Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bill we are introducing today: the Auto Choice Reform Act of 1999. If enacted, this bill would save American consumers tens of billions of dollars, while at the same time producing an auto insurance system that operates more efficiently and promises drivers better and quicker compensation. America's drivers are plagued today by an auto accident insurance and compensation system that is too expensive and that does not work. We currently pay an average of approximately $775 annually for our auto insurance per car. This is an extraordinarily large sum, and one that is particularly difficult for people of modest means--and almost impossible for poor people--to afford. A study of Maricopa County, AZ, drives this point home. That study found that families living below 50 percent of the poverty line spend nearly one-third of their household income on premiums when they purchase auto insurance. Perhaps those costs would be worth it if they meant that people injured in car accidents were fully compensated for their injuries. But under the current tort system, that often is not the case, particularly for people who are seriously injured. Because of the need to prove fault and the ability to receive compensation only through someone else's insurance policy, some injured drivers--like those in one car accidents or those who are found to have been at fault themselves--are left without any compensation at all. Others must endure years of litigation before receiving compensation for their injuries. In the end, many people who suffer minimal injuries in auto accidents end up overcompensated, while victims of serious injuries often fail to receive full restitution. Indeed, the extent to which seriously injured drivers are undercompensated in the current tort system is staggering: victims with economic losses--things like lost wages and medical bills--between $25,000 and $100,000 recover only 56 percent of their losses on average, while those with over $100,000 in economic losses get only about 9 percent back on average. Recite those numbers to anyone who tells you the current system works just fine the way it is. The current system most hurts the very people who can afford it the least--the nation's poor and drivers who live in the nation's inner cities. The $775 average premium I mentioned is already far too much for people of modest means to afford. But for many residents of the inner cities a $775 premium is just a dream. As a report issued by Congress' Joint Economic Committee last year starkly detailed, inner city residents pay what can only be called a ``tort tax''--insurance rates that are often double those of their suburban neighbors. For example, a married man with no accidents or traffic violations living in Philadelphia pays $1,800 for an insurance policy that would cost him less than half that if he moved just over the line, out of Philadelphia County. The average annual premium for a 38-year old woman with a clean driving record living in central Los Angeles approaches $3,500. The statistic that I think best drives home the disproportionate amount poor people spend on auto insurance is this one: the typical low-income household spends more on auto insurance over two years than the entire value of their car. The results of these high costs shouldn't surprise us. They lead many inner-city drivers to choose to drive uninsured, which is to say our auto insurance system makes outlaws of them and puts the rest of us in jeopardy, because people injured by an uninsured driver may have no place to go for compensation. Other inner-city residents simply decide not to own cars, something that in itself should trouble us. As the JEC's Report details, the lack of car ownership, combined with the dearth of jobs in the inner-cities, severely limits the ability of many city residents to find employment and lift themselves out of poverty. The Auto Choice bill would go a long way towards solving all of these problems. By simply giving consumers a choice to opt out of the tort system, Auto Choice would bring all drivers who want it lower premiums. Auto Choice would save drivers nationally an average of 23 percent, or $184, annually--a total of over $35 billion. Connecticut drivers would see an average savings of $217 annually. Low-income drivers would see even more dramatic savings--an average of 36 percent nationally or 33 percent in Connecticut. Here's how our plan would work: All drivers would be required to purchase a certain minimum level of insurance, but they would get to choose the type of coverage they want. Those drivers who value immediate compensation for their injuries and lower premiums would be able to purchase what we call ``personal injury protection insurance.'' If the driver with that type of coverage is injured in an accident, he or she would get immediate compensation for economic losses up to the limits of his or her policy, without regard to who was at fault in the accident. If their economic losses exceeded those policy limits, the injured party could sue the other driver for the extra economic loss on a fault basis; The only thing the plaintiff could not do is sue the other driver for noneconomic losses, the so-called pain and suffering damages. Those drivers who did not want to give up the ability to collect pain and suffering damages could choose a different option, called tort maintenance coverage. Drivers with that type of policy would be able to cover themselves for whatever level of economic and noneconomic damages they want, and they would then be able to collect those damages, also from their own insurance company, after proving fault. As I mentioned earlier, the savings from this new Choice system would be dramatic--again, an average of $184 annually nationally, up to $35 billion each and every year under our proposal. Our Auto Choice plan ensures that most injured people would be compensated immediately and that we all can purchase auto insurance at a reasonable rate. Mr. President, this bill would be a boon to the American driver and to the American economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see it enacted into law. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in introducing legislation to provide consumers with a true choice when they purchase auto insurance. Not simply a choice between to insurance companies, but a choice between two different systems of insurance. The current tort based liability system is expensive and inefficient. It pays more money to lawyers than for victims legitimate medical bills and lost wages. A study conducted in my home state of Arizona found that a low-income family spends as much as 31 percent of their disposable income on car insurance. As a result, families put off basic necessities such as rent, medical care and sometimes groceries. The current system needs to be changed. The system proposed in our bill would allow consumers a more affordable alternative designed to provide adequate and timely compensation for accident victims and less need for layers. Under the new system when an accident occurs, the consumer's insurance company would compensate them for their economic losses, such as repair costs, medical bills and lost wages. In exchange, the consumer forgoes the right to sue for non-economic losses such as pain and suffering. Consumers choosing to remain in the current system can bring suit as they do now. These consumers would purchase additional coverage to cover their non-economic damages in the event they have an accident with someone in the new system. The purpose of this legislation is to allow consumers to choose the type of insurance that meets their needs. It also provides state legislatures a choice. This legislation allows states to ``opt out'' should they disagree with this proposal. States can ``opt out'' in two ways. First, the legislature can enact legislation declaring they will not participate in the new system. Secondly, the state insurance commissioner can find that the measure will not reduce bodily injury premiums by 30 percent. This opt out provision is reasonable and will give states a true choice. Again, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing this measure. I look forward to moving it through the legislative process.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bill we are introducing today: the Auto Choice Reform Act of 1999. If enacted, this bill would save American consumers tens of billions of dollars, while at the same time producing an auto insurance system that operates more efficiently and promises drivers better and quicker compensation. America's drivers are plagued today by an auto accident insurance and compensation system that is too expensive and that does not work. We currently pay an average of approximately $775 annually for our auto insurance per car. This is an extraordinarily large sum, and one that is particularly difficult for people of modest means--and almost impossible for poor people--to afford. A study of Maricopa County, AZ, drives this point home. That study found that families living below 50 percent of the poverty line spend nearly one-third of their household income on premiums when they purchase auto insurance. Perhaps those costs would be worth it if they meant that people injured in car accidents were fully compensated for their injuries. But under the current tort system, that often is not the case, particularly for people who are seriously injured. Because of the need to prove fault and the ability to receive compensation only through someone else's insurance policy, some injured drivers--like those in one car accidents or those who are found to have been at fault themselves--are left without any compensation at all. Others must endure years of litigation before receiving compensation for their injuries. In the end, many people who suffer minimal injuries in auto accidents end up overcompensated, while victims of serious injuries often fail to receive full restitution. Indeed, the extent to which seriously injured drivers are undercompensated in the current tort system is staggering: victims with economic losses--things like lost wages and medical bills--between $25,000 and $100,000 recover only 56 percent of their losses on average, while those with over $100,000 in economic losses get only about 9 percent back on average. Recite those numbers to anyone who tells you the current system works just fine the way it is. The current system most hurts the very people who can afford it the least--the nation's poor and drivers who live in the nation's inner cities. The $775 average premium I mentioned is already far too much for people of modest means to afford. But for many residents of the inner cities a $775 premium is just a dream. As a report issued by Congress' Joint Economic Committee last year starkly detailed, inner city residents pay what can only be called a ``tort tax''--insurance rates that are often double those of their suburban neighbors. For example, a married man with no accidents or traffic violations living in Philadelphia pays $1,800 for an insurance policy that would cost him less than half that if he moved just over the line, out of Philadelphia County. The average annual premium for a 38-year old woman with a clean driving record living in central Los Angeles approaches $3,500. The statistic that I think best drives home the disproportionate amount poor people spend on auto insurance is this one: the typical low-income household spends more on auto insurance over two years than the entire value of their car. The results of these high costs shouldn't surprise us. They lead many inner-city drivers to choose to drive uninsured, which is to say our auto insurance system makes outlaws of them and puts the rest of us in jeopardy, because people injured by an uninsured driver may have no place to go for compensation. Other inner-city residents simply decide not to own cars, something that in itself should trouble us. As the JEC's Report details, the lack of car ownership, combined with the dearth of jobs in the inner-cities, severely limits the ability of many city residents to find employment and lift themselves out of poverty. The Auto Choice bill would go a long way towards solving all of these problems. By simply giving consumers a choice to opt out of the tort system, Auto Choice would bring all drivers who want it lower premiums. Auto Choice would save drivers nationally an average of 23 percent, or $184, annually--a total of over $35 billion. Connecticut drivers would see an average savings of $217 annually. Low-income drivers would see even more dramatic savings--an average of 36 percent nationally or 33 percent in Connecticut. Here's how our plan would work: All drivers would be required to purchase a certain minimum level of insurance, but they would get to choose the type of coverage they want. Those drivers who value immediate compensation for their injuries and lower premiums would be able to purchase what we call ``personal injury protection insurance.'' If the driver with that type of coverage is injured in an accident, he or she would get immediate compensation for economic losses up to the limits of his or her policy, without regard to who was at fault in the accident. If their economic losses exceeded those policy limits, the injured party could sue the other driver for the extra economic loss on a fault basis; The only thing the plaintiff could not do is sue the other driver for noneconomic losses, the so-called pain and suffering damages. Those drivers who did not want to give up the ability to collect pain and suffering damages could choose a different option, called tort maintenance coverage. Drivers with that type of policy would be able to cover themselves for whatever level of economic and noneconomic damages they want, and they would then be able to collect those damages, also from their own insurance company, after proving fault. As I mentioned earlier, the savings from this new Choice system would be dramatic--again, an average of $184 annually nationally, up to $35 billion each and every year under our proposal. Our Auto Choice plan ensures that most injured people would be compensated immediately and that we all can purchase auto insurance at a reasonable rate. Mr. President, this bill would be a boon to the American driver and to the American economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see it enacted into law. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in introducing legislation to provide consumers with a true choice when they purchase auto insurance. Not simply a choice between to insurance companies, but a choice between two different systems of insurance. The current tort based liability system is expensive and inefficient. It pays more money to lawyers than for victims legitimate medical bills and lost wages. A study conducted in my home state of Arizona found that a low-income family spends as much as 31 percent of their disposable income on car insurance. As a result, families put off basic necessities such as rent, medical care and sometimes groceries. The current system needs to be changed. The system proposed in our bill would allow consumers a more affordable alternative designed to provide adequate and timely compensation for accident victims and less need for layers. Under the new system when an accident occurs, the consumer's insurance company would compensate them for their economic losses, such as repair costs, medical bills and lost wages. In exchange, the consumer forgoes the right to sue for non-economic losses such as pain and suffering. Consumers choosing to remain in the current system can bring suit as they do now. These consumers would purchase additional coverage to cover their non-economic damages in the event they have an accident with someone in the new system. The purpose of this legislation is to allow consumers to choose the type of insurance that meets their needs. It also provides state legislatures a choice. This legislation allows states to ``opt out'' should they disagree with this proposal. States can ``opt out'' in two ways. First, the legislature can enact legislation declaring they will not participate in the new system. Secondly, the state insurance commissioner can find that the measure will not reduce bodily injury premiums by 30 percent. This opt out provision is reasonable and will give states a true choice. Again, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing this measure. I look forward to moving it through the legislative process.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Hear, hear, Mr. President. I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut. I am proud to join with him in introducing this resolution commemorating what was truly one of the most thrilling and uplifting moments in the modern history of our State--and I do not say that lightly--the national championship won by the University of Connecticut men's basketball team. I think to understand what this achievement means to our relatively small State, my colleagues have to understand what this UCONN team has meant for the last decade to the people of Connecticut. I don't think there are many teams in the country that have a more rabid following than our Huskies. From their home base in Storrs, clear across the State to Stamford, from Stonington in the east to Salisbury in the northwest, every basketball season, the people of Connecticut are gripped with a delirium known affectionately as ``Huskymania,'' which makes every day of the season seem like March Madness in Connecticut. The interest is so intense that the Huskies, hailing from the third smallest State in America, travel with the largest contingent of reporters in all of college basketball, referred to simply as ``the horde.'' Now, Mr. President, over the last decade, Huskymania has been heightened by the enormous success of our great coach, Jim Calhoun and athletic director, Lew Perkins. UCONN has dominated the storied Big East Conference, winning six regular season championships, distinguishing itself in NCAA tournament play, advancing to the Elite Eight three different times. The one thing missing was a trip to the fabled Final Four and a national championship, and that dream was realized on March 29 with the victory over the Duke Blue Devils in what has to have been, not just for Connecticut fans, but for basketball fans all over the country, one of the great games in recent history of college basketball. The Huskies' thrilling victory touched off a joyous celebration in our State, which is normally known as ``the land of steady habits,'' an exhilaration which I experienced literally firsthand that night. I could not go to Florida to see the game, but I did the next best thing--I went to Coach's Bar and Grill in Hartford, CT, which is partially owned by Coach Calhoun. Let me just say to my colleagues on the floor, I was, by far, the senior citizen in the bar that night. It seemed like about half of the State's under-30 population was there. The fervor was intense and the joy extreme when the game was over. Let me say that we are proud of this victory, but we are also really proud of the values that are part of it--the teamwork, the sacrifice, the sportsmanship, the determination and the dignity this team and its coach showed in scrapping and hustling their way to the pinnacle of college basketball. The character of this UCONN team is an apt reflection of their great coach, Jim Calhoun, who is a great coach because he is a great man, a man of indomitable spirit, tremendous values, and a great pursuit of excellence. I am thrilled that Coach Calhoun is finally getting his due as one of the Nation's great coaches. For now, I am grateful for the wonderful gift that Jim and his players have given the people of Connecticut, for the way they brought such a diverse State together and reaffirmed our sense of community, for living up to our highest ideals of sport and--if you will allow me a pun in the name of the Huskies--for showing that every dog does indeed have their day. Now, Mr. President, if I may close somewhat unusually, at Coach's Bar and Grill on the night of the game, one of the young men there, at a critical moment in the first half, turned to me and asked me if I would lead the UCONN cheer, and I did that. I was criticized the first time because they said my N's were not too good. You will see what I mean in a moment. As the game went on, I was called on repeatedly to lead this cheer, and of course, we in Coach's Bar and Grill feel that made the margin of difference in the victory that occurred in Florida that night. If you will allow me, Mr. President, here is the cheer: U-C-O-N-N, UCONN, UCONN, UCONN. Thank you. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a Sense of the Senate resolution as an amendment to the Budget Resolution. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators Santorum, Bingaman, and Abraham. As my colleagues know, saving is empowering. It allow families to weather the bad times, to live without aid, and to deal with emergencies. But more than just being a safety net, savings offer families a ladder up. That is because saving is the first step towards developing assets. And assets beget assets. Having them can actually change a family's economic station and set a better course for generations to come. Yet, despite our booming economy we know that fully a third of all American households have no financial assets to speak of. For those with children the outlook is even worse. Almost half of all American children live in households that have no financial assets. This, in my view, is an untenable situation that should be changed. Mr. President, we in the Senate have produced some innovative legislation in recent years that are designed to encourage Americans to build assets for retirement. That is due in no small part to the leadership of Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan; Senate leaders who understand the importance of savings. However, I believe that we have been remiss in neglecting the American that assets can benefit the most: the working poor. They need to build assets not just for retirement, but also for the betterment of their lives and those of their children. So Mr. President I, along with my distinguished colleagues offer this Sense of the Senate. It simply says that the tax laws should encourage low-income workers and their families to build assets. Similar language was offered by Representative Thompson, and passed unanimously in the House Budget Committee mark-up. I hope that this resolution will also be accepted here unanimously. Thank you and I cede the remainder of my time. Amendment No. 224

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Sense of the Senate regarding Federal Research and Development, Section 310 of the Concurrent Budget Resolution. The past few years of economic growth have led us to a remarkable stage in this country's history. For the first time, we have both low inflation and low unemployment, a stock market which seems boundless and, more germane to the discussion at hand, a historic budget surplus. However, the budget we have prepared for the turn of the new millenium is not one which promotes growth. Specifically, the small and declining accounts in research and development (R&D) are a direct prescription for long term economic decline. Let me explain. There have been at least a dozen major economic studies in recent years, including those of Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow, which conclude that technological progress is the primary ingredient in economic growth, accounting for 50% or more of total growth. These studies further show that technological progress has twice the impact on economic growth of labor or capital. Ironically, we have spent far more time in Congress debating the economic impact of labor and capital, in the form of jobs and tax bills, than we have ever devoted to R&D, which is the true workhorse of economic growth. Today, the relationship between technological progress and economic growth is apparent even to the lay person. The Internet, cancer drugs, cellular phones, and computer-related services are ubiquitous. Communications and technology stocks now account for 80% of the value of today's booming $1.4 trillion stock market. Furthermore, the productivity improvements generated by leap-ahead advances in communications and computers have translated into an economic strength that makes us the envy of the world. Because it takes 20-30 years for fundamental discoveries to evolve into market products, we happen to be benefitting handsomely from the government's large investment in R&D in the mid-1960's. However, we have historically been poor guardians of that investment. This year is no exception. The Budget Committee's proposed cuts in research in R&D, totaling as much as 40% in some areas, sit atop a long historical decline which has already more than halved our total R&D investment (as a percent of GDP) over the past 34 years. In 1965, we spent an amount equivalent to 2.2% of our GDP on R&D; in 1998, that amount was 0.8%. Commenting on our nation's 34 year decline in R&D investments, the investment guru Peter Lynch has said, ``If I saw a business with an R&D trend like this, I wouldn't buy the stock.'' Almost every other country understands the rationale for R&D, and is especially conscious of the government's unique role in supporting basic research. As a result, thirteen countries now spend more on basic R&D as a percent of GDP than do we. What is the result of that investment? One result is that these countries maintain their base of excellence in science. If one looks at the set of nations with ``significantly higher'' high school science achievement scores than the US, eight of the top eleven nations which comprise that list are the same eight nations which are in the top ten of basic science funding as a fraction of GDP. Exactly why there is such a strong correlation between research investment and high school science scores is not clear, but the correlation there, it is strong, and it bears investigation. Last year, the Senate began to recognize the value of R&D to the economy and to our innovation base. We passed, without opposition, S. 2217, which sought to double R&D spending over the next decade. The bill was bipartisan, had 36 cosponsors, and passed without dissent. A Sense of the Senate amendment was also unanimously passed during this year's budget committee mark-up, calling for greater R&D investment. In contrast to these mandates for more R&D spending, the budget we see here today cuts R&D substantially. Although much of the discussion regarding R&D investment has focused on civilian R&D, I would like to point out the special and troubling case of military R&D. Historically, DoD has funded the lion's share of research in mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences, both in our military laboratories and in our university system. The output of this innovation enterprise is unmatched. If one looks at the U.S. cadre of Nobel Prize winners, 58% of the physics laureates and 43% of the chemistry laureates were funded by DoD prior to winning their Nobel prizes. What I find disturbing is the fact that we are dismantling this engine of innovation through dramatic cuts in DoD R&D, even as we are in the process of transforming from the Cold War Era to the much more technologically demanding era of--if I may use the term--``techno- warfare.'' Every scenario of future military dominance by the U.S. assumes that we will inevitably have superior technology. However, if we are dramatically cutting military R&D, and we are simultaneously not supporting civilian R&D, exactly where is that technological superiority going to come from? Each of our services currently spends 60-80% of its funds on readiness issues (i.e., operations and maintenance) and 20-40% of their funds on modernization tasks for incremental improvements (i.e., procurement, testing and evaluation). The obligation authority for science and technology--the military of the future--is currently less than 2% of the military budget. Even this minute fraction is destined to decline further under the budget we see before us today. Though we face daunting readiness problems in the present, we are far less ready for the future. The president's budget for military R&D proposed significant cuts, on the order of 6%, that the budget committee's budget will probably worsen. The budget committee's 19 billion increase for DoD is unlikely to accommodate all of DoD's readiness, modernization, retention, recruitment, and ballistic missile defense needs. The Armed Services' Committee's probable response will be to squeeze the already small R&D budget enormously. DoD itself has requested extensive cuts in S&T (science and technology) which contrast sharply with its request for $112 billion in increases for readiness and modernization over the next 5-6 years. The DoD budget requests, in conjunction with the budget committee's actions, make it clear that the problems the military is experiencing at present--though undoubtedly pressing--are actively preventing adequate long-term strategic planning. A recent Council on Competitiveness report shows that, as a nation, we are currently unmatched in our potential to innovate, due to our past investments in R&D through our military, industry, and university systems, and due to our vibrant venture capital sector. Let us not make the mistake of starving the system that gives us our greatest strength, just as we embark on the ``Innovation Economy'' of the new millenium. The budget resolution before us dramatically fails in its commitment to nourish R&D, which is the key to our future economy, our future security, and our future well being. The major cuts it makes in both civilian and military R&D--in our innovation system--are not supportable.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, while I support the underlying Chafee amendment providing $200 million in increased funding for the state- side portion of the Land and Water Conservation Program, I object to the use of funds from Function 370 as an offset. The Land and Water Fund monies are of critical importance to communities in my state and around the nation, and I have pledged to work hard to ensure that the state-side portion of the Fund is revived. I believe that revival of the State-side Fund represents the commitment of all Americans to conserving natural treasures and preserving open space. Nevertheless, Function 370 is not the place to target offsets. Important programs under this budget function in the Commerce Department are vital to small businesses around the country and to our economic growth and our global competitiveness. Function 370 contains cost-effective initiatives that directly contribute to our economic well-being. Clearly, it makes little sense to take funds from some of the numerous cost effective programs in this Function when other areas in other Functions could better serve as offsets. I will support the amendment because I trust that the conference and the appropriations process will locate preferable offsets to fund this important Land and Water Conservation initiative.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this new era of budget surpluses presents us with a tremendous opportunity to expand our investment in education, particularly our efforts to improve our public schools and raise academic achievement. This opportunity could not come at a better time, given the growing importance of knowledge in this Information Age economy, the growing concerns parents have about the ability of our schools to adequately prepare America's children for the challenges ahead of them, and the growing interest here in Congress in retooling our Federal education policy this year through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The budget resolution before us makes an attempt to seize that opportunity providing for a $32 billion increase in elementary and secondary education programs over the next five years. But I am disappointed that the architects of this plan did not go further, that rather than making a dramatic statement about the priority we place on education quality, this resolution instead opts to devote far more resources to broad-based tax cuts. In particular, I am disappointed that, because of this preference for tax cuts, we have failed to fund the President's plan to help local school districts reduce elementary school class sizes by hiring 100,000 new teachers, a plan I am proud to have cosponsored. And I am disappointed that we have failed to fully fund our share of IDEA, to finally meet the pledge Congress made to cover 40 percent of the cost of providing a free and appropriate education to children with special needs. Eliminating this shortfall is by far the top priority of the teachers and principals and administrators in my state of Connecticut, whose budgets are being busted by the spiraling costs of meeting the requirements of IDEA, and who tell us that all children are suffering as a result. It is my hope that we could rectify this imbalance, which is why I am joining many of my colleagues in cosponsoring an amendment that would significantly strengthen our investment in education. Specifically, it would shift one-fifth of the funding reserved for tax cuts, $156 billion over the next 10 years, into education accounts. This shift would enable us to fully fund the class-size initiative and meet our IDEA obligations, as well as provide additional resources to several important K-12 programs. This amendment is broadly supported by a wide array of education groups, and I believe that it truly reflects the will of the American, people who have repeatedly expressed their preference for using the surplus to lift up our schools over broad- based tax cuts. I would strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and send a clear signal to the American people about the priorities of this Congress, about our willingness to seize the unique opportunity this new budget environment affords to invest in our children's future.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my dissapointment with S. Con. Res. 20, the FY 2000 Budget Resolution. After our economy has enjoyed seven years of strong growth, I had hoped that this year's Budget Resolution, the first in the new millenium, would set policy priorities that would strengthen our economy. After seven years of phenomenal economic growth, it is a shame that we cannot convert our gains into ensuring a more secure economic future. This Budget Resolution fails to take positive steps by trying to do too much. The Resolution calls for using surplus funds for tax cuts, while maintaining the statutory spending caps. The Budget Resolution fails to protect Medicare or Social Security, fails to increase national savings, and cuts important spending priorities. It is neither financially prudent nor economically sound. It could endanger our sound economy and squander an historic opportunity to raise the living standards of all Americans and to ensure a dignified retirement for our seniors. S. Con. Res. 20 favors massive tax cuts over paying down the massive national debt, over protecting Medicare and Social Security, and over key important domestic initiatives. By keeping the statutory caps and using the surplus for tax cuts, the Budget Resolution makes deep cuts in science technology, in research and development, in important environmental protection initiatives, while failing to protect Medicare and the retirement security of our workers and families. The Budget Resolution Undermines Current and Future Economic Growth. The fiscal policies outlined in the Budget Resolution threaten the health of our growing economy. The Budget Resolution calls for using all surplus funds for tax cuts and nothing for reducing our federal debt. For the past several years, a declining federal debt has contributed to a decline in interest rates. Less government debt has translated into lower interest rates and lower interest rates have promoted greater investment and growth in our economy. It is no coincidence that of the G-7 countries, we are the only country with a balanced federal budget and strong economic growth. Using surplus funds for debt reduction sustains the virtuous cycle of lower interests rates, higher investment in our economy, and job creation. By choosing tax cuts over any debt reduction, this Budget Resolution has put us back to the era of the same trickle down economics that led to inflation and stagnation. Achieving a budget surplus has required some very strong measures and has come at some cost. It was not long ago that Congress adopted the Budget Enforcement Act to curb our appetite for spending. Since then we have better managed our spending and tax cutting through a number of important rules and statutes. Unfortunately, this Budget Resolution repeals the pay-as-you-go rule, the very rule that has been most responsible for bringing fiscal discipline to this body. The Budget Resolution Fails to Protect Medicare and Social Security The budget proposal for FY2000 does nothing to restore the Social Security and Medicare trust funds back to solvency. It is unfortunate that at this time of robust economic growth and projected surpluses, the Republican budget does nothing to solve the looming Medicare and Social Security problems. The Budget Resolution calls for saving the Social Security surplus for Social Security. This is far from an adequate solution to the Social Security problem. The resolution also fails to address the more immediate problem of Medicare. Projected to go into deficit in 2008, the Medicare trust fund is in desperate need of funds. While the President has dedicated $350 billion dollars for Medicare, the Budget proposal dedicates nothing. Here again, I cannot understand why we do not take advantage of budget surpluses to help extend the solvency of Medicare. The Budget Resolution Forces Deep Cuts in Non-Defense Discretionary Spending I would support a decision to adhere to the overall levels of discretionary spending established in the Budget Enforcement Act. The Budget maintains the current statutory spending caps and then chooses tax cuts over spending increases in several key areas. The Budget makes a major cut--7.5%--in all non-defense spending. Combined with using surplus funds for tax cuts, this means that many important domestic priorities such as environment and technology research have to be cut. Reduction in research and development funding In the proposed budget before us, the small and declining accounts in R&D are a direct prescription for long term economic decline. There have been at least a dozen major economic studies, including those of Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow, which conclude that technological progress accounts for 50 percent or more of total growth and has twice the impact on economic growth as labor or capital. Ironically, we have spent far more time in Congress debating the economic impact of labor and capital, in the form of jobs and tax bills, than we have ever devoted to R&D. This Budget follows in that trend. Mr. President, by cutting R&D funding this budget provides us with another chance to fall behind. It does a disservice to both our well-being as a society, and our well-being as an economy. I hope my colleagues will reconsider the measure. Environment I am also concerned that funding for natural resources and environmental protection is being cut too steeply to make way for tax cuts. The proposed budget resolution reduces funding for priority domestic environmental programs to roughly 11% below current levels. This cut hurts programs that are critical for building clean, livable communities and protecting natural resources and wildlife. Ongoing efforts to enforce existing public health protections in drinking water would be curtailed. Energy efficiency and clean energy technology initiatives that save consumers money, reduce dependence on foreign oil and curb air pollution would be slashed. Funds for states to preserve open space, coast land, and urban parks would be cut. And the list goes on and on. The direction of these cuts runs directly counter to the needs of our neighborhoods and our nation, and ignores the reality that a clean environment is integral to building a sustainable and strong economy. We should not allow important public health and environmental protections to be sacrificed. Future generations and the public trust will ultimately pay the price. Defense Spending The President recently took action to add money to the defense budget, halting a 14-year slide. That slide seriously stressed the ability of our armed forces--which are almost 40 percent smaller now than they were during the cold war--to meet present day commitments. The President's increase is enough to stop the decline in the readiness of our forces, but it is not enough to modernize the aging military equipment that is so important to ensuring that our forces are ready in the future. The additional money this budget adds to the defense budget is an essential investment for the future. Conclusion This budget. While there are some bright spots in, ultimately there are just too many weaknesses for me to support it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Delaware. Mr. President, on Christmas Eve, 1992, President George Bush issued what is known as his ``Christmas warning'' to President Milosevic that if he attacked Kosovo, NATO would have to respond. We had President Clinton reinforce that threat as recently as last October. Milosevic signed a cease-fire agreement in which we again said to him, if you attack Kosovo, we will have to respond with force. What has happened? He is attacking Kosovo. The International Finnish Pathological Team said a massacre occurred there in January. Kosovar women and children were put on their knees and shot in the back of their heads. Mr. President, if NATO does not act, and if the United States does not act to be consistent not just with the threats we have made to him, the warnings he has ignored, but the principles that underlie those warnings, it will be more than the Kosovars who will suffer irreparable damage at the hands of the Serbians; NATO will be irreparably damaged and so, too, will the credibility of the United States. Mr. President, some of my colleagues say, ``What's the plan?'' There is a plan here and we have heard it. There is a response and we have options as we go along. But I ask, what will happen if we don't act? If we don't act, a massacre will occur. There is great danger of a wider war in Kosovo, wider even than the one that would have occurred if we left the conflict in Bosnia unattended. With all due respect to my friend and dear colleague from Alaska who suggested we may be beginning world war III--

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator for 30 seconds more.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will finish by saying I think what we are doing in authorizing this action is making sure that world war III does not begin in the Balkans.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hatch and Baucus today in cosponsoring a bill to make the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit permanent. Technological innovation is the major factor driving economic and income growth in America today. A one percent increase in our nation's investment in research results in a productivity increase of 0.23 percent. Productivity increases are what allow us to increase wages and standards of living. The R&D undertaken by our companies today is too important to our economy and our wages to allow its encouragement through tax credits to be an unstable, haphazard effort varying from one year to the next. Moreover, R&D has a significantly higher rate of return at the societal level than at the company level. There is a huge spillover effect from one person's or one company's innovation to other firms, other industries, and benefits to consumers. That is why government has a role in supporting R&D both directly through government funded research and through tax credits to private industry. All of society benefits from increased R&D. I strongly support making the R&D tax credit permanent so that our companies can engage confidently in long- term planning for sustained research investment. I believe making the R&D tax credit permanent is a priority. I also feel we must strengthen the United States investment in R&D through other means as well. Senators Frist, Rockefeller, Domenici, Gramm and I are sponsoring a bill, S. 296--with 29 cosponsors--to double federal investment in research over the next decade. Government labs and University labs undertake much of the basic research in this country. We need to nurture these incubators of basic research not only by increasing government support for them, but to encourage private sector support and financing of them. That is why Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Frist and I support some reforms to the R&D tax credit that will encourage the private sector to partner with Government and University labs. We will shortly be introducing a bill to increase the benefits of the R&D credit to all companies, encourage research consortia, and give special attention to research investment by small businesses. The reason we have been unable to make the R&D tax credit permanent is because it requires that the expenditures be scored for five years, thereby raising the budget costs. Extending the credit each year, sometimes at the last minute and sometimes retroactively, does not lower the cost to government, but increases the costs to industry by increasing its risk and uncertainty. Let's stop this charade and do what's right. Let's make it permanent.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hatch and Baucus today in cosponsoring a bill to make the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit permanent. Technological innovation is the major factor driving economic and income growth in America today. A one percent increase in our nation's investment in research results in a productivity increase of 0.23 percent. Productivity increases are what allow us to increase wages and standards of living. The R&D undertaken by our companies today is too important to our economy and our wages to allow its encouragement through tax credits to be an unstable, haphazard effort varying from one year to the next. Moreover, R&D has a significantly higher rate of return at the societal level than at the company level. There is a huge spillover effect from one person's or one company's innovation to other firms, other industries, and benefits to consumers. That is why government has a role in supporting R&D both directly through government funded research and through tax credits to private industry. All of society benefits from increased R&D. I strongly support making the R&D tax credit permanent so that our companies can engage confidently in long- term planning for sustained research investment. I believe making the R&D tax credit permanent is a priority. I also feel we must strengthen the United States investment in R&D through other means as well. Senators Frist, Rockefeller, Domenici, Gramm and I are sponsoring a bill, S. 296--with 29 cosponsors--to double federal investment in research over the next decade. Government labs and University labs undertake much of the basic research in this country. We need to nurture these incubators of basic research not only by increasing government support for them, but to encourage private sector support and financing of them. That is why Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Frist and I support some reforms to the R&D tax credit that will encourage the private sector to partner with Government and University labs. We will shortly be introducing a bill to increase the benefits of the R&D credit to all companies, encourage research consortia, and give special attention to research investment by small businesses. The reason we have been unable to make the R&D tax credit permanent is because it requires that the expenditures be scored for five years, thereby raising the budget costs. Extending the credit each year, sometimes at the last minute and sometimes retroactively, does not lower the cost to government, but increases the costs to industry by increasing its risk and uncertainty. Let's stop this charade and do what's right. Let's make it permanent.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from New Jersey. I will speak for a moment more and then yield to the Senator from Iowa. I think the Attorney General yesterday was asked two different questions, quite different, and didn't give inconsistent answers, but I think my interpretation was, she said that an amendment of this kind would be unwise. She did say that if it was agreed to, the Department, as the Senator from New Jersey has indicated, would be capable of picking up these cases. Secondly, I want to indicate that I am not reaching a constitutional judgment that this is a violation of separation of powers. I have tried to be careful in my comments to state that. I do think it evokes separation of powers concerns and values. Taking the example that the Senator from New Jersey gives of reauthorization of State Department or Energy Department Offices, to me this would be a little bit like abolishing an assistant secretaryship in one of those Departments because we didn't like the work that the particular Assistant Secretary was doing and saying, turn it over to the Secretary of State or Secretary of Energy and let them do it the way they want to do it. While we have the power to do that and we have the power of the purse, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. I thank my colleagues, I thank my friend from New Jersey, and I yield to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Jersey. I do understand it. My reaction to it is that we are still taking from these offices that have been working on these cases and establishing a precedent for various reasons. It is a precedent that can be misused, as time goes on, of terminating an ongoing independent counsel prosecution by the individual, firing the individual who is doing it, turning it over to the Justice Department, which, of course, has many, many capable and experienced lawyers, but who have not been working on this case. Therefore, I think that it would suffer not only from redundancy and inefficiency, but most of all, I worry, no matter what we think about these four or the independent counsel statute, it would set a bad precedent of legislative intervention into independent investigation and prosecution.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with respect to my colleague from New Jersey and the other cosponsors of this amendment, I rise to oppose the amendment. I understand some of what has moved them to have the strong feelings they do that lead to this amendment, but I think it is certainly ill timed and ultimately ill advised. I say it is ill timed because the Committee on Governmental Affairs, on which I am honored to serve as the ranking Democratic member, is in the middle of an inquiry, holding hearings on the fundamental question of whether to reauthorize the independent counsel statute, hearings which will continue for at least a month more. I think it is worth letting that process work what we hope will be its thoughtful and constructive way. I know many of my colleagues oppose reauthorizing the statute, and that is true of Members on both sides of the political aisle, just as I am heartened by the fact that Members on both sides of the political aisle support the retention of the independent counsel statute or some version of it. I hope we can work together to develop a law that establishes the principles of independence of investigation when the highest officials of our Government are suspected of criminal behavior. It may take some time and some convincing. Most people believe this will not happen by the June 30 expiration date of the current statute. The statute, therefore, may lapse for a time while we work on this. But that would not be a catastrophe, because under existing law the independent counsel who are in effect now would continue to do their work. Regardless of how the underlying question of whether we have an independent counsel--inside the Justice Department, outside the Justice Department--or not, is resolved, I believe it would be a serious mistake to single out, as this amendment does, what I gather to be four of the independent counsels for termination while their investigations are ongoing. In that sense, this amendment is not just a preemptive attack on the statute while we are still considering as a committee and as a body whether to reauthorize it, it is what might be called a personal attack on the most controversial independent counsels. In that sense, it actually cuts against the purpose of the statute in the first place, which was to provide for independence of investigation and prosecution. The fear was, when the statute was drafted and adopted in 1978 after Watergate, that prosecution-- investigation of high-ranking officials of our Government would be interfered with by people in the executive branch who would be affected by those investigations. There is a way in which this amendment puts Congress in a position of compromising the independence of these investigations. Under the amendment, all the independent counsel investigations besides the ones covered still operating after the law expires on June 30, would continue. It is not until they reach the 3-year deadline in the amendment, but until their work had been completed and their offices were terminated pursuant to the statutory provisions which are currently in effect. There are two other ongoing independent counsel investigations begun in 1998 which, as my friend and colleague from New Jersey, I believe, just indicated, would never be affected--in fact, would never be affected by this amendment. Similarly, there may be other independent counsel currently operating under court seal, which we would therefore not know about, who would not be affected. And the Attorney General may appoint additional independent counsel before the statute expires on June 30. All of these would not be affected. This amendment as I understand it and read it, affects only four independent counsel: Kenneth Starr, David Barrett, Donald Smaltz, and Larry Thompson. I am not rising to oppose this amendment because I want to defend the investigations that these four men have carried out. I do not want to. I don't need to. Some of the criticisms of their work may be valid; some may not be. But that is not the point, as I see it. The point is, and the question is: Do we in Congress want to set the precedent of terminating an ongoing separate branch investigation and prosecution for whatever the reason that it has aroused our opposition? I think this would be a bad precedent which smacks of violation of the separation of powers doctrine and values. I know we maintain the power of the purse, and it is an important power, but it has to be exercised with great discretion and sensitivity, particularly when we are affecting one of the other branches of Government and particularly when we are affecting a branch of Government whose particular participants here are involved in controversial independent investigations. It was no accident that the framers of the Constitution went out of their way in a whole series of cases, including in the impeachment provisions in the Constitution which we have just come through, to make it very clear that Congress does not have the power to prosecute. That was one of the lessons the framers learned from their own history. So, as we remember in the impeachment provisions, and it was central to the decision that many of us made, that impeachment existed not to prosecute the President in that case. That was something that the Constitution tells us could be done after an individual left office by the appropriate branch of government. I worry very much about the effect of the precedent that will be set here, understanding some of the concerns that motivate the amendment, but thinking beyond the current situation. A precedent would be set for Congress to intervene and terminate independent criminal investigations and/or prosecutions. We do not have to do it. The law makes clear that there are others who can take these steps. The independent counsel statute itself contains a mechanism by which the Attorney General can remove any independent counsel, including these four, for cause. So far she has declined to use that authority. I think to some extent what is involved here is our respect for her right, as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer, to make the decision as to whether to use the power we have given her in statute to decide whether or not to remove these four independent counsel. Why should we presume to replace our judgment for hers? The statute also contains a provision by which either the Attorney General, the independent counsel, or the special panel of three appellate judges can move to terminate an investigation, if its work has been substantially completed, whether or not the independent counsel himself thinks that is the case. This amendment makes an exception to those ongoing statutory provisions for four independent counsel. It is not the proper role of Congress, in my belief, to decide that certain prosecutors should be fired in the midst of their work. We should apply the same provisions of the law to those independent counsel whose investigations have displeased us, either because of the content or the length of the investigations, as we do for those that have not displeased us. Even if this amendment's 3-year cutoff applied equally to all of the independent counsel, it may well constitute an unjustifiable interference in ongoing criminal investigations. The independent counsel statute, as it exists today and as I mentioned earlier, grandfathers existing investigations, if the statute is not renewed, for a number of very good reasons. Among them are that after a prosecutor has spent time on a lengthy and complex investigation, he has built up a store of information, institutional memory, ongoing leads and relationships. Much of that would be lost if these cases were turned over to the Department of Justice midstream. Again and again, I have heard critics of the independent counsel statute complain of the inefficiencies involved in requiring newly appointed independent counsel to find office space and assemble staff before they begin their work, but we need to weigh carefully whether there are greater inefficiencies and greater harms involved in tearing apart these offices before they have finished their work. The inefficiencies, I think, would be compounded if we in Congress ultimately pass a statute to replace the current law. The legislative process has barely begun on the question of whether or not to renew in its current form or some revised form the Independent Counsel statute. None of us, certainly not I, can say where this will lead. Perhaps a new independent counsel would have to be appointed and attempt to reconstruct the work that had been done. Before a new law is passed, it is not clear to me how the Attorney General would be expected to handle the investigations that would be returned to the Department at the end of the year. Yesterday, in testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Attorney General promised to continue appointing independent counsel where necessary, pursuant to regulations, if the current statute expires. The amendment before us may have the ironic effect of requiring the Attorney General to immediately appoint a new independent counsel to resume investigations and prosecutions that were already well underway towards completion, which I fear might mean not only a bad precedent and principle, but additional expenses as well. Finally, Mr. President, the Attorney General declared yesterday that she is opposed to reauthorizing the independent counsel statute, but I think it is fair to say that she nonetheless saw dangers, problems implicit in the pursuit and purpose of the amendment before us now. I thought she urged us to reject it. At least she said it didn't make sense to her. I admire her forthrightness on both counts, though I disagree with her on one. Whether or not you support the independent counsel statute, I hope my colleagues will think twice before going on record and supporting the precedent of premature termination by Congress of prosecutors who are appointed to be independent guardians of justice, independent from the executive branch and independent from the legislative branch as well. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, and, in doing so, I rise to support development and deployment of a limited national missile defense. Colleagues have said that this debate has begun today, and I am sure each Member of the Senate believes, because we have no greater responsibility under the Constitution than to provide for the common defense of our Nation. That is one of the fundamental reasons people form governments, to provide for their common defense. It is a duty we must fulfill with intellectual honesty and with thoughtful attention to the world in which we reside. Let us look honestly at the world today. The cold war is over, thankfully. Democracy triumphed over communism. The bipolar strategic tension of the world--two armed camps living in a strange balance of terror where each threatened to destroy the other if the first acted-- is over, thankfully over. And in that sense we enjoy today the benefits of that victory. Everybody around the globe--people here in the United States, those in Russia, and certainly those who lived under the tyranny of the Soviet Union, three peoples of which so proudly and joyously joined NATO just this past weekend. Though the existential threats we faced are not there, the threats to our very existence are not there, as the operating tempo of our military makes clear, we face a remarkable series of threats to our security around the world. And we face something like threats we have faced before, but with an intensity and a breadth that are unparalleled; and that is the potential of threats to our homeland, to the United States of America, shielded as we have been by geography, by two oceans. Although we have worried in the past and we have been at war and conflict about threats to our homeland, we have never faced them, I fear, to the same extent we will in the years ahead. And this is a reflection not only of the dispersion of power, the breakup of the two armed camps that dominated and defined the cold war, it is a reflection of what history tells us, which is that whenever there are developments in the nonmilitary world, in the industrial, or, in our time, the technological world, they work their way into the military. Today, even as nationalism rears its head with a new intensity in places like the Balkans, national boundaries in the conventional sense are seamless and less dominant. We communicate with each other through television and now, dramatically, in two-way communication over the Internet, jumping over traditional national boundaries. We have a growing number of assets, defense and civilian related, which exist in space that affect our lives, civilian and military, in very, very fundamental ways. We have increasing capacity through technology to deliver weapons of mass destruction against other peoples and to fear and face the potential of their delivery against us. So it is not surprising that, within the community of those who worry about our national security, and particularly, of course, within the Department of Defense, there is new concern, new thinking, talk of new organization, to deal with homeland defense, the defense of the United States of America; that the very technology that has enabled us to reach across national boundaries, to have international commerce at enormous volume and worth with remarkable speed, also begins to subject us in our homes, businesses, neighborhoods, communities, and States to attack. I don't mean to suggest a panic, but, to be intellectually honest and thoughtful about it, the fact is that we have in our time already seen ourselves subject to terrorist attack here in our homeland, some of which has been inspired from outside, that we know we face a risk of attack to our information systems, which dominate and on which we depend for so much in the lives that we lead so well today. Another element of that new vulnerability that our homeland faces is from missile attack. We faced it during the cold war when the Soviet Union and the United States were two armed camps with intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at each other, in which we reached a kind of bizarre agreement, ``rationality'' in the midst of irrationality, that neither would push the button for fear of what damage that would do to the one who pushed the button. Today, we are facing a threat of a different order. Though it is limited, it is coming from people who will not, we fear, bind to the same rationale of a system of mutual assured destruction. That is what motivates this bill. I see it as a response not just to the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction, but as part of a broader, growing concern that we in the Senate and the American people will have to face to raise our defenses once again here at home. In the very near future--perhaps within a few months--erratic leaders, tyrants of rogue regimes, will control ballistic missiles possibly armed with weapons of mass destruction that can reach our national territory. One or more rogue states may have the technology to do so today. Equally unsettling is the fact that criminal or insurgent elements from countries in turmoil could also have access to those weapons. So the threat is real and it is current, and everything we know about the rapid dissemination of technological information and the commercial proliferation of ballistic missile technology and weapons of mass destruction tells us that the threat will get worse faster than we had previously thought. Until this past year, most observers, intelligent observers, thoughtful observers, believed that the emergence of such a threat was way over the horizon, a problem for the future. A national intelligence estimate written in 1993 and revised in 1995 concluded that no country other than the declared nuclear powers would develop or otherwise acquire ballistic missiles that could reach the 48 contiguous United States within the next 10 to 15 years. But in July of 1998, a commission of distinguished experts, chaired by former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, concluded that this earlier estimate was far too optimistic. The Rumsfeld Commission report found that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq were engaged in concerted efforts to build or acquire ballistic missiles. The panel also found that North Korea and Iran could use these missiles to inflict major damage on the United States within 5 years of a decision to do so. Iraq, a rogue state that has constantly challenged its neighbors, the United States, and the international community militarily for two decades now, so the Rumsfeld Commission said, could inflict major damage on the United States within 10 years. The Commission warned that the ability of our intelligence community to provide timely and accurate warning of attempts to produce ballistic missiles was eroding. So a problem is growing, with the capacity of the intelligence community to warn us of its forward movement eroded. And then the Rumsfeld Commission predicted prophetically, as it turned out, that Iran would soon deploy a Shahab-3 missile on the way to developing intercontinental ballistic missile capability and that North Korea would soon have a missile capable of hitting Alaska or Hawaii. Well, unfortunately, the Rumsfeld Commission was right on target. Within a month of its report, Iran did flight test the Shahab-3 missile, and 1 month later North Korea launched its Taepo Dong missiles. We had long known North Korea had strong missile technology. Analysts were broadly surprised that the Taepo Dong was a three-stage missile with enough range to hit parts of the United States of America. The Iranian and North Korean missile tests validated two of the Rumsfeld Commission's findings. First, that rogue states are in possession of missiles that threaten American territory; and, second, that these states have developed this capability far more rapidly than we had assumed possible and with very little warning. Recent events in places such as North Korea and Iran have contributed to a revision and updated a speeding up of the administration's approach to missile defense, and I appreciate that acceleration very much. Just a few months ago, in January of this year, Secretary of Defense Cohen announced that the administration would seek $6.6 billion over 5 years to field a limited national missile defense. Secretary Cohen explained: We are affirming that there is a threat and the threat is growing, and that it will pose a danger not only to our troops overseas but also to Americans here at home. The Taepo Dong I test was another strong indicator that the United States will, in fact, face a rogue nation missile threat to our homeland against which we will have to defend the American people. The bill before us today, S. 257, is designed to respond to that very real threat that rogue states and organizations with missile technology pose to our Nation. S. 257 states what I think we all believe, which is that we should take action to protect ourselves against this threat. We would be derelict in our duty if we did not. I view S. 257 as a statement of policy, a statement of policy that it is the intention of the United States of America, the administration, executive branch, Members of Congress, shoulder to shoulder together, to develop a defense to this threat which could be a cataclysmic threat that we all seem to agree we are now facing. So I must admit that I am disappointed by the disagreement that still exists over this measure. The statement of policy that came from the Clinton administration in January of this year seems to me to be reflected in and consistent with the simple statement embodied in S. 257. And yet, there is opposition. I hope that the debate and discussion that we are having today and the days ahead will lead us to find a way to express what I believe we all feel: The threat is real and we have to do something about it as quickly as possible. As I understand the concerns of the administration and my colleagues in the Senate who oppose S. 257, they are as follows: They argue that this bill considers only technological feasibility in making a commitment now to deploy a national missile defense without taking into account the actual threat, the operation, the effectiveness of the system against a threat, the affordability of the system, including the balance of other critical defense needs, and the impact of the policy stated in this bill on nuclear weapons reductions and arms control efforts particularly with Russia. I know that some are also concerned that S. 257 contradicts the administration's policy of not deciding on deployment until June of 2000 after a series of tests. Some also fear that this bill will make it less likely that the Russians would continue arms control negotiations. Some still feel that since the administration has budgeted $6.6 billion for national missile defense development and deployment, S. 257 is not necessary and will not advance the deployment deadline, as the effort is technology constrained, not policy or resource constrained. And there are others who say that this response does not help defend against the most likely methods of delivery such as maritime vessels. Of course, the most likely methods of delivery, if they are in fact the most likely methods of delivery such as maritime vessels, if I may start with the last argument, should only lead us to want to accelerate the development of a limited defense because delivery from the water, from the oceans may speed up the date by which the United States will be vulnerable to this attack. Let me try to respond to some of the arguments that have been made. First, while it is true that S. 257 does state that the United States should deploy a limited national missile defense when technologically feasible, that is a broad statement of policy which does not preclude consideration of other important factors. It simply says--and I hope when I join with Senator Cochran, Senator Inouye and others, that it would be a broad enough statement of policy--that it would lead a broad bipartisan majority to feel comfortable coming to its support. The fact is that we will consider questions of affordability and other questions each year, as we in Congress carry out our responsibility to authorize and appropriate with regard to a limited national missile defense and other defense programs, to decide how to proceed and how much money to devote to the program. To me, that is implicit in the bill, because it is inherent in the legislative process. A policy statement saying that it is our intent to deploy a national missile defense when technologically feasible doesn't mean it will happen automatically or overnight, it doesn't mean that Congress will be precluded from participation in the program and that the Ballistic Missile Defense Office will essentially be given a blank check. Quite the contrary. Each year we will authorize--which this bill does not do; it is a policy statement--and we will appropriate, which this bill most certainly does not do. Though I think that is clear from the wording in S. 257, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment which has been laid down by the Senator from Mississippi which makes clear that this policy that we would declare in S. 257 is subject to the annual authorization and appropriations process. As to the question of the administration's policy or plan to make a judgment about deployment in June of 2000 based on some tests that will be done by then--four tests, I believe, that would be done by then--to me the bill before us neither negates nor endorses that policy. In fact, under the bill before us, it is possible that the decision to deploy would not be made until well after June of 2000, because the threshold of technological feasibility, technological possibility, would not have been reached. But the fact that we are not ready now to deploy a system surely cannot mean that we should not now declare our policy to deploy such a system, to get ready to defend our territory and our people as soon as possible. In fact, we should declare that policy unequivocally, and I think this bill, S. 257, gives us the opportunity to do that. Let me now talk of the concerns about the impact that passage of this bill will have on our relations with Russia and particularly on arms control negotiations that are going on with Russia. I have long supported those negotiations, they are so clearly and palpably in our national security interests. They have run into obstacles along the way--START agreements ran into political difficulties in the Russian Duma. But of course we are part of a process in which we are trying to move those forward in our national security interests. But I must say, I fail to see how passage of this measure, in which we in the U.S. Senate would be declaring our intention to develop a limited national missile defense, should be stopped by our concern about what I believe is a misunderstanding or misapprehension, if in fact it exists, in Russia, about our intentions here. In all the debate and discussion I have heard about the development of a national missile defense, a limited national missile defense, I have not heard anybody-- certainly I have not, Senator Cochran has not, Senator Inouye has not-- suggest that the country we are developing this defense against is Russia. The countries we are developing this defense against are rogue nations, subnational groups that may attempt to inflict harm, intimidate us, leverage us to extract compromises on our national security from our leadership--not Russia. In fact, I believe the administration has spoken these words to the Russians. We have common enemies here in these rogue states. This system is not being developed against the nations of the former Soviet Union or Russia. This is not star wars. Star wars was aimed at--speaking simplistically, if I may--putting a security umbrella over the United States to protect us from a massive ICBM attack from the Soviet Union. This is a highly limited system aimed at trying to preserve a measure of security for our people against limited missile attack from rogue nations. So I am puzzled and troubled about why we should not simply state our policy to develop a defense of our homeland against rogue nations because there may be some in Russia who misunderstand our intention. We understand that doing so will compromise the ABM Treaty, negotiated in a very different context for very different reasons more than a quarter of a century ago at the height of the cold war. That is why top level officials of our administration have already begun to speak with the Russians about our intention. It is clearly evident from the policy that Secretary Cohen articulated in January, clearly evident from the additional billions of dollars that President Clinton has put into the defense budget in the coming years to accelerate our development of a national missile defense. But I, for one, would feel irresponsible--put it another way. I would feel we had not worked hard enough to reassure the Russians that this national missile defense that we state in this measure that we intend to build is not aimed at them. It is aimed at common enemies that they and we have. The fact is, in some measure the content of S. 257 is an honest expression to the leadership in Russia, with whom we are working on so many different matters, that this has now become a matter of American national policy--self defense. And, as much as we value good relations with Russia, as much as we adhere to our treaty obligations, we are saying to them here that we have made a judgment in our own national self-interest and self-defense that we must develop a limited national missile defense and therefore we must begin, as we have, to renegotiate the ABM Treaty. But to not go ahead with this policy statement for fear of the way it will be misread in Russia seems to me to be an underestimation of both our relationship and of our ability to speak truth to the Russians and of their ability to understand it. So, mindful as I am, respectful as I am of the importance of ongoing arms control negotiations with the Russians, I think we do not serve our national interests if we yield to that misapprehension when we know that this system is not being developed to defend against hostile action by them. Mr. President, we need the national missile defense. We face a real and growing threat that cannot be countered by our conventional forces and which will not be deterred by the threat of retaliation. Remember, Russia, on whom we are focused in our judgment on this measure--and some are focused to the extent that they will oppose it because of concerns in Russia--we and the Russian-dominated Soviet Union reached this meeting of minds during a cold war that we were each rational enough to be deterred by the threat of massive retaliation. Deterrence, after all, requires rationality. By definition, accidental, unauthorized, or rogue acts are not the acts of rational leaders and cannot be reliably deterred. Thus, we have a choice: Either we will endure the possibility of limited missile attack on our country with weapons of mass destruction, or we will commit ourselves, with all that we have in us, and will state so honestly in this measure, that we are going to do everything we can to defend against such an attack. I don't agree that this measure is not needed. It is needed. It is a clarion statement of policy about a critical national security vulnerability at an important transitional period in our national history. The fact is, its very existence has already acted as a catalyst in moving this debate forward, the debate about the threat. After all, congressional concern about this led to the Rumsfeld Commission, which led to the report, which predicted the North Korean- Iranian action, which now has led to a coming closer together between congressional opinion and administration policy. Mr. President, both sides in this debate are, after all is said and done, separated by very little. A critical national security decision such as this should not be partisan. The amendment that Senator Cochran and I and others, I believe Senators Warner and Inouye, put down, which makes clear what was implicit before, that S. 257 will naturally be subjected to the annual authorization and appropriations process, makes clear that Congress each year will consider the affordability, the extent of the threat, the impact funding of this system has on other defense needs, and even the impact of the level of funding on our relations with Russia and other arms control negotiations. I think that defending against limited missile attacks is something that all of us, both parties, 100 strong, clearly want to do. I take it that the disagreement is how to do it and what we should express, if anything, in a statement of policy. This is such an important matter and at such a critical moment that I hope in this debate we will listen to each other, that we will reason together, and that we will ultimately come up with a proposal here that a broad bipartisan majority can support. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join today with my colleagues Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senators Mack, Warner, Moynihan, Reid, Wyden, Jeffords, Biden, Baucus, and Collins in introducing this important legislation. The point of this bi-partisan legislation is simple. It will provide credit, under any future greenhouse gas reduction systems we choose to adopt, to companies who act now to reduce their emissions. This is a voluntary, market-based approach that is a win-win situation for both American businesses and the environment. Many companies want to move forward now to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. They don't want to wait until legislation requires them to make these reductions. For some companies reducing greenhouse gases makes good economic sense because adopting cost-effective solutions can actually save them money by improving the efficiency of their operations. Companies recognize that if they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions now they will be able to add years to any potential compliance schedule, allowing them to spread their investment costs over a longer span of time. Under this legislation, businesses will have the flexibility to innovate and develop expertise regarding the most cost-effective ways in which their particular company can become part of the solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. This bill ensures that companies will be credited in future reduction proposals for actions taken now, thereby removing impediments preventing some voluntary efforts that would provide large environmental benefits. Focusing American ingenuity on early reductions will also help stimulate the search for and use of new, innovative strategies and technologies that are needed to enable companies both in this country and worldwide meet their reduction requirements in a cost- effective manner. Development of such strategies and technologies will improve American competitiveness in the more than $300 billion global environmental marketplace. Early action by U.S. companies will begin creating very important environmental benefits now. By providing the certainty necessary to encourage companies to move forward with emission reductions, this legislation will lead to immediate reductions in greenhouse gas pollution. Once emitted, many greenhouse gases continue to trap heat in the atmosphere for a century or more. Early reductions can begin to slow the rate of buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, helping to minimize the environmental risks of continued global warming. It just makes sense to encourage practical action now. The bill will help us deal with the serious threat posed by global climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases that result from human activity, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels, are causing greenhouse gases to accumulate in the atmosphere above natural levels. More than 2,500 of the world's best scientific and technical experts have concluded that this increase threatens to change the balance of temperature and precipitation that we rely on for a host of economic and societal activities. The American Geophysical Union, a professional society comprised 35,000 geoscientists, recently stated that ``present understanding of the Earth climate system provides a compelling basis for legitimate public concern over future global- and regional-scale changes resulting from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.'' We recently learned from scientists that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that nine of the hottest ten years occurred in the past decade. Scientists believe that a rise in global temperature may in turn result in sea level rise and changes in weather patterns, food and fiber production, human health, and ecosystems. Beyond the science that we know, our common sense tells us that the risks associated with climate change are serious. Weather-related disasters already cost our economy billions of dollars every year. The climate agreement reached in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 was an historic agreement that provided the foundation for an international solution to climate change. The protocol included important provisions, fought for by American negotiators, aimed at establishing real targets and timetables for achieving emissions reductions and providing flexibility and market mechanisms for reducing compliance costs as we work to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases. In Buenos Aires last year, the international community began developing the details of the protocol. I had the privilege of participating as a Senate observer at both the Kyoto and Buenos Aires climate change conventions. I was particularly encouraged that developing countries, including Argentina and Kazakstan, indicated their willingness in Buenos Aires to limit the growth of their greenhouse gas emissions. Nations of the world are all coming to recognize that climate change is an issue of grave international concern and that all members of the global community must participate in solving the problem. Unfortunately, the current atmosphere in Congress is such that some would block any steps related to climate change until the Kyoto protocol is ratified by the Senate. President Clinton has said he will not submit the Kyoto protocol for ratification until developing countries demonstrate meaningful participation. I am encouraged by the progress made in Buenos Aires and am proud that the United States, by signing the protocol, is committed to a leadership role in the global effort to protect our Earth's irreplaceable natural environment. But to defer debate and action on any proposal that might reduce greenhouse gases until after Senate consideration of the protocol is to deny the United States the ability to act in its own economic and environmental self-interest. The issue at stake is how to develop an insurance policy to protect us against the danger of climate change. Regardless of our individual views on the Kyoto protocol, we in Congress must focus our debate on the issue of climate change and work to forge agreement on how we can move forward. Unfortunately, we have done too little to attack the escalating emissions of greenhouse gases which threaten our health, our safety and our homes. I'm particularly pleased that the legislation grows out of principles developed in a dialogue between the Environmental Defense Fund and a number of major industries. I am encouraged that since the introduction of a similar version of this bill last year, we have received many constructive comments from those in the business and environmental communities. Many good suggestions are on the table now and we expect that many are yet to come; we welcome broad participation as we move forward on this legislation. I am committed to working through some of the important issues that have been raised. Indeed, I believe that it will be through the ongoing constructive participation of the widest spectrum of stakeholders that we will enact a law that catalyzes American action on climate change and delivers on the promise of crediting voluntary early actions. I hope that my colleagues and their constituents will take an honest and hard look at this initiative and consider working with us to improve and advance good legislation that begins to address the profound threat of global climate change. This legislation alone will not protect us from the consequences of climate change, but it is a constructive and necessary step in the right direction. I believe that it is crucial that we begin to address the important issue of climate change now because we have a moral obligation to leave our children and grandchildren a vibrant, healthy, and productive planet and thriving global economy. Mr. President, the debate about climate change is too often vested-- and I believe wrongly so--in false choices between scientific findings, common sense, business investments and environmental awareness. The approach of this bill again demonstrates that these are not mutually exclusive choices, but highly compatible goals.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Rabbi Alvin Wainhaus of Congregation Or Shalom in Orange, Connecticut. On March 19th and 20th, he will be honored by Congregation Or Shalom on his 18th anniversary as spiritual leader of the synagogue. This is a significant milestone for Rabbi Wainhaus and his congregation. Through his leadership at Congregation Or Shalom he has constantly worked to reach out to every member of the congregation, young and old, and keep them involved in all aspects of congregation life. He has particularly reached out to young adults as they have left home for college and careers in order to keep them connected to their families and community. He has helped provide guidance and insight to innumerable people not just at Congregation Or Shalom but within the community as a whole. We currently face difficult times, and it is our families and friends, combined with our churches and synagogues, that provide the support systems which allow us to confront and overcome the challenges set before us. Through his service, Rabbi Wainhaus has helped many families over the years surmount these obstacles and make positive contributions to their communities. As this congregation has grown over the years, with God's divine assistance, Rabbi Wainhaus has touched many lives throughout the community. The people of Connecticut thank Rabbi Wainhaus for his service, dedication, and contribution to our state.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a young man who made the ultimate sacrifice for his community. Officer Brian Aselton of the East Hartford Police Department lost his life on January 23, 1999 when he responded to a noise complaint call that turned out to be anything but routine. Instead, Brian became the eleventh Connecticut police officer killed in the line of duty in the last ten years. This tragedy has touched the entire region; more than ten thousand civilians and law enforcement officials attended Brian's funeral. We have all tried to come to terms with the utter senselessness of his death. Brian was a young man at the start of a promising career with a supportive nucleus of family and friends. Truly, he embodied the determination, strength, and spirit that is such an integral part of our nation's history. Yet, in an instant, Brian's life and the lives of everyone who loved him changed forever. Every law enforcement officer puts his or her life on the line to protect citizens every day. Too often, we as civilians forget the dangers of the occupation and do not show these brave and dedicated officers the respect they deserve. Officer Aselton, killed in the line of duty, serves as a solemn reminder to us all of the responsibility borne by police officers across the state and nation. Every day, the men and women in uniform put their lives at risk so that we can live in communities where we and our families can feel safe. And unfortunately, it takes a tragic event like this for us to truly understand the dedication of these peace officers to the neighborhoods they serve. With the support of the East Hartford Police Department and other officers across the region, the Aselton family has begun the necessary healing process. Yet, with his loss, the town of East Hartford and the State of Connecticut have been diminished. At Brian's funeral, everyone joined together across municipal and state borders and stood together as a single family honoring one of our own. Now that Brian is gone, it is incumbent on us to maintain those bonds. Each one of us must recognize that we are all part of the same family and the simple things important to us are also the simple things important to our neighbors. These are the personal steps that we should take to truly honor his memory. If we can each devote the same commitment to these principles that Brian devoted to his duties as a police officer, we will, through our progress as a society, have made some sense out of his untimely death.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, S. 4 is a worthy attempt to address the growing problem the military is encountering in attracting and retaining the right men and women in the right numbers. As the challenges facing us demonstrate, the effectiveness of our military, and its readiness to act immediately to protect our national interests, must always be a priority concern of Congress. The outstanding performance of our forces in Desert Fox shows that the American military remains more than equal to any task and may in fact be the best force the United States has ever fielded. Even at the height of the cold war, with the largest military budgets ever, it is difficult to imagine those units routinely coping with the range of complex military operations accomplished by our military today. Nonetheless, our military faces readiness problems including falling recruitment and retention in critical skill areas; aging equipment that costs more to keep operating at acceptable levels of reliability; a need for more support services for a force with a high percentage of married personnel; and frequent deployments. The Department of Defense deserves credit for highlighting these problems, the administration deserves credit for increasing the budget to address them and, our colleagues, who have crafted this bill, deserve credit for bringing these issues into clear focus. This legislation is commendable in its attempt to increase resources to address and solve the myriad problems facing today's military forces, specifically pay and benefits. However, we should not do something in a hurry that we will have cause to regret at leisure. The many detailed provisions in this proposed legislation have not been fully vetted by the services, the Joint Staff, the Secretary of Defense or this body. What we spend money on, is as important, as how much money we spend. We must have a plan to spend available funds wisely. I believe this legislation is premature, and I will vote against it at this time for three reasons. First, there is no doubt that adequately compensating our most valuable resource, our service men and women, is the wisest use of our defense dollars. But we must also ensure we have a sensible and executable procurement strategy for today and tomorrow. We must find the right balance given finite resources. Therefore, I believe more analysis is needed on the most favorable, most cost efficient way to compensate today's force. This bill would add more money, but I am not yet convinced we have a good idea of where more money will work best. A case in point, historically, pilot retention has been difficult, and the numbers of pilots for our future force is projected to be considerably less than required. This problem was highlighted specifically in the recent readiness hearings. However, even as we prepare to redo the pay scale and improve the retirement pay, the take rate for pilot bonuses is reportedly increasing. So, where is the best place for additional funds--redux, improved pay scale, further bonuses, better quality of life advancements--what makes the most sense? Furthermore, we need to discuss and examine the impact of this proposed legislation on other government workers. What about the recruitment and retention of our dedicated civilian force? Next, as we prepare to spend money to ensure our force is compensated and ready, we must ask: ``ready for what?'' Which men and women do we most need to recruit and retain, and are we ready for them now? If we spend more than we must for people and less than we should for the tools they need, we will create new problems. For instance, we need more pilots, but we do not yet have an adequate number of aircraft to train them. Should we recruit them and then keep them ``grounded'' because we haven't funded the equipment to allow them to fly. Readiness in 1999 will not necessarily be readiness in the future. We must ensure our forces are ready to address challenges in the near term as well to challenges that emerge over the longer term. Finally, besides deciding how best to spend the available funds, we must find the available funds. We do not know what this bill will actually cost. Before we act, we should know more clearly what the cost will be, and where the funds will come from. Many of the provisions offered in this legislation differ from the Pentagon's request, adding costs that must be absorbed from other programs. As the Administration, and Secretary Cohen have pointed out, the money projected to be added to the defense budget, or any foreseeable increase, will not be enough to completely cover current readiness increases and meet the modernization requirements of all the services. With the proposed pay raises, higher cost-of-living adjustments and other miscellaneous items it is estimated that S. 4 will cost an additional $7 billion in discretionary funding through FY 2005, and absent an increase in the topline for Defense, these items will only displace other key elements of the Defense program. Furthermore, while searching for the appropriate amount of money, we must demand 100% cost effectiveness, and the elimination of waste and redundancy. We must do the appropriate analysis and make the tough choices, to include examining the possibility of closing down military facilities that don't make military-economic sense any more. The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs must be allowed to evaluate this legislation, it's cost and, then ask where they would choose to take the risk if it comes to that. Major studies on military pay and pension issues by the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accounting Organization, and the Defense Department are nearing completion, with all reports expected to be released by late spring. Upon release and examination of these reports, we will be better able to judge the needs in these areas and how best to respond to them. I urge that instead of deciding on this legislation today, we expeditiously arrange appropriate hearings to analyze these ideas in the context of the entire defense authorization bill. This bill is a great point of departure, it is not a final product. We have not yet done the critical analysis to know where the priority should go within the broad category of pay and allowances to most effectively attract and retain the right people. We do not know how a separate bill of this type will impact the authorization process for other programs, ultimately affecting the hard questions of long-term readiness. So, though I strongly favor increases in pay and benefits for our military, this bill is premature and therefore I will reluctantly vote against it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. Chief Justice, throughout the history of this great country, we have endured trials that have strained the sinews of our democracy and sometimes even threatened to tear apart our unparalleled experiment in self-government. Each time the nation has returned to the Constitution as our common lodestar, trusting in its vision, its values and its ultimate verity. Each time we have emerged from these tests stronger, more resilient, more certain of Daniel Webster's claim of ``one country, one constitution, one destiny.'' (Speech to a Whig Party rally in New York City, March 15, 1837.) And each time our awe of the Founders' genius has been renewed, as has our reverence for the brilliantly-calibrated instrument they crafted to guide their political progeny in the unending challenge of governing as a free people. At this moment, we face a test that, although not as grave or perilous as some before, is nevertheless unlike anything this nation has ever experienced. As my colleagues well know, the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton marks the first time in our history that the United States Senate has convened as a court of impeachment to consider removing an elected President from office. But what also makes this trial unprecedented are the underlying charges against President Clinton, which stem directly from his private sexual behavior. The facts of this case are complicated, embarrassing, demoralizing, and infuriating. They raise questions that Madison, Hamilton, and their brethren could never have anticipated that the Senate would have to address in the solemn context of impeachment. The public examination of these difficult questions--about private and public morality, about the role of the Independent Counsel, and about our expectations of Presidential conduct--has been a wrenching, dispiriting and at times unseemly process for the nation. It has divided us as parties and as a people, reaching its nadir in the partisan bickering and badgering that unfortunately defined the impeachment vote in the House of Representatives and compromised the legitimacy of this process in the eyes of many Americans. It has set off a frenzy in the news media that has degraded and devalued our public discourse and badly eroded the traditional boundaries between public and private life, leaving a pornographer to assume the role or arbiter of our political mores. And it has so alienated the American people that many of them are hardly paying attention to a trial that could result in the most radical disruption of the presidency-- excepting assassination--in our nation's history. Yet despite the significant pain this trauma has caused for the country, I take heart from the fact that we have once again reaffirmed our commitment to the Constitution and the fundamental principles underpinning it. The conduct of the trial here in the Senate has been passionate at times, but never uncivil, and while some votes have broken along party lines, they have never broken the spirit of common purpose we share. Indeed, throughout the past several weeks we as a body have grown closer as we have continually measured our actions with the same constitutional yardstick, and each of us has sought to remain faithful to the Founders' vision as we understand it in fulfilling our responsibilities as triers of the President. This, I believe, is in the end a remarkable testament to the foresight of our forefathers, that even in this most unusual of crises, we could and would rely on the Constitution as our compass to find a peaceable and just resolution. We are about to achieve that resolution and complete our constitutional responsibilities by rendering a judgment, a profound judgment, about the conduct of President Clinton and the call of the House of Representatives to remove him from office. This is the duty we accepted when we swore to do ``impartial justice,'' and it is a duty that I, as each of you, have pondered night and day since this trial began. As I have stated previously on this Senate floor, I have been deeply disappointed and angered by this President's conduct--that which is covered in the Articles, and the more personal misbehavior that is not--and like all of us here, I have struggled uncomfortably for more than a year with how to respond to it. President Clinton engaged in an extramarital sexual relationship with a young White House employee in the Oval Office, which, though consensual, was irresponsible and immoral, and thus raised serious questions about his judgment and his respect for the high office he holds. He then made false or misleading statements about that relationship to the American people, to a Federal district court judge in a civil deposition, and to a Federal grand jury; in so doing, he betrayed not only his family but the public's trust, and undermined his moral authority and public credibility. But the judgment we must now make is not about the rightness or wrongness of the President's relationship with Monica Lewinsky and his efforts to conceal it. Nor is that judgment about whether the President is guilty of committing a specific crime. That may be determined by a criminal court, which the Senate clearly is not, after he leaves office. No, the question before us now is whether the President's conduct--as alleged in the two articles of impeachment--makes his continuance in office a threat to our government, our people, and the national interest. That, I conclude, is the extraordinarily high bar the Framers set for removal of a duly-elected President, and it is that standard we must apply to the facts to determine whether the President is guilty of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Each side has had ample opportunity to present its case, illuminating the voluminous record from the House, and we Senators have been able to ask wide-ranging questions of both parties. The House was also authorized to conduct depositions of the three witnesses it deemed most important to its case. I have listened intently throughout, watched the videotaped depositions, and been very impressed by both the House Managers and the counsel for the President. The House Managers, for their part, have presented the facts and argued the Constitution so effectively that they impelled me more than once to seriously consider voting for removal. But after much reflection and review of the extensive evidence before us, of the meaning of the term ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' and, most importantly, of the best interests of the nation, I have concluded that the facts do not meet the high standard the Founders established for conviction and removal. No matter how deeply disappointed I am that our President, who has worked so successfully to lift up the lives of so many people, so lowered himself and his office, I conclude that his wrongdoing in this sordid saga does not justify making him the first President to be ousted from office in our history. I will therefore vote against both Articles of Impeachment. In reaching the judgment that President Clinton is not guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors, I started from the same premise that the Founders did--the right of the people to choose their leaders is paramount in America, derived directly, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, from the equality of rights endowed to the people by our Creator. The supremacy of this first democratic principle was well described by Alexis De Tocqueville in Democracy in America: ``The people reign in the American political world as the Deity does in the universe. They are the cause and the aim of all things; everything comes from them, and everything is absorbed in them.'' (Heffner ed. 1956 p. 58) In debating the President's fate, we must remember that we are deciding is whether to supersede the people's decision about who should lead them--to substitute our judgment for theirs. On this point, the Framers of the Constitution were clear. They had boldly rejected the autocratic rule of a monarch and put in his place a President elected by, and accountable to, the people. Their deliberations show that they did not want even the legislature to exercise too much control over he popularly-chosen President. The Framers provided impeachment to serve as the narrowest of escape valves in the most extreme of cases. As a result, they set an extraordinarily high bar--both procedurally and substantively--for Congress to overcome before we, rather than the voters, could remove a President from office. Specifically, they required a majority of the House of Representatives to impeach and permitted removal only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate--which the Framers surely knew, and the current proceedings have demonstrated, is exceedingly difficult to obtain. They also established a very strict substantive standard, authorizing the Congress to remove a President from office only upon ``Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' (U.S. Constitution, Art. II, sec. 4) The first time I read that clause, ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' I assumed it included any criminal offense--and only criminal offenses--and I thought that it gave Congress broad latitude to impeach and remove from office a President who had committed any violation of the criminal code. But the more I studied the history, the less clear that interpretation became. The phrase ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' was a term of art to the Framers, and it meant something very different from ordinary crimes, the response to which must be left to the criminal justice system. The Framers chose the term high crimes, to connote a very specific type of offense, like treason or bribery, which has a direct impact on the government and undermines the chief executive's ability or will to continue serving without corruption and in the national interest. As Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, high crimes and misdemeanors are ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' (The Federalist Papers, No. 65 Rossiter ed. 1961 p. 396 (emphasis in original)) It is not necessary here to offer a lengthy dissertation on the Constitutional Convention's impeachment debates. But I would like to share a statement of James Madison that illuminates the reasons why the Framers wanted to authorize impeachment and removal, as well as the intended scope of that power. In response to the suggestion that it was dangerous to authorize the legislature to remove the President, Madison argued that it was: indispensable that some provision should be made by defending the Community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers . . . In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic. (II Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 65-66 (Farrand ed. 1888)) ``Loss of capacity or corruption''--that is the evil at which the Constitution's impeachment clauses were directed, in Madison's view. Although neither the words of the Constitution nor the writings of Hamilton, Madison or any of the other Framers of the Constitution provide a precise list of those offenses that prove ``the abuse or violation of some public trust,'' or the ``loss of capacity or corruption'' that would constitute ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' their words and our history offer some help in supplying a more detailed meaning to those terms. First, the Framers saw impeachment as an extreme remedy meant to respond to only a limited universe of offenses. They took great care to ensure that their chosen substantive standard did not have the effect of providing Congress so much discretion over the President's fate that it could use its power to infringe on the President's independence. It was for this precise reason that Madison successfully argued against allowing for removal for ``maladministration,'' for fear that ``[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.'' (II Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 550 (Farrand ed. 1888)) Second, pervading the Framers' discussions--and the Constitutional language they ultimately adopted--was the view that impeachment was intended to protect the nation and the national interest and not to provide the legislature an alternative to the criminal justice system for holding accountable the President or any other violator of the nation's criminal laws. In crafting our Constitution's impeachment clauses, the Framers specifically and consciously departed from the English practice, in which Parliament could use its impeachment power to impose criminal sanctions. Emphasizing that the legislative branch has no constitutional role whatsoever in meting out punishment, whether for the Chief Executive or any other citizen, was so important to the Framers that they declared it not once, but twice in the Constitution-- first when they outlawed bills of attainder (Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 3), and again when they emphasized that ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law'' (Art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7). It is this linguistically-driven irony--that the Constitution's impeachment clauses employ the language of criminal law to authorize a process entirely outside of and distinct from the criminal justice system--that has created so much confusion over our precise task here. The House Managers often appear to suggest that if they show that the President committed a crime, then they have met their burden, because it is our responsibility to hold accountable a President who violates the law and to send a message that the President is not above the law. But as Professor Charles Black so well explained in Impeachment: A Handbook, criminality in and of itself is neither a necessary nor a sufficient basis for concluding that a President has committed a high crime or misdemeanor, because our goal is to protect the nation's interests, not to punish a President for violating the criminal law. He states: ``I think we can say that `high Crimes or Misdemeanors,' in the constitutional sense, ought to be held to be those offenses which are rather obviously wrong, whether or not `criminal,' and which so seriously threaten the order of political society as to make pestilent and dangerous the continuance in power of their perpetrator. The fact that such an act is also criminal helps, even if it is not essential, because a general societal view of wrongness, and sometimes of seriousness, is, in such a case, publicly and authoritatively recorded.'' (1998 ed. pp. 39-40) If the purpose of impeachment was to ensure that the President is held accountable for violating the law, then the Framers would have authorized Congress to impeach and remove, not just for high crimes but for any crimes. They did not do that. They gave us the power of impeachment and removal for one reason and one reason only: to protect the Republic from a Chief Executive who, by his acts, has demonstrated that he can no longer be trusted to govern in the national interest. Responses to all other forms of malfeasance were left to the other branches. That is why I conclude that the appropriate question for each of us to ask is not whether the President committed perjury or obstruction of justice, but whether he committed a high crime or misdemeanor--a term I understand from the history to encompass two categories of offenses. The first includes those that are like treason or bribery in that they represent a gross misuse of official power to directly injure the State or its people. Those guilty of such offenses must be removed from office because they have explicitly demonstrated, by their conduct, that they will place their personal interests above the national interest. The President's counsel and others suggest that we should stop here, arguing that Congress has no authority to remove a President for any offense not committed through the use of official power. (See Trial Memorandum of President Clinton pp. 19-20) I cannot agree. Instead, Madison's argument that we must have an escape valve that allows the legislature to remove a President when the need arises to defend ``the Community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief Magistrate,'' coupled with Hamilton's definition of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as an ``abuse or violation of some public trust,'' convince me that it is more than just misuse of official power that can require the Senate to remove an office holder. Acts that, although in their immediate nature and effect differ from treason or bribery because they do not stem from a misuse of official power, may nevertheless undermine the offender's ability to discharge his duties in the interests of the American people. In other words, the second category of offenses that equal ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' are non-official acts that unequivocally demonstrate the same threat posed by treason or bribery: that the President can no longer be trusted to use his power in the best interests of the nation. It is for this reason that I reject the contention that a President's giving false or misleading statements under oath or his impeding the discovery of evidence in a lawsuit arising out of his personal conduct may never constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. I have no doubt that under certain circumstances such offenses could demonstrate such a level of depravity, deceit and disregard for the administration of justice that we would have no choice but to conclude that the President could no longer be trusted to use the authority of his office and make the decisions entrusted to him as Chief Executive in the best interest of the nation. It is because I hold this position that I found reaching a decision in this case such a difficult matter. Before evaluating the charges against the President, and determining whether his misconduct in fact meets the high threshold the Constitution establishes for removal, each of us had to resolve the important question of what standard of proof should be used for judging the evidence against the President. It is widely agreed that the House Managers have the burden of convincing Members of the Senate that the President has committee a high crime or misdemeanor, but there are differences of opinion on the level of certainly each of us in the Senate must reach before we can conclude that the House has met its burden. During the Impeachment Trial of Judge Alcee Hastings, I gave a great deal of thought to this question, and after weighing the competing interests of preserving the integrity of the judiciary, maintaining the independence of the judiciary, and protecting the personal interests of the office holder, I concluded that the House had to prove it case by ``clear and convincing evidence.'' (See 135 Cong. Rec. S 14359-61 (Oct. 27, 1989)) Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that, in one formulation, produces in the mind ``a firm belief or conviction as to the matter at issue'' (U.S. Fifth Circuit District Judges Association, Pattern Jury Instructions Sec. 2.14 (1998 ed.)) or, put another way, persuades the finder of fact that the claim ``is highly probable'' (Committee on Model Jury Instructions, Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Jury Instructions Sec. 1.12.2 (1997 ed.)). There are valid arguments for adopting the higher standard of ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' in this case, most importantly that the national trauma caused by the removal of a President so far surpasses the damage imposed by the removal of a single judge, that the Senate must remove a President only if it has a very high degree of certainty in the facts underlying its decision. On the other hand, just as the trauma of removing a President is greater than that flowing from removing a judge, the danger an errant President poses to the Republic far exceeds the threat presented by a misbehaving judge. This need to protect the integrity of the Republic and the welfare of its people argues against setting the standard of proof so high that it would result in leaving in power an individual whose fitness to continue serving in the national interest is seriously in doubt, remembering that no matter what the standard, removal still requires two-thirds of the Senators' support. In 1974, then Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield recommended that the standard of ``clear and convincing evidence'' was ``a logical middle ground between the burden of proof requirement in criminal proceedings (`beyond a reasonable doubt') and the burden of proof requirement in civil proceedings (`by a preponderance of the evidence').'' He added these words of insight and reason: An impeachment proceeding is not a criminal proceeding since the Court of Impeachment is barred by the Constitution from imposing any of the usual criminal law sanctions in the event of conviction, and it is not a civil proceeding because the extraordinary formality and complexity of the process and the serious consequences of a conviction and removal (in at least the case of an impeachment of the President of the United States) militate against accepting as adequate the low threshold requirement of a civil action. The burden of proof, like the terminology and various other requirements, must be unique because impeachment itself is unique. It is unique in that it is a hybrid of the legislative and the judicial, the political and the legal. (Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Executive Session Hearings on Senate Rules and Precedents Applicable to Impeachment Trials, Aug. 5-6, 1974, p. 193) For similar reasons, Professor Charles Black in his Handbook on Impeachment (p. 17) offer the standard of ``overwhelming preponderance of the evidence'' as appropriate for impeachment trials. Taken together, those arguments persuaded me to adopt as the appropriate standard of proof the same one I chose in Judge Hastings' impeachment trial: clear and convincing evidence. In other words, to vote for either of the articles before us, I must conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence that President William Jefferson Clinton has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. This brings me to the crux of this case, where it is necessary to apply the standard of proof I have adopted to the evidence the Managers have presented, in order to reach judgment on the Articles before us. A number of specific allegations contained in the Articles lack sufficient legal or evidentiary support. For example, it strikes me as highly doubtful that an obstruction case can be made from the President's statements to aides who later testified to the grand jury. The House asserts that these statements constituted obstruction because the President knew his aides would repeat those statements to the grand jury, thereby providing misleading information to the grand jury. But the House has not adequately explained how the President saying privately to his aides the same thing he was saying to the public could constitute obstruction, particularly when we have been presented no evidence showing that the President made those statements for the purpose of having them repeated to the grand jury. Similarly, the Managers have not offered a convincing legal theory showing how the President obstructed justice simply by failing to dispute his attorney's statements about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky during the President's deposition. And, the Managers have failed to substantiate their allegation that the President committed perjury by misstating the date of his initial sexual encounter with Ms. Lewinsky when he told the grand jury ``When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong'' (Aug. 17, 1998 Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton pp. 8-9). The Managers have not offered evidence that the President's error was intentional, nor did they provide a convincing explanation how such a misstatement was material to the grand jury's investigation. Although the Managers offered slightly more weighty evidence concerning the involvement of the President and his friend, Vernon Jordan, in Ms. Lewinsky's job search at the same time she was filing a false affidavit in the Jones case, their case on this point leaves me suspicious but unconvinced. The evidence is highly circumstantial, amounting largely to an overlap in the timing between Ms. Lewinsky's appearance on the Jones' witness list and Mr. Jordan's efforts to find Ms. Lewinsky a job at the President's request. Both Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan testified that there was no connection between the two events. Although the fact that Ms. Lewinsky's job search and the drafting of her affidavit occurred simultaneously and that Mr. Jordan was involved with both raises questions, nevertheless the ultimate lack of any direct evidentiary connection prevents me from reaching any settled conclusion on the matter. The House has provided more persuasive evidence to support a number of its other allegations. For example, I am troubled by the President's grand jury testimony that he did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky within the meaning of the definition offered him in his Jones deposition. (See, e.g., Aug. 17, 1998 Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton pp. 9, 109) Ms. Lewinsky testified that they had several such encounters. (Aug. 26, 1998 Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky pp. 6-40) The President's counsel responded to this allegation by saying: ``This claim comes down to an oath against an oath about immaterial details concerning an acknowledged wrongful relationship.'' (Trial Memorandum of President Clinton p. 44) I disagree. The President's statement almost certainly was material to the grand jury's investigation. The grand jury was not investigating whether or not Ms. Lewinsky and the President had a relationship per se, but rather whether the President perjured himself in his Jones deposition and obstructed justice. Given that in his Jones deposition, the President specifically denied having sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, it seems not only material, but central to the grand jury's investigation to determine whether the President told the truth he said he did not have sexual relations with her. The fact that Ms. Lewinsky was testifying under an immunity agreement and would therefore be subject to prosecution if she lied, and that most of her other testimony is uncontroverted, so much that the President's counsel relies on it at several key points, leads me to view her testimony about the details of her sexual relationship with the President as credible. The same is true of her consistent testimony that it was Betty Currie who called her and told Ms. Lewinsky she understood she had something for her--the gifts from the President. (See Feb. 1, 1999 Deposition of Monica Lewinsky, 145 Congressional Record S. 1225 (Feb. 4, 1999.) Although it is a less central matter, I am puzzled by the President's including in his prepared grand jury testimony the statement that ``I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this [inappropriate] conduct.'' (Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton p. 9.) As the House Managers pointed out, according to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President engaged in ``this conduct'' on the first day they met. The series of questions which Betty Currie (a friendly witness to the President) testified that the President asked her on the day after his deposition in January 1998 and again a few days later are most troubling--both as to the credibility of the President's testimony to the grand jury regarding those statements and as to whether his intent in making those statements was to wrongly influence Ms. Currie's potential testimony. The President testified that he asked Ms. Currie those questions ``to refresh my memory about what the facts were.'' (Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton p. 131.) In their trial memorandum (pp. 52-53), the President's counsel assert that his statement is consistent with Ms. Currie's testimony that the President seemed to be trying to gather information. But the President did not testify that he was trying to gather information generally. He stated that he was trying to refresh his own memory. And this, unfortunately, seems to me to be an implausible explanation of what he was doing. In his testimony before the grand jury on August 17, 1998, the President admitted that he had ``inappropriate intimate contact'' with Ms. Lewinsky and that the relationship occurred ``when I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky.'' (Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton pp. 8-9.) He therefore must have known in January 1998, when he asked Ms. Currie the series of questions, that the statements they contained (for example, that ``I was never alone with Monica Lewinsky,'' that Ms. Currie ``could see and hear everything,'' and that ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'') either were not true or were beyond Ms. Currie's knowledge and that Ms. Currie could not possibly help refresh his memory. The President called Ms. Currie in on January 18, 1998 to ask her those questions after the surprise questions he was asked the day before in the Jones deposition about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and after he repeatedly invoked Ms. Currie's name in connection with Ms. Lewinsky in response to those questions. (See Jan. 17, 1998 Deposition of President Clinton, reprinted in Senate Doc. 106- 3 Vol. XXII, pp. 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.) Certainly, if the Jones lawyers wanted to further investigate the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the President's own statements would have led them directly to Ms. Currie. In summary, although the House managers have left me thoroughly unconvinced of some of their allegations, the evidence presented on others does lead me to believe that it is likely that there were occasions on which the President made false or misleading statements and took actions which could have had the effect of impeding the discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings. Whether any of his conduct constitutes a criminal offense such as perjury or obstruction of justice is not for me to decide. That, appropriately, should and must be left to the criminal justice system, which will uphold the rule of law in President Clinton's case as it would for any other American. What I must do is uphold the Constitution and decide whether the House Managers have presented clear and convincing evidence that the President has committed a high crime or misdemeanor, which is to say whether they have demonstrated that his misconduct has so compromised his capacity to govern in the national interest that he must be removed. I conclude that the House Managers have not met that high burden. I am, of course, profoundly unsettled by President Clinton's irresponsibility in carrying on a sexual relationship with an intern in the Oval Office and by the disregard for the truth he showed in trying to conceal it from his family, his staff, the courts and the American people. But the Managers have failed to convince me with the evidence they have presented that his misbehavior, as charged in the articles of impeachment, makes him a threat to the national interest, and that we can no longer expect the President to govern free of corruption in the nation's best interests. Indeed, the Managers have barely addressed this point of consequences at all, providing almost no evidence or argument that the republic needs protecting from this President. Rather, they have presented their case largely as if the Senate were a criminal court, as if our sole responsibility were to determine whether the President is guilty of the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, as if those specific crimes were the indisputable equivalent of high crimes or misdemeanors automatically warranting the President's removal. And in doing do, I believe, they have failed to cross the higher constitutional threshold of proving that the President has forfeited his right to fill out the term for which the people elected him. The voice of the American people, in fact, indicates that just the opposite is true. According to every public poll we have seen, a clear majority of the American people have continued to support the President throughout this ordeal. Nearly two-thirds of them say repeatedly that they approve of the job that President Clinton is doing in running the country, and that they oppose his removal. In my state of Connecticut, a survey done by The Hartford Courant just last week showed that 68 percent of my constituents rate the President's job performance as excellent or good, and a full three quarters of them believe he deserves to stay in office. In noting this, I recognize that is would be a dereliction of my duty to substitute public opinion polls for reasoned judgment about our national interest in resolving this constitutional crisis. But it would also be a serious error to ignore the people's voice, because in exercising our authority as a court of impeachment we are standing in the place of the voters who re-elected the President two years ago. In this case, the prevailing public opposition to impeachment has particular relevance, for it provides substantial evidence that the President's misconduct has not been so harmful as to shatter the public's faith in his ability to fulfill his Presidential duties and act in their interest. It is possible, of course, that a popular President could nevertheless be corrupt and pose a threat to the nation, which is to say that public opinion is not the only barometer of fitness for office. But in this democracy it is an indispensable measure, and in light of the ultimately unconvincing evidence the Managers have presented to demonstrate the President's loss of capacity or corruption, the public's opposition to removal carries weight in my deliberations. It carries particular weight given the overwhelming amount of information the news media has provided us about the details of the President's behavior, which strongly suggests that the American people have not reached their conclusions in ignorance of the President's flaws or faults. The public opinion polls tell us more than that the majority of people support his continuance in office. Those two-thirds who consistently give him high ratings for his job performance have also strongly expressed their disapproval of his sexual behavior and his deliberate lies to the nation. Indeed, surveys have routinely shown that, as a consequence of this scandal, less than one-fifth of the American people claim that they share the President's moral and ethical values, a result I find stunning and which may be unparalleled in our history. How can so many Americans simultaneously hold the views that the President has demeaned his office and yet should not be evicted from it? We will be trying to answer that question and to weigh the consequences of those seemingly conflicting opinions for a long time to come. But I believe the explanation must have something to do with the context of the President's actions. As the record makes abundantly clear, the President's false or misleading statements under oath and his broader deception and cover-up stemmed directly from his private sexual behavior, something that no other sitting American president to my knowledge has ever been questioned about in a legal setting. The President neither lied about nor was trying to conceal presidential malfeasance or a heinous crime, such as murder or rape, but instead sought to hide a sexual relationship with an intern that was deeply embarrassing, shameful, even indefensible, yet not illegal. Indeed, troubled as I am by much of the evidence the Managers presented and the arguments they made, on each occasion I considered voting for removal I invariably came back to this question of context, and I asked myself: Are these the kinds of offenses the Founders envisioned when they entrusted us with the awesome power of invoking our democracy's ultimate sanction? Does this tawdry, tragic episode justify, for the first time in our proud history, ejecting from office the individual the American people chose to lead the country? And each time I had to answer no. To reach this conclusion, that the context matters in judging the President's misconduct, is in the eyes of the House Managers and many of the President's critics and abdication of duty and honor. It is, they contend, to wink at any immorality, any transgression that is connected to sexual behavior, to sacrifice our most precious principles at the altar of moral relativism. And worse, by choosing to acquit the President, they argue, we are setting an awful precedent for presidents to come. I understand and share the frustrations that lead to these criticisms. As I stated in the speech I made on this floor on September 3rd of last year, I was deeply angered by the President's recklessness and his purposeful deceit. The conduct he had acknowledged at that point in his grand jury testimony was not only immoral but harmful. The President is, as eminent historian Clinton Rossiter noted, the American people's ``one authentic trumpet,'' (Rossiter ``The American Presidency'' 1955 p. 23) and when the notes he sounds falter in the expression of our common values, it has an effect, one that cannot be ignored. That was made clear to me in talking with many parents and children about this matter over the last several months, hearing the dismay and distrust in their voices, which was powerful evidence to me that the President had undercut his moral authority and undermined public confidence in his word. My disappointment and anger with the President's actions were reawakened as I listened to the evidence the Managers have presented. And like many of my colleagues, I am left dissatisfied with the all-or- nothing nature of the choice we have been asked to make in this proceeding, between removing this President from office on the one hand, or not removing him on the other, which could imply exoneration or even vindication. But as unsatisfying as that choice is, it is the only one that the Founders empowered the Senate to make in this impeachment proceeding. Our responsibility is not to pass judgment on the morality of the President's behavior, or to find whether he committed a specific crime. Impeachment is not an instrument of protest, or of prosecution, but one of protection, of our country, its people, and our democratic ideals. When the roll is called on each article and I answer ``not guilty,'' I want it understood that I am saying ``not guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor,'' and that is all I can say. With that understood, I do believe the Constitution allows for one recourse that would provide a means for us as the people's representatives to register our and their disapproval, and would, I believe, help us to bring appropriate closure to this terrible chapter in our nation's history. It is well within the Senate's constitutional prerogatives to adopt a resolution of censure expressing our contempt for the President's misconduct, both that which is charged in the articles and that which is not. Such a censure would not amount to a punishment, nor would it be intended to do so. What it would do, particularly if it united Senators across party lines and positions on removal, is fulfill our responsibility to our children and our posterity to speak to the common values the President has violated, and make clear what our expectations are for future holders of that highest office. And what it could do, I believe, is to help us to begin healing the wounds the President's misconduct and the impeachment process's partisanship have done to the American body politic, and to the soul of the nation. I have observed that roughly two-thirds of the public consistently expresses its opposition to the President's removal. But I do not think we can leave this proceeding, especially those of us who have voted against the Articles, without also noting that roughly one- third of the American people have consistently expressed their belief that this President is unfit to lead this nation. That is a startlingly large percentage of our people who have totally lost confidence in our nation's leader. This extraordinary divergence of opinion tells us that there is a rift in our public life that extends far beyond the specific circumstances of this case, a rift that the President's misconduct has only exacerbated. A statement of censure is not an antidote that will magically eliminate this division, but I believe it will help by demonstrating that we can find common moral ground and articulate our common values even though we Senators and our constituents have disagreed about impeachment. For that reason, I hope that once this trial is concluded, we will put aside our partisan loyalties and our political hesitations and overcome parliamentary obstacles to join together in passing a resolution that affirms our belief that the presidency is and must continue to be, in the words of Clinton Rossiter, ``the one-man distillation of the American people,'' (The American Presidency p. 11), the steward of our freedom and our values. In closing, Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to quote from a wise and compelling insight that Manager Hyde put forward in his final argument. The most formidable obstacle the Managers faced in making their case, he said, was public cynicism, ``the widespread conviction that all politics and all politicians are by definition corrupt and venal.'' He went on to say, ``That cynicism is an acid eating away at the vital organs of American public life. It is a clear and present danger because it blinds us to the nobility and the fragility of being a self- governing people.'' While I disagree with Manager Hyde's ultimate conclusion in this case, I could not agree more with his eloquent assessment of this threat to our democracy. It is a problem I addressed at the end of the campaign finance investigation that the Governmental Affairs Committee conducted in 1997, when I argued that the mad chase for money that dominates and distorts our political system gives the American people, already deeply skeptical of the motives of politicians, good reason to doubt whether they have a true and equal voice in their government. And it is a problem that I fear has grown significantly worse in the wake of this unseemly saga and the damage it has done to the public's esteem for and expectations of their leaders. The long and painful process of impeachment is about to come to an end, and thankfully so, but the enormous challenge we face in restoring the public's faith in our public institutions and those who serve in them is just beginning. This is the next great test for the President and for each of us, the fight against cynicism's corrosive influence and the loss of public trust. If we once again seek the help of our common Creator and the counsel of our shared Constitution, and through our actions express their ideals and fulfill their expectations, I am confident we can in time renew a sense of common purpose and reassure the citizenry we serve that America is indeed, as Webster proclaimed, one country with one destiny. Thank you.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators McCain and Robb today in introducing legislation to extend and expand the Defense Department's successful Troops to Teachers initiative, which helps to steer former military personnel into classroom teaching jobs. To date Troops to Teachers has placed more than 3,000 retired or downsized service members in public schools in 48 different states, providing participants with assistance in obtaining the proper certification or licensing and matching them up with prospective employers. In return, these new teachers bring to the classroom what educators say our schools need most: mature and disciplined role models, most of them male and many of them minorities, well-trained in math and science and high tech fields, highly motivated, and highly capable of working in challenging environments. Our bill, the Troops to Teachers Improvement Act, aims to build on this success by encouraging more military retirees to move into teaching. It would do so by offering those departing troops new incentives to enter the teaching profession, particularly for those who are willing to serve in areas with large concentrations of at-risk children and severe shortages of qualified teaching candidates. The reality is, Mr. President, that the nation as a whole is facing a serious teacher shortage. The Department of Education is projecting that local school districts will have to hire more than two million new teachers over the next decade due to surging enrollments and the aging of America's teaching force. We were reminded again of this problem just this past Sunday by a front-page in the Washington Post, which described in some detail the challenge facing school systems across the country. As the Post article pointed out, this is a critical challenge for the nation, because our hopes of raising academic standards and student achievement will hinge in large part on the capabilities and talents of the men and women who fill those two million places in the classroom. Studies show conclusively, and not surprisingly, that teacher quality is one of the greatest determinants of student achievement, and that low-performing students make dramatic gains when they study with the most knowledgeable teachers. The American public is very aware of this crucial link, as evidenced in a survey done last November, in which nine out of 10 people listed raising teacher quality as one of our top educational priorities. The President began to address this critical challenge with his proposal to hire 100,000 new teachers, a plan I was proud to cosponsor. The Congress gave preliminary approval to this plan last fall through the Omnibus Appropriations bill we passed, which included funding for the first year of the program. I hope we will fully authorized this program this year to give local school districts full confidence that the funding for their efforts will be forthcoming. But the question remains who is going to fill those new positions, and it is this question that most concerns me. Over the last few years, we have seen some troubling indications about the quality of teaching candidates being produced by the nation's education schools. Most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that college students who choose to go into teaching today tend to fall near the bottom of their peer group academically--a survey of students in 21 different fields of study found that education majors ranked 17th in their performance on the SAT. And most Americans would probably also be surprised to know that many of those would-be teachers are struggling to pass basic skills tests after graduating from their training programs. In Massachusetts, for example, 59 percent of the 1,800 candidates who took the state's first- ever certification exam flunked a literacy exam that the state board of education chairman rated as at ``about the eight-grade level,'' In Long Island, to cite another example, only one in four teaching candidates in a pool of 758 could pass an English test normally given to 11th- graders. These indicators are troubling in their own right, but they are even more so when we consider the pressures local school districts are under to fill holes in their teaching staffs. Many school systems around the country are already feeling the effects of the teacher shortage, and as a result administrators are being forced to grant large numbers of emergency waivers to certification or licensure rules. This is a troubling trend, because while certification is not a guarantee of quality, the fact that so many schools are lowering their standards to fill vacancies only heightens the chance that children in those schools will be struck with an unqualified instructor. In light of all of these developments, I think it is imperative that we search for new ways to attract more of the nation's best and brightest to the classroom, and we look beyond our education schools to tap new pools of talent. That is why I am so enthusiastic about the creative approach taken by the Troops to Teachers program. I can't think of a better source of teaching candidates than the smart, disciplined and dedicated men and women who leave the military every year, or a better return on the investment we as taxpayers have made in their training. A recent evaluation done by the non-partisan National Center for Education Information reveals that the troops who have participated so far have excelled in their new careers. Our research shows that military people transition extremely well into teaching,'' said NCEI President Emily Feistritzers. ``They are a rich source of teachers in all the areas where we need teachers--geographically and by subject area. There are more males among them than in normal recruiting, and they are very committed; they are going into teaching for all the right reasons. The NCEI study found that 90 percent of program participants were male, in comparison to the current teaching force, which is three- quarters female; that more than 75 percent of the troops were teaching in inner cities or in small towns and rural areas, often where shortages are most acute and where strong male role models are most needed; and that 85 percent of the troops who started teaching over he last four years are still on the job, a retention rate far higher than for other new educators. One of the most important needs these troops are filling is in math and science classes. Several surveys have shown that a startling number of the men and women who are teaching math and science in middle and high schools today are not trained in these fields. This problem is especially severe in inner city school districts, where approximately half of all math and science teachers lack a major or minor in their field. The soldiers who are participating in Troops to Teachers often have advanced training in engineering and technology, and are well- equipped to prepare our children for the demands of the Information Age economy. It there is one place where Troops to Teachers is falling short, it is in the number of participants. According to the Defense Department, less than 2 percent of the military personnel who have been eligible for the program have participated in the past five years. This is due in part, we believe, to the fact that Congress has not appropriated any money for the program in the last four years, and thereby stopped providing any financial support to troops who often incur thousands of dollars in costs for certification and relocations. The central goal of our legislation--beyond renewing the program's authorization, which expires at the end of this fiscal--is to boost that participation rate, to persuade more troops to embrace a new way to serve their nation. Our bill would authorize $25 million for each of the next five years, the bulk of which would go toward funding stipends of $5,000 to participants who commit to teach four years, and a special ``bonus'' stipend of $10,000 to troops who commit to teach in high- needs areas, which we hope will spur more former service members to consider teaching. I particularly hope our legislation will increase participation in my state of Connecticut. According to the Defense Department, only six troops have been placed in teaching jobs in Connecticut to date, which is disappointing given the significant number of military personnel located in the state. The Connecticut Department of Education believes local school districts could substantially benefit from this untapped resource, and for that reason the department has strongly voiced its support for our legislation. Even with the new incentives we are creating, which we hope will recruit as many as 3,000 new teachers each year, we recognize that Troops to Teachers will still only make a modest dent in solving the national shortage. But we will, with an extremely modest investment, make a substantial contribution to our common goals of raising teaching standards and helping our children realize their potential. And we may well galvanize support for a recruitment method that, as Education Secretary Richard Riley has suggested, could serve as a model for bringing many more bright, talented people from different professions to serve in our public schools and raise teaching standards there. The President has already expressed his strong support for our efforts to renew and revitalize Troops to Teachers, including new funding for it in his FY 2000 budget request. I hope my colleagues will join the impressive bipartisan coalition of cosponsors we have already assembled in supporting our legislation. We have a great opportunity here to harness a unique national resource to meet a pressing national need, and I hope we will seize it this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.