsible not to plan for other military options that may be necessary to defeat this enemy. Not only should all options remain on the table, but all options must be adequately analyzed and readied. In the case of ground forces, which will take weeks to deploy should they be necessary, we should begin now to plan for the logistics of such a mission and to ensure that appropriate personnel are adequately trained. I say again what I have said before, I hope and pray that NATO ground forces are not needed. I hope common sense, sanity will prevail in the government in Belgrade, but it would be irresponsible not to prepare NATO's forces now for their potential deployment, and it would be similarly irresponsible, I believe, for Congress, in these circumstances, not to authorize the President, as Commander in Chief, under article I, section 2 of our Constitution, to take whatever actions are necessary to achieve the noble objectives we have set out for ourselves in the Balkans by defeating Milosevic. That is what this resolution does, and that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor. In the last week or so, several countries and others have offered proposals for seeking a negotiated cease-fire. While we all pray for peace in the Balkans, I think it is important that the peace be a principled peace. NATO has clearly stated objectives, and we can settle for nothing less than the attainment of those reasonable objectives. They are quite simply that the Serbian invaders, the military and paramilitary forces that have wreaked havoc, bloodshed, and terror on the Kosovar Albanians be withdrawn from Kosovo; that the Kosovars be allowed to return, to be able to do no more than we take for granted every day of our lives in the U.S., which is to live in peace and freedom in their homes and villages; and that there be an international peacekeeping force to monitor that peace that we will have achieved. If we agree on the worth and the justice of those objectives, we-- NATO, the United States--must be prepared to do whatever is necessary to achieve those objectives. To negotiate half a victory, which is no victory, to claim that we have achieved military objectives without achieving the principled objectives that motivated our involvement, would effectively be a devastating defeat, not just for the human rights of the people of Kosovo, but for NATO and the United States. By introducing this resolution today, we begin a very serious and fateful debate. Today is just the beginning of it. It must, because of the seriousness of all that is involved here, engage not just the executive branch of our Government and the Members of Congress of both parties and both Houses, but the American people as well. I come back to the bottom line in concluding. I am convinced that we are engaged in a noble mission with our allies in the Balkans, which goes to the heart of international security, European security and American security, but also goes to the heart of our principles as a nation. I close, if I may, with a prayer that God will be with all those who are fighting in the Balkans today for freedom and human rights and soften the hearts of our opposition so that the additional force that the Commander in Chief would be authorized to deploy, if this resolution passes, will not be necessary. But if it is, let this resolution stand, introduced as it is today by a bipartisan group of Members of the Senate, let this resolution stand for the clear statement that we will stand together as long as necessary to achieve the principles we cherish in the Balkans, as well as the security that we require. I thank the Chair, and I yield to my friend and colleague from Nebraska. Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Nebraska for yielding time to me. Mr. President, I come to the floor and to the decision to cosponsor this resolution with a deep sense of seriousness and purpose. These are fateful, historic and very consequential matters that we are discussing and engaged in today. Great nations such as this one, and great alliances such as NATO, do not remain great if they do not uphold their principles and keep their promises. That has always been true, of course, but it seems powerfully so today, as we prepare to welcome NATO and much of the rest of the world to Washington this week to commemorate the 50th anniversary of this great alliance. We are being tested. This alliance and this Nation are being tested in ways that a few months ago we never could have imagined would have been the case as we prepared for this commemoration. So it becomes now, in its way, less an unlimited celebration and more a renewal of commitment to the principles which animated and necessitated the organization of NATO 50 years ago. We are called on today to uphold those principles, the principles of a free and secure transatlantic community. We must keep the promises we have made in support of those principles. NATO must prevail in the Balkans, in Kosovo. Thugs, renegade regimes and power-hungry maniacs everywhere in the world are watching our actions in the Balkans and gauging our resolve. They must receive an unequivocal message. They must understand that they violate our principles, they ignore our promises and threats at their peril. That is the context in which I am proud to cosponsor this resolution, to stand by our national and alliance principles, to keep our promises and to send an unequivocal message to Milosevic and all the other thugs of the world: You cannot defy forces united for common decency and humanity; you cannot ignore our promises and threats. We will not end the 20th century standing idle, allowing a murderous tyrant to mar all that we together have accomplished in Europe and in this transatlantic community over the last five decades. Mr. President, I was privileged to go, almost 2 weeks ago now, to Europe with Secretary Cohen on a bipartisan, bicameral delegation of Congress. I brought home with me a heightened respect for the military machine that we and NATO--particularly in the United States--have developed. It is awesome in its capability and power, and our service men and women are, without a doubt, the best trained and the most committed that any nation has ever produced. I say that to say, as a matter of confidence, that no matter what it takes, they will prevail over Milosevic. I still believe that the current air campaign, which is being very effectively implemented, can succeed in achieving our goals in this conflict. That, of course, depends on the test of wills that is going on now and on the test of sanity that is going on now. If there is any sanity in an enlightened national self-interest left in the higher counsels of government in Belgrade, they will stop the NATO air bombardment of their country by accepting NATO's terms and restoring peace. However, it would be irresponsible not to plan for other military options that may be necessary to defeat this enemy. Not only should all options remain on the table, but all options must be adequately analyzed and readied. In the case of ground forces, which will take weeks to deploy should they be necessary, we should begin now to plan for the logistics of such a mission and to ensure that appropriate personnel are adequately trained. I say again what I have said before, I hope and pray that NATO ground forces are not needed. I hope common sense, sanity will prevail in the government in Belgrade, but it would be irresponsible not to prepare NATO's forces now for their potential deployment, and it would be similarly irresponsible, I believe, for Congress, in these circumstances, not to authorize the President, as Commander in Chief, under article I, section 2 of our Constitution, to take whatever actions are necessary to achieve the noble objectives we have set out for ourselves in the Balkans by defeating Milosevic. That is what this resolution does, and that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor. In the last week or so, several countries and others have offered proposals for seeking a negotiated cease-fire. While we all pray for peace in the Balkans, I think it is important that the peace be a principled peace. NATO has clearly stated objectives, and we can settle for nothing less than the attainment of those reasonable objectives. They are quite simply that the Serbian invaders, the military and paramilitary forces that have wreaked havoc, bloodshed, and terror on the Kosovar Albanians be withdrawn from Kosovo; that the Kosovars be allowed to return, to be able to do no more than we take for granted every day of our lives in the U.S., which is to live in peace and freedom in their homes and villages; and that there be an international peacekeeping force to monitor that peace that we will have achieved. If we agree on the worth and the justice of those objectives, we-- NATO, the United States--must be prepared to do whatever is necessary to achieve those objectives. To negotiate half a victory, which is no victory, to claim that we have achieved military objectives without achieving the principled objectives that motivated our involvement, would effectively be a devastating defeat, not just for the human rights of the people of Kosovo, but for NATO and the United States. By introducing this resolution today, we begin a very serious and fateful debate. Today is just the beginning of it. It must, because of the seriousness of all that is involved here, engage not just the executive branch of our Government and the Members of Congress of both parties and both Houses, but the American people as well. I come back to the bottom line in concluding. I am convinced that we are engaged in a noble mission with our allies in the Balkans, which goes to the heart of international security, European security and American security, but also goes to the heart of our principles as a nation. I close, if I may, with a prayer that God will be with all those who are fighting in the Balkans today for freedom and human rights and soften the hearts of our opposition so that the additional force that the Commander in Chief would be authorized to deploy, if this resolution passes, will not be necessary. But if it is, let this resolution stand, introduced as it is today by a bipartisan group of Members of the Senate, let this resolution stand for the clear statement that we will stand together as long as necessary to achieve the principles we cherish in the Balkans, as well as the security that we require. I thank the Chair, and I yield to my friend and colleague from Nebraska. Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.