Joseph Lieberman

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.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, each Member of the Senate is obligated today to render a judgment, a profound judgment, about the conduct of President William Jefferson Clinton and the call of the House of Representatives to remove him from office. A motion to dismiss the two articles of impeachment lodged against the President has been put before us, and so we must now determine whether there are sufficient grounds to continue with the impeachment trial, or whether we know enough to reach a conclusion and end these proceedings. I know enough from the record the House forwarded to us and the public record to reach certain conclusions about the President's conduct. President Clinton had an extramarital sexual relationship with a young White House employee, which, though consensual, was reckless and immoral, and thus raised a series of questions about his judgment and his respect for the office. He then made false and 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 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. The question before us now is whether the President's wrongdoing--as outlined in the two articles of impeachment--was more than reprehensible, more than harmful, and in this case, more than strictly criminal. We must now decide whether the President's wrongdoing makes his continuance in office a threat to our government, our people, and the national interest. That to me 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.'' This trial has now proceeded for 10 session days. 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. I have listened intently throughout, and both the House Managers and the counsel for the President have been very impressive. 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 high crimes and misdemeanors, and, most importantly, of what I believe to be in the best interests of the nation, I have concluded that the facts do not meet the high standard the Founders established and do not justify removing this President from office. It was for this reason that I decided today to vote in favor of dismissing the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, and against the motion to allow for the testimony of live witnesses. I plan to submit a more detailed statement explaining exactly how I arrived at these decisions when the final votes are taken on the articles of impeachment. But I do think it is important at this point to summarize my arguments for voting to end the trial now. I start from the indisputable premise that the Founders intended impeachment to be a measure of extreme last resort, because it would disrupt the democratic process they so carefully calibrated and would supersede the right of the people to choose their leaders, which was at the heart of their vision of the new democracy they were creating. That is why I believe that the Constitutional standard in question here-- ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors''--demands clear and convincing evidence that the President committed offenses that, to borrow from the words of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison respectively, proceed from ``the abuse or violation of some public trust,'' and that demonstrate a ``loss of capacity or corruption.'' A review of the constitutional history convinces me that impeachment was not meant to supplant the criminal justice system but to provide a political remedy for offenses so egregious and damaging that the President can no longer be trusted to serve the national interest. The House Managers therefore had the burden of proving in a clear and convincing way that the behavior on which the articles of impeachment are based has irreparably compromised the President's capacity to govern in the nation's best interest. I conclude that, as unsettling as their arguments have been, they have not met that burden. I base that conclusion in part on the factual context of the President's actions. As the record makes abundantly clear, the President's false and misleading statements under oath and his broader deception and cover-up stemmed directly from his private sexual misconduct, something that no other sitting American president to my knowledge has ever been questioned about in a legal setting. On each occasion when I came close to the brink of deciding to vote for one of the articles of impeachment, I invariably came back to this question of context and asked myself: does this sordid story justify, for the first time in our nation's history, taking out of office the person the American people chose to lead the country? Each time I answered, ``no.'' The record shows that the President was not trying to conceal public malfeasance or some heinous crime, like murder, and I believe that distinction, while not determinative, does matter. The American people, according to most public surveys, also think that distinction matters-- which helps us to understand why the overwhelming majority of them can simultaneously hold the views that the President has demeaned his office and yet should not be evicted from it. In noting this, I recognize that it would be a dereliction of our duty to substitute public opinion polls for our reasoned judgment 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, while harmful to his moral authority and his personal credibility, 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. Nearly two-thirds of them say repeatedly that they approve of the job that President Clinton is doing and that they oppose his removal, which means that, though they are deeply disaffected by his personal behavior, they do not believe that he has lost his capacity to govern in the national interest. In reaching my conclusion, I first had to determine that the request of the House Managers to bring witnesses to the floor would not add to the record and the arguments that have been made, or change my conclusion or the outcome of this trial, which most Senators and observers agree will not end in the President's removal. It is true that witnesses may add demeanor evidence, but they will subtract from the Senate's demeanor, and unnecessarily extend the trial for some time, preventing the Senate from returning to the other pressing business of the nation. Am I content to have this trial end in the articles failing to receive the required two-thirds vote of the Senate for removal? The truth is that nothing about this terrible national experience leaves me comfortable. But an unequivocal, bipartisan statement of censure by Congress would, at least, 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 Presidents. Such a censure would bring better closure to this demeaning and divisive episode, and help us begin to heal the injuries the President's misconduct and the impeachment process's partisanship have done to the American body politic, and to the soul of the nation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Cleland and Senator Levin for their leadership in developing and offering this bill, and I am pleased to join the other Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in cosponsoring this initiative aimed at addressing the problem of attracting and retaining the right men and women in the right numbers for our military. The effectiveness of our military, and its readiness to act immediately to protect our national interests, must always be a priority concern of Congress, as the continuing challenges around the world today demonstrate. There are few things that we will do this year that are more important, because the security of our country rests squarely on the shoulders of the men and women that provide our defenses and protect our interests. The outstanding performance of our forces in Desert Fox shows that the American military remains more than equal to the task, and that we have what is unequivocally the number one force in the world. In fact, it may well be the best we have ever fielded. Even at the height of the cold war, with the largest military budgets ever, it is difficult to see those units being able to routinely execute the range of complex operations with the expertise that our units today are doing. Nonetheless, our military faces readiness problems, many of them serious. They include falling recruiting and retention of critical skills, 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. Some of these problems will get much more serious unless we act to fix them soon. The military Chiefs of Staff deserve credit for persevering in keeping these challenges to our readiness before us. President Clinton also deserves credit for his decision to increase the defense budget to address these important problems. But if this increase only fixes the worst of the short term readiness problems and diverts us from seriously addressing the hard long-term questions of readiness and modernization that face us, it could do us as much harm as good. And if it generates a partisan debate over who can increase the defense budget the most, we will be rightly criticized for trying to solve our increasingly complex security problems by throwing money at them, which makes no more sense as a response to our military problems than it did for our social problems. I think what we are spending money on is just as important as how much we are spending. First, we must demand 100 percent cost effectiveness, the elimination of waste and redundancy, and that includes closing down military facilities (bases and depots) that don't make military-economic sense anymore. Second, as we evaluate our readiness we must persistently ask, ready for what? What are the threats we face today and what are the emerging threats we will face tomorrow. If we do not develop and field the right organizations, weapons, and concepts to meet future challenges, and as a result fail to successfully meet one of those future challenges to our security, it will not matter much to remind ourselves how ready we were in 1999 when the threats are probably less than they will be then. As Under Secretary of Defense Gansler has pointed out, the money projected to be added to the defense budget, or any increase we can reasonably foresee, won't be enough to completely pay for both increasing current readiness and meeting the modernization requirements of all the Services. So it is extremely important that we take extraordinary measures to be sure that we are spending our money wisely. There is no doubt that spending our money to adequately and fairly compensate our military men and women is the wisest use of our defense dollars. Therefore I am very proud that we have recognized this fact by offering this bill outside the normal defense authorization process. Doing so signals the importance we place on our military personnel. I think it is a good bill. I support spending what is necessary. And I think we have gotten it mostly right. However, I consider this a good point of departure, not a final product. I believe we have not yet done all of the critical analysis necessary to know where the priority should go within the broad category of pay and allowances to most effectively attract and retain the right people. I hope the Senate Armed Services Committee will make this task our highest priority when it is referred to our committee for action. I am sure we will act in a completely bipartisan way to arrive at the best result possible. It is a proud bipartisan tradition of the Senate Armed Services Committee that attracting, retaining, and providing adequately for our men and women in uniform is among our most important responsibilities.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, since 1983, the United States Congress and the German legislature have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and convey Members' views on issues of mutual concern. A staff delegation from the United States Congress will be selected to visit Germany May 22 to June 5 of this year. During the two week exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag Members, Bundestag party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic, and media agencies. Cultural activities and a weekend visit in a Bundestag Member's district will complete the schedule. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for three weeks this summer. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington and visit the districts of Congressional Members. The Congress-Bundestag Exchange is highly regarded in Germany, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. The ongoing situation in the Persian Gulf, the expansion of NATO, the proposed expansion of the European Union, and the introduction of the Euro will make this year's exchange particularly relevant. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff members who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag sends senior staff professionals to the United States. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern in Germany and the United States such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, immigration, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag staff members when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two Bundestag staffers in their Member's district in July, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district. Participants are selected by a committee composed of U.S. Information Agency personnel and past participants of the exchange. Senators and Representatives who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state why they believe they are qualified and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications may be sent to Connie Veillette in Congressman Regula's office, 2309 Rayburn House Building by noon on Friday, March 12.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to add my voice to those supporting the passage of the Vacancies Reform Act as part of this bill. The Vacancies Reform Act addresses an enormously important issue: the need to protect the Senate's constitutional role in the appointment of Federal officers. The Constitution provides that the President's power to appoint officers of the United States is to be exercised ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' Unfortunately, in too many cases, over the course of the past several Administrations, the Senate's constitutional prerogatives have been ignored, through the Executive's far too common practice of appointing acting officials to serve lengthy periods in positions that are supposed to be filled with individuals confirmed by the Senate. With the leadership of Senators Byrd and Thompson, we in the Governmental Affairs Committee have worked for a large part of this session to try to find a solution to this problem that reasserted the Senate's constitutional rights while at the same time avoided creating an unwarranted risk to the Government's good functioning. As noted in the Additional Views I and others signed to the committee's report, the bill the committee reported in July and the Senate considered in September went most of the way toward achieving these goals. Nevertheless, because it still contained a number of troubling provisions that, in my view, could have hindered the ability of the executive branch to carry out its duties, I could not in the end support that version of the bill. Since the bill's floor consideration in September, all of the interested parties have worked hard and in good faith to address the concerns that remained about the bill, with the result that we now have a good bill, one that offers a measured and appropriate response to the Executive's longstanding unwillingness to comply with the dictates of the Vacancies Act. I am particularly pleased that the final version of the bill resolves one of my biggest concerns--that we not define who may serve as an acting official in a manner that, in some cases, effectively precludes anyone from serving in an acting capacity. The final version of the bill well addresses this problem by offering the President the option to choose any senior agency staff who has worked at the agency for at least 90 days to serve as the acting official. So, Mr. President, let me once again thank Senator Byrd, Senator Thompson, and the others who have worked so hard on this bill. I am pleased that it soon will become law.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act, which is included in the Conference Report on H.R. 4328, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, under Division C, Title IV. The House passed this Act as H.R. 3736 on September 24. The Senate had passed the companion bill, S. 1723, on May 18. I cosponsored the Senate bill because I believe strongly that the U.S. Government's job is to make sure that U.S. industry has adequate access to the resources necessary to grow their business. Right now we have the lowest unemployment rate in 28 years. The high-tech sector, which has been the engine of growth in our economy--creating the most jobs--cannot find enough skilled workers. If U.S. industry needs more skilled workers than the U.S. labor force can provide, as the Department of Commerce has documented, then we must allow them to hire foreign skilled workers, and, as is more often the case, allow them to hire foreign graduate students educated here in the United States. These foreign workers create wealth and more jobs in this country. If we block these visas the research will go abroad. The Semiconductor Research Corporation, founded by the U.S. semiconductor industry, supports approximately 800 graduate students each year with merit-based scholarships. Some of the students receiving grants are foreigners studying here in the United States. They told me that this year, for the first time, they have been unable to hire all of the graduate students whose research they funded, even though the students wished to remain in the United States, because they cannot get H-1B visas. When I cosponsored S. 1723 in May, I believed it was a good bill because it not only temporarily increased the number of visas available for skilled workers, but it also set up education and training programs for Americans so that more U.S. workers will soon be eligible for these high-paying jobs in the high-tech sector. I am delighted to say that I believe the bill that emerged from the long and detailed negotiation between Senator Abraham and the White House is now even better legislation. The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act increases the number of visas available for the next three years, includes funding to decrease processing time for visa applications, and funds education and training programs to increase the pool of skilled workers in the United States. For the benefit of workers, it includes substantial protections for U.S. workers, increases enforcement authority for the Department of Labor to protect workers rights, and creates additional protections for H1-B employees. These new protections will help eliminate real and/or perceived hiring practices that came under criticism and made this such a controversial visa program. Removing the opportunity for abuse of the program makes its a stronger program and broadens its base of support. This act is in the best interests of both U.S. and foreign workers and U.S. business. The funding that is included in this act is vitally important. Too often, Congress passes legislation with the result that executive branch agencies or States are expected to provide more services and programs with less money. This act funds each of the programs it creates and the increased duties it requires of government agencies with a fee on each visa. It funds K-12 science programs. It funds scholarships in the math, science and engineering fields. And it funds training in high-tech skills. I would like to speak in particular about the training program contained in the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act, Section 414 (c). As the chief sponsor of this provision, I want in these remarks to particularly address the intent and meaning of the provision. Section 414 (c) directs the Secretary of Labor to establish demonstration projects to provide technical skills training for workers. What makes this program unique is not just that it is targeted at technical skills, but that it will be open to both employed and unemployed workers. Most Department of Labor training programs are solely for unemployed, displaced or disadvantaged workers. But in today's market, technology changes so quickly that no longer can people be trained in their twenties and expect to use those same skills throughout their career. American workers used to have one job for life. Now the average American will have five to ten jobs in a lifetime. Employees need to update their skills continually to remain competitive. Realistically, we must allow Department of Labor training programs to include workers who have jobs now, and want to upgrade and update their skills so they can qualify for the changing needs of industry, instead of waiting until they lose their job or become dislocated workers from a declining industry. The United States is in the enviable situation at this time of having under 5% unemployment. The high-tech industry tells us it has as many as 190,000 unfilled jobs. This does not necessarily mean that we do not have the people to fill those jobs; it means we don't have the people who have the skills to fill those jobs. Nearly seven out of ten employers say that the high school graduates they see are not yet ready to succeed in the workplace. The jobs in the high-tech sector pay more than other jobs. The average wage in the high-tech sector pays 73% more than the average wage in the private sector. The average high-tech manufacturing wage is 32% higher than the U.S. manufacturing average wage. We need to help our citizens get the training they need to get these higher paying jobs. The reality is that we have a global economy and there is, more and more, a global workforce. If companies cannot find skilled workers in the United States, they will find them in another country. This training program will help U.S. workers get the skills they need to stay competitive. I want to explain my intent for the program established under Section 414 (c). I intend this program to be used for innovative approaches to solving our labor skills shortage; specifically, consortia and community-based programs. I intend the program to be used as a catalyst to bring small and medium sized businesses together to set up cooperative programs of skills training. I believe the best results can be gained from industry-driven programs. To have industry involved in and leading the skills training will ensure that workers are being trained for jobs that actually exist. Ninety-nine percent of the 23 million businesses in the United States are small businesses. But, small businesses often do not have the resources to operate training programs by themselves. By joining together in consortia of other small and medium sized businesses with similar labor needs, with the Local Workforce Investment Boards established by the Workforce Investment Partnership Act signed into law this year, with community colleges, or labor organizations, or with State or local governments, small and medium sized businesses can participate in training courses that will increase the labor pool of skilled workers needed in their region. Companies, however, do not normally cooperate in training workers. That is why the government is needed to provide the catalyst to bring companies together to cooperate on training. It is expected that the fee from the visas will generate approximately $50 million annually for the training program. It is my hope that the Secretary of Labor will consider, as she establishes these programs, requiring matching funds from the consortia. Nothing in this act precludes such matching funds. Matching funds will help ensure that the companies take an active role in the training program. The Secretary of Labor has the discretion to undertake this implementation approach. Of course, available federal funds are meant only to start the process--federal funding would end over time after which the consortia would continue the cooperative training programs alone. Mr. President, let me give some examples of the type of program I am discussing. In the last few years, a small number of regional and industry-based training alliances in the United States have emerged, usually in partnership with state and local governments and technical colleges, that exemplify the type of program on which this provision in the manager's amendment is modeled. In Rhode Island, with help from the state's Human Resource Investment Council, regional plastics firms developed a skills alliance which then worked with a local community college to create a polymer training laboratory linked to an apprenticeship program that guarantees jobs for graduates. The Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, a consortium of metal-working firms in conjunction with the AFL-CIO, refitted an abandoned mill with state-of-the-art manufacturing equipment to teach workers essential metal-working skills. In Washington, DC, telecommunications firms donated computers and helped set up a program to train public high school students to be computer network administrators. They then hired graduates of the program at entry-level salaries of $25,000-$30,000. Without some kind of support to create alliances, such as created by the new provision in this act, small and medium sized firms just don't have the time or resources to collaborate on training. In fact, almost all the existing regional skills alliances report that they would not have been able to get off the ground without an independent staff entity, such as a college or labor organization, to operate the alliance. Widespread and timely deployment of these kinds of partnerships is simply not likely to happen without the incentives established by a federal initiative, which is created by this act. The training provision in the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act can help create successful new training models and templates that others can replicate across the nation. I want to thank Senator Abraham and Lee Liberman Otis and Stuart Anderson of his staff who worked tirelessly to ensure that the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act would pass the 105th Congress. I also want to thank Laureen Daly of my staff for all her dedicated efforts on this essential legislation. We have accomplished something important for our workforce needs and for training in this legislation. certification regarding certain imf assistance

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to recognize the dedication of Mr. Jack Hechler, who for the past decade has served as an interpreter and escort for an annual Congressional exchange program; the U.S. Congress/Bundestag Staff Exchange. This highly successful program has been in existence since 1983 and serves as a guideline to staff exchanges around the world. For the past ten years, Mr. Hechler has been the contract interpreter and escort for the German staff delegation which arrives each summer for a three week program in the United States. Born and raised in Germany, Mr. Hechler graduated from American University in Washington, DC, served in Korea with the U.S. Armed Forces and for more than 37 years was an active Civil Service employee who, prior to retirement was the Director of Policy, Plans and Evaluation at the General Service Administration. Now retired, Mr. Hechler has been devoted to the U.S. Congress--Bundestag Staff Exchange Program. Jack Hechler has been invaluable to the U.S. Congress-Bundestag Staff Exchange program by providing continuity to a program which relies heavily on alumni volunteers. The ten member German delegations and the network of American alumni have counted on his insight and discussions to add to this annual program. A recipient of the Order of Merit from the Federal Republic of Germany for his work with this exchange program, he has provided a tremendous service and I offer my most sincere thanks to Jack for his efforts on behalf of the U.S. Congress-Bundestag Staff Exchange program. For a decade of service, vielen dank.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge an important milestone by an important institution in my home state of Connecticut--Pitney Bowes. For the past 78 years, Pitney Bowes has been at the forefront of technological innovation. The postage metering mechanisms that the company patented more than seven decades ago have faithfully performed their everyday task of metering postage. Twenty years ago Pitney Bowes introduced a postage by phone system, which allowed businesses to refill their postage meters over the phone. This technology has just passed a major milestone. Recently, Pitney Bowes announced the signing of its one-millionth active postage by phone customer. Connecticut's Governor, John Rowland, was on hand to commemorate this event and presented the company with a proclamation noting that nearly three quarters of a billion dollars in time and labor have been saved since the postage by phone system was implemented. Together with numerous mass mailing machines developed over the years, Pitney Bowes has changed the face of commerce. They enabled mass mail marketing and created millions of jobs. Indeed, every member of this body has had a campaign that depended on the mass mail systems developed by Pitney Bowes. However, Pitney Bowes is not just postage meters. It's not just faxes, copiers, software, business services, financial services, or cryptographic security for cyberspace transactions and communications. It is not just PC postage metering which makes it possible for businesses to print postage using only a PC and a standard printer. It is not just the $100 million in R&D it spends each year or the dozens of new patents that Pitney Bowes receives annually. It is not just cutting-edge technology. The spirit of Pitney Bowes is found in its people. More than one million customers, mostly small businesses, use Pitney Bowes products to efficiently conduct their business. Tens of millions of our citizens benefit from the company's mailing and messaging systems. More than thirty thousand employees--seven thousand of these in Connecticut--are dedicated to making all of our jobs easier. It is this spirit that has resulted in Pitney Bowes being repeatedly listed as one of the 100 best companies to work for in America, recognized as providing meaningful opportunities for women and minorities, and respected as a leader in the Connecticut business community. Congratulations to the Pitney Bowes workforce on this new milestone.

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 Senator Mack in introducing this legislation. It will provide credit, under any future greenhouse gas reduction systems we may adopt, to companies who act now to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. This is a voluntary, market-based approach which is a win-win situation for both American businesses and the environment. Enactment of this legislation will provide the certainty necessary to encourage companies to move forward with emission reductions now. I'm particularly pleased that the legislation grows out of principles developed in a dialog between the Environmental Defense Fund and a number of major industries. The point of this legislation is simple. 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 if they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions now they will be able to add years to any potential compliance schedule, allowing companies to spread their costs over broader time periods. Acting now can help U.S. companies protect themselves against the potential for significant reductions that may be required in the future. This bill ensures they will be credited in future reduction proposals for action now. Early action by U.S. companies will also have an enormous benefit for the environment. 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. Given that once emitted, many climate change gases continue to trap head for a century or more in the atmosphere, it just makes sense to encourage practical action now. Climate change is neither an abstraction nor the object of a science fiction writer's imagination. It is real and affects us all. More than 2,500 of the world's best scientific and technical experts have linked the increase of greenhouse gases to at least some of the increase in sea level, temperature and rainfall experienced worldwide in this century. Last year was the warmest year on record, and 9 of the last 11 years were among the warmest ever recorded. The point of this legislation is to provide an incentive for companies that want to make voluntary early reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases by guaranteeing that these companies will receive credit, once binding requirements begin, for voluntary reductions they have made before 2008. These credits will enable US companies to add years to any potential compliance schedule for reductions, allowing them to spread costs over broader time periods. These credits may also be financially valuable to companies who make the reductions. Credits earned likely could be traded or sold to help other companies manage their own reduction requirements. A focus on early reductions can also help stimulate the search for and use of new, innovative strategies and technologies that are needed to help companies both in this country and worldwide meet their reduction requirements in a cost-effective manner. Development of such strategies and technologies can improve American competitiveness in the more than $300 billion global environmental marketplace. I'm pleased that this legislation builds on section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act which allowed companies to voluntarily record their emissions in greenhouse gas emissions, which I worked hard to include in the Energy Policy Act. 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 am delighted to join today with my colleagues Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Mack in introducing this legislation. It will provide credit, under any future greenhouse gas reduction systems we may adopt, to companies who act now to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. This is a voluntary, market-based approach which is a win-win situation for both American businesses and the environment. Enactment of this legislation will provide the certainty necessary to encourage companies to move forward with emission reductions now. I'm particularly pleased that the legislation grows out of principles developed in a dialog between the Environmental Defense Fund and a number of major industries. The point of this legislation is simple. 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 if they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions now they will be able to add years to any potential compliance schedule, allowing companies to spread their costs over broader time periods. Acting now can help U.S. companies protect themselves against the potential for significant reductions that may be required in the future. This bill ensures they will be credited in future reduction proposals for action now. Early action by U.S. companies will also have an enormous benefit for the environment. 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. Given that once emitted, many climate change gases continue to trap head for a century or more in the atmosphere, it just makes sense to encourage practical action now. Climate change is neither an abstraction nor the object of a science fiction writer's imagination. It is real and affects us all. More than 2,500 of the world's best scientific and technical experts have linked the increase of greenhouse gases to at least some of the increase in sea level, temperature and rainfall experienced worldwide in this century. Last year was the warmest year on record, and 9 of the last 11 years were among the warmest ever recorded. The point of this legislation is to provide an incentive for companies that want to make voluntary early reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases by guaranteeing that these companies will receive credit, once binding requirements begin, for voluntary reductions they have made before 2008. These credits will enable US companies to add years to any potential compliance schedule for reductions, allowing them to spread costs over broader time periods. These credits may also be financially valuable to companies who make the reductions. Credits earned likely could be traded or sold to help other companies manage their own reduction requirements. A focus on early reductions can also help stimulate the search for and use of new, innovative strategies and technologies that are needed to help companies both in this country and worldwide meet their reduction requirements in a cost-effective manner. Development of such strategies and technologies can improve American competitiveness in the more than $300 billion global environmental marketplace. I'm pleased that this legislation builds on section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act which allowed companies to voluntarily record their emissions in greenhouse gas emissions, which I worked hard to include in the Energy Policy Act. 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, last night the Senate unanimously approved H.R. 2616, the Charter School Expansion Act, a piece of legislation that Senator Coats and I, along with many others, have been working on for the better part of the past two years. the House is expected to pass this bill today under suspension and send on to the President, who has pledged to sign it into law. I rise today to express my deep appreciation to our colleagues for their strong bipartisan support of this bill, and to add a few brief words about the significance of its passage, which I am afraid may get lost amidst the last-minute flurry of activity this week before Congress adjourns. It would not be too difficult to overlook this legislation. Compared to some of the high-profile education bills we have considered recently, this is a modest and largely anonymous proposal, which will strengthen our support for charter schools and encourage states to create more of these innovative, independent programs. It will not fix all or even much of what ails our public education system. It will not singlehandedly sate the demands of parents for safer schools, better teachers, smaller classes, and smarter students. Nor will it settle the longstanding and often inflammatory debate over education reform that has divided the parties and effectively stymied the efforts of this Congress to respond to the public's growing concerns. But nevertheless, I believe that this may turn out to be one of the most important and constructive bills that we enact into law during this season. What we have agreed to do today will help take the charter school model from novelty to the norm in this country, and thereby bolster the most promising engine of education reform at work in America today. The Charter School Expansion Act will spur the growth of hundreds of high-quality and highly-accountable schools of choice, which in the next few years will expand the educational opportunities available to thousands of American children, and could over the long haul help to reshape the public school for the 21st Century. Perhaps just as noteworthy as what this legislation will do, though, is the simple fact that we agreed to do it. As my colleagues are well aware, we have struggled throughout this Congress to reach a consensus on how to improve our schools, fighting a series of pitched partisan battles that have bogged down several thoughtful proposals from both sides, and leaving the public to question our ability to address these critical issues. By adopting this bill with unanimous support, I think we have made an important statement that we can get things done, that we can find common ground to strengthen the common school. And I am hopeful, despite the deep policy differences still dividing many of us, that this bill will lay the groundwork for more bipartisan cooperation next year as we prepare to reauthorize the massive Elementary and Secondary Education Act and proceed with what may be the most consequential education debate of our lifetime. In marking this accomplishment, I want to thank Senator Coats, who I have had the great pleasure of working on many education reform initiatives over the last few years, and our fellow cosponsors, Senators Kerrey of Nebraska, D'Amato, and Landrieu, who made this a bipartisan effort from the start. I will sorely miss Senator Coats' partnership next year as this great education debate continues, but I am glad that, after many years of frustratingly close votes we have endured together, he can leave on a resounding note of success. I particularly want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Labor Committee, Senators Jeffords and Kennedy, for their leadership in shepherding this bill to the floor. I know there were some difficult issues that had to be resolved to bring our proposal out of committee, and I am grateful to my colleagues from Vermont and Massachusetts for the time and energy they devoted to getting that done. We simply could not have beat the legislative clock were it not for their persistence and skilled bridge-building. I also want to pay tribute to our former colleague, Senator Durenberger, whose vision and creativity made this legislation possible in the first place. In 1992 and 1993, a band of pioneering teachers and parents in Minnesota founded the nation's first charter schools, and their efforts inspired Senator Durenberger to propose a national pilot program to help other communities around the country experiment with this progressive reform model. I was proud to join with Senator Durenberger four years ago in cosponsoring the bill authorizing this pilot program, now known as the Federal Charter School Grant Program. Congress approved this initiative with strong bipartisan majorities, and in the years since it has provided $75 million to help new charters to defray the burdensome cost of starting a school from scratch. Today, thanks in part to this Federal seed money, the charter school movement has quickly spread throughout the nation. As of this fall, more than 1,100 charters are operating in 26 states, including my home state of Connecticut, as well as the District of Columbia, quadrupling the number that were in business just four years ago. In the past nine months alone, four additional states passed new charter laws, and more than a half dozen others strengthened their laws and significantly expanded their programs. In California, for example, the state legislature broadly supported a move to raise the state cap on charters from 100 to 250 of this year and allow the creation of 100 additional schools each succeeding year. And just last month in Texas, the state board of education approved the creation of 85 new schools, more than doubling the existing number. This is truly a grass-roots revolution, led by parents and teachers and community activists, which is seeking to reinvent the public school and take it back to the future, reconnecting public education to some of our oldest, most basic values--ingenuity, responsibility, accountability--and refocusing its mission on doing what's best for the child instead of what's best for the system. The results so far have been quite encouring. Parents of charter school students overwhelmingly give their programs high marks, particularly for their responsiveness and the sense of community they foster. Also, broad-based studies done by the Hudson Institute and the Education Department show that charters are effectively serving diverse populations, especially many of the disadvantaged and at-risk children that traditional public schools have struggled to educate. And while it's too soon to determine what impact charter schools are having on overall academic performance, the early returns suggest that charters are succeeding where it matters most, in the classroom. A survey done last fall by the National School Boards Association found that the charter movement is already having a positive ripple effect that is being felt in many local public school districts. The NSBA report cites evidence that traditional public schools are working harder to please local families so they won't abandon them to competing charter schools, and that central administrators often see charters as a ``a powerful tool'' to develop new ideas and programs without fearing regulatory roadblocks. The most remarkable aspect of the charter movement may be that it has managed to bring together citizens, educators, business leaders and politicians from across the political spectrum in support of a mutual goal to better educate our children through more choice, more flexibility and more accountablity in our public schools. In these grass-roots, as I suggested above, may lie the roots of a consensus for renewing the promise of public education and ending the left-right stalemate that has too often impeded the reform debate. We want to build on that broad agreement at the local and state level and do what we can at the Federal level to support and encourage the growth of this movement, which is just what the legislation we approved today will do. It starts by revamping the charter grant program to focus it more on helping states and local groups create new schools and meet the President's goal of creating 3,000 charters by the year 2000. Specifically, it calls for gradually increasing the grant funding over the next several years, and then better targeting those additional dollars to the states that are serious about expanding their charter program. It would do so by establishng several ``priority'' criteria that would give preference in awarding start-up grants to those states that show real progress in creating high-quality, highly-accountable charters. Our hope is that these changes will give states that have been slow to embrace the charter movement an incentive to get on board. The intent is not to punish those states that are moving cautiously, but instead to reward the ones that are prepared to harness this progressive force for change and encourage others to do the same. The CSEA would also tighten some unintended loopholes in the original statute that have hampered the effectiveness of the program, ensure that charter schools receive their fair share of funding from the major Federal categorical grant programs, and take some initial steps to widen the pool of funding sources for those charters that are struggling to stay alive. And to enhance the potential for all children to benefit from charter successes, this legislation directs the Secretary of Education to work with the states to in effect establish an ``innovation pipeline'' that would share information about what is working in charter schools to public school districts around the country. That, in the end, is really what this bill and the charter school movement in general are all about, which is improving the whole of our public education system. As Norman Atkin, a founder and director of the North Star Academy Charter School in Newark, has said, charter schools have the potential to serve as the ``R&D arm'' of public education, incubating new ideas that could benefit millions of students. And in time hopefully every public school will put into practice the principles undergirding the charter model, and every public school will be liberated from some of the top-heavy bureaucracy that too often suffocates them and in turn pledge to meet high standards of achievement for which they will be held strictly accountable, and every public school will benefit from the positive forces of choice and competition. For now, we have taken an important step toward that goal today, and passed a piece of legislation that I am confident will make a real and immediate difference in the lives of many children in this country. I again want to thank my colleagues for their broad vote of confidence in the charter movement, and I look forward to working with them next year on new blueprint for education reform that will incorporate the substance and spirit of what we have achieved today.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Clean Electric Power Act of 1998, and to be joined by my colleagues Senators Dodd, Kerry, Lautenberg, and Torricelli. This legislation would address a gap in the Clean Air Act that exempts older power plants from strict environmental standards, allowing them to emit more pollutants than newer facilities and contributing to serious environmental problems. This disparity is of particular concern right now as we enter the new world of restructuring of the electric utility industry--a world that was never envisioned at the time of any of the Clean Air Act Amendments, including the 1990 Amendments. Because most of the older plants don't have to expend the same amount of money on environmental controls that newer plants do, it is simple economics that these older plants will benefit under deregulation by increasing their generation of power and, therefore, their emissions of dangerous pollutants into the air. This situation is unfair to utilities that generate electricity while meeting stricter environmental standards, and it is unfair to the public whose health will be endangered. Electricity deregulation carries the promise of enormous benefits for the consumer in terms of reduced electric bills which I strongly support. But unless we do it right, electricity deregulation also can result in significant adverse environmental and public health effects. Some of the early results from the initial efforts at deregulation of wholesale power sales, as well as studies containing projections about what might occur, are very disturbing: In February, EPA projected increases of 553,000 tons of nitrogen oxides and 62 million tons of carbon by the year 2010 resulting from restructuring, without provisions in restructuring legislation to address pollution increases. THe Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management in January 1998 found that several large Midwestern power companies substantially increased their wholesale electricity sales between 1995 and 1996. This meant substantially increased generation at several of the companies' highest polluting coal-fired power plants, large increases in the flow of power from the Midwest towards the east, and substantial increases in emissions from power plants. A 1995 Harvard University Study concluded that electricity restructuring could adversely affect environmental quality for a number of reasons, including increasing utilization of older, higher emitting coal facilities. A 1996 Resources for the Future Study examined the regional air pollution effects that could result from a more competitive market. The study concluded that in the year 2000, the Nation's NOX emissions would increase by about 350,000 tons and the carbon dioxide emissions would increase by about 114 million tons. Let me give a little background about how we got to where we are. A series of requirements in the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act and amendments thereto required that utility plants meet new source performance standards for pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. The act defines these standards as emissions limits reflecting the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction, taking into account cost, as determined by the Administrator. However, these standards were only imposed on new generating plants, and did not cover existing plants, plants under construction, or in the permitting process or being planned for, unless they undertook major construction. At the time, the view was that it would be more cost-effective to impose stricter standards on new facilities than existing ones, and that many of the existing facilities would be retiring soon. But for a number of economic reasons, the anticipated retirement of plants did not occur. More than half of the power plants operating today were built before the new source standards went into effect. My legislation would require that power plants that generate electricity that flows through transmission or connected facilities that cross State lines comply with the stricter environmental standards. It would also require EPA to set up a market-based allowance trading program to allow utilities to comply in the most cost-effective manner. Electric power generating plants are among the largest sources of air pollution in the United States. According to EPA reports, power plants account for 67 percent of all sulfur dioxide emissions, 28 percent of all nitrogen oxide emissions, 36 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions and over 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants contribute significantly to some of the most urgent public health and environmental problems in the United States, including smog, fine particles acid rain, excessive nutrient loads to important water bodies such as Long Island Sound, toxic impacts on health and ecosystems from mercury emissions, climate change, and nitrogen saturation of sensitive forest ecosystems. This is not to say that older plants do not have any pollution controls. Some controls are required on these plants under older standards, State Implementation Plans, and the requirements under the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. But in many cases, the controls fall far short of levels that would be achieved under the new source performance standards. Some studies show that the older plants emit pollutants at rates that are often four to ten times higher than the cleanest operating plants, but there is significantly less disparity in areas where states have imposed tighter controls under the State Implementation Plans, state laws or regional programs such as California and parts of the Northeast. In addition, EPA's new regulation requiring 22 states to reduce NOx emissions will result in significant reductions at many power plants. The bill makes clear that nothing affects the obligations of sources to comply with that new regulation in the timeframe set forth by EPA or to comply with any other provision of the Clean Air Act. But we still have a situation where there is currently an unacceptably high level of power plant emissions and, in many cases, a disparity in emission requirements between different generators. On top of this, we have a new era of electricity deregulation and restructuring which we are entering at a rapid pace; in the foreseeable future, retail consumers all over the country may be able to choose their supplier of electricity. As I've noted, this era of deregulation was never envisioned at the time of either the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments or the more recent 1990 Amendments. Increasing competitive markets provide opportunities for relatively low cost generators to increase generation; where cost differentials are due in part to differences in emission standards this will mean increases in generation at the highest emitting plants. Mr. President, the good news is that cost-effective technologies are available to meet these stricter standards. For example, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association have recently completed a report on the availability of controls for NOx and the cost-effectiveness of those controls. The report shows that a number of advanced emissions control technologies are available that can reduce NOx emissions from utilities by 85 percent or more, and that these controls are not only feasible but are highly cost-effective. The report looked at real world experience with the application of available technology at 19 coal fired facilities and found that NOx emissions nearly 50 percent stricter than EPA's new standard for NOx can be achieved at the vast majority of coal utilities. Of course, under the bill grandfathered utilities would have the option of purchasing allowances as an alternative method of meeting the performance standards. Mr. President, as we enter the era of deregulation we have a unique opportunity to provide great benefits for the consumers and reduce air pollution, which I strongly support. But we need to ensure that proper pollution safeguards are in place to rectify the current disparity in standards and to ensure that air pollution does not increase in a competitive market. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Clean Electric Power Act of 1998, and to be joined by my colleagues Senators Dodd, Kerry, Lautenberg, and Torricelli. This legislation would address a gap in the Clean Air Act that exempts older power plants from strict environmental standards, allowing them to emit more pollutants than newer facilities and contributing to serious environmental problems. This disparity is of particular concern right now as we enter the new world of restructuring of the electric utility industry--a world that was never envisioned at the time of any of the Clean Air Act Amendments, including the 1990 Amendments. Because most of the older plants don't have to expend the same amount of money on environmental controls that newer plants do, it is simple economics that these older plants will benefit under deregulation by increasing their generation of power and, therefore, their emissions of dangerous pollutants into the air. This situation is unfair to utilities that generate electricity while meeting stricter environmental standards, and it is unfair to the public whose health will be endangered. Electricity deregulation carries the promise of enormous benefits for the consumer in terms of reduced electric bills which I strongly support. But unless we do it right, electricity deregulation also can result in significant adverse environmental and public health effects. Some of the early results from the initial efforts at deregulation of wholesale power sales, as well as studies containing projections about what might occur, are very disturbing: In February, EPA projected increases of 553,000 tons of nitrogen oxides and 62 million tons of carbon by the year 2010 resulting from restructuring, without provisions in restructuring legislation to address pollution increases. THe Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management in January 1998 found that several large Midwestern power companies substantially increased their wholesale electricity sales between 1995 and 1996. This meant substantially increased generation at several of the companies' highest polluting coal-fired power plants, large increases in the flow of power from the Midwest towards the east, and substantial increases in emissions from power plants. A 1995 Harvard University Study concluded that electricity restructuring could adversely affect environmental quality for a number of reasons, including increasing utilization of older, higher emitting coal facilities. A 1996 Resources for the Future Study examined the regional air pollution effects that could result from a more competitive market. The study concluded that in the year 2000, the Nation's NOX emissions would increase by about 350,000 tons and the carbon dioxide emissions would increase by about 114 million tons. Let me give a little background about how we got to where we are. A series of requirements in the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act and amendments thereto required that utility plants meet new source performance standards for pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. The act defines these standards as emissions limits reflecting the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction, taking into account cost, as determined by the Administrator. However, these standards were only imposed on new generating plants, and did not cover existing plants, plants under construction, or in the permitting process or being planned for, unless they undertook major construction. At the time, the view was that it would be more cost-effective to impose stricter standards on new facilities than existing ones, and that many of the existing facilities would be retiring soon. But for a number of economic reasons, the anticipated retirement of plants did not occur. More than half of the power plants operating today were built before the new source standards went into effect. My legislation would require that power plants that generate electricity that flows through transmission or connected facilities that cross State lines comply with the stricter environmental standards. It would also require EPA to set up a market-based allowance trading program to allow utilities to comply in the most cost-effective manner. Electric power generating plants are among the largest sources of air pollution in the United States. According to EPA reports, power plants account for 67 percent of all sulfur dioxide emissions, 28 percent of all nitrogen oxide emissions, 36 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions and over 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants contribute significantly to some of the most urgent public health and environmental problems in the United States, including smog, fine particles acid rain, excessive nutrient loads to important water bodies such as Long Island Sound, toxic impacts on health and ecosystems from mercury emissions, climate change, and nitrogen saturation of sensitive forest ecosystems. This is not to say that older plants do not have any pollution controls. Some controls are required on these plants under older standards, State Implementation Plans, and the requirements under the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. But in many cases, the controls fall far short of levels that would be achieved under the new source performance standards. Some studies show that the older plants emit pollutants at rates that are often four to ten times higher than the cleanest operating plants, but there is significantly less disparity in areas where states have imposed tighter controls under the State Implementation Plans, state laws or regional programs such as California and parts of the Northeast. In addition, EPA's new regulation requiring 22 states to reduce NOx emissions will result in significant reductions at many power plants. The bill makes clear that nothing affects the obligations of sources to comply with that new regulation in the timeframe set forth by EPA or to comply with any other provision of the Clean Air Act. But we still have a situation where there is currently an unacceptably high level of power plant emissions and, in many cases, a disparity in emission requirements between different generators. On top of this, we have a new era of electricity deregulation and restructuring which we are entering at a rapid pace; in the foreseeable future, retail consumers all over the country may be able to choose their supplier of electricity. As I've noted, this era of deregulation was never envisioned at the time of either the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments or the more recent 1990 Amendments. Increasing competitive markets provide opportunities for relatively low cost generators to increase generation; where cost differentials are due in part to differences in emission standards this will mean increases in generation at the highest emitting plants. Mr. President, the good news is that cost-effective technologies are available to meet these stricter standards. For example, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association have recently completed a report on the availability of controls for NOx and the cost-effectiveness of those controls. The report shows that a number of advanced emissions control technologies are available that can reduce NOx emissions from utilities by 85 percent or more, and that these controls are not only feasible but are highly cost-effective. The report looked at real world experience with the application of available technology at 19 coal fired facilities and found that NOx emissions nearly 50 percent stricter than EPA's new standard for NOx can be achieved at the vast majority of coal utilities. Of course, under the bill grandfathered utilities would have the option of purchasing allowances as an alternative method of meeting the performance standards. Mr. President, as we enter the era of deregulation we have a unique opportunity to provide great benefits for the consumers and reduce air pollution, which I strongly support. But we need to ensure that proper pollution safeguards are in place to rectify the current disparity in standards and to ensure that air pollution does not increase in a competitive market. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we are heading rapidly to the end of this second half of the 105th Congress. There will be time for reviews and evaluations. Some will say what did we accomplish in this second part of this 105th Congress? I hope when we are asked that, one of the answers we will be able to give is that we adopted the International Religious Freedom Act, a historic piece of legislation, genuinely bipartisan, representing and expressing the core beliefs and values of the American people and putting those beliefs and values at the center of our foreign policy. It is, in fact, a measure that has the potential to affect the freedom, the lives, the fates of tens of millions of people around the world today who are denied the basic right of freedom of religion that brought so many of our ancestors to the United States. This kind of measure does not reach the edge of passage without a lot of strong support. I thank particularly the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, and his outstanding staff--especially Steve Moffitt of that staff--for the hundreds of hours that they spent working on this legislation and the spirit of common purpose that guided them as we went on. I thank also my friend and colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and his staff, particularly Brian McKeon, who contributed immeasurably to, not only the purpose, but to the way in which this legislation is crafted; to Senator Feinstein and her staff, particularly Dan Shapiro, for their very constructive contributions; and Senator Coats as well, about whom I have a little more to say in a few moments. And I want to recognize Cecile Shea who is on my staff for the literally hundreds of hours she worked to help craft this bill. This effort began with some Pied Pipers outside the Congress who educated us to the fact that these religious freedoms that we hold so dear in the United States are not real for many people, millions of people around the world. Surprisingly to many of us, they are particularly not real for people of the Christian faith around the world, who are subjected to discrimination, and in many cases persecution. One of the people who started this effort was Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, and he deserves to be mentioned here and thanked for educating and opening our eyes to the persecution that exists. Senator Specter and Congressman Wolf introduced the initial bill. They were the pioneers here and blended together with the effort that Senator Nickles and I initiated here in the Senate. I thank them for their support. As we come to the conclusion, I want to thank the administration representatives, led by Under Secretary Stuart Eizenstat, who worked with us to craft the language that could finally be approved by National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and the President. The administration endorsement guarantees that when passed this legislation will become law. The list of groups that endorsed the act is extraordinary, a true expression of all of God's children: The Episcopal Church, the Catholic Conference, the United Methodist Church Women's Division, the Evangelical Lutherans, the American Jewish Committee, the Christian Coalition, the National Association of Evangelicals--the list goes on and on and on--the B'nai B'rith, the Anti-Defamation League, the Catholic conference of Major Superiors of Men's Institutes, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the National Conference of Soviet Jewry, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the American Coptic Association, Advocates International, the Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the International Fellowship of Jews and Christians, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Justice Fellowship and the Church of the Disciples. What brought all of these groups together? What brought them together is, in many ways, what brought the founders of our country to these shores and what led them to declare their independence ultimately from England. And that was faith, shared faith in God and a belief that no government has the right to tell people how to worship and certainly does not have the right to discriminate against them or persecute them for the way in which they choose to express their faith in God. The founders of this country declared in the Declaration of Independence that: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'' and that they have certain endowments, not from the founders of the country, not from a group of politicians. The endowments come from their Creator, and the endowment is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then in the very first amendment to the Bill of Rights, they established the freedom of religion that has been so dear to our country, so central to our country and such a magnet for our fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers who came here driven by a desire to have that freedom. On this day, I think of my grandmother who came here from Central Europe. My grandmother was probably one of the greatest American patriots I ever knew, for a simple reason: She said to me in her old age how much she loved the country. She said, ``It may not seem that profound to you, it may not seem that complicated, but the fact I can walk to synagogue on Saturday morning and not only is no one harassing me or bothering me, not only do I live free of fear, not only do I have no hesitation about what I will find in the synagogue, nobody bothering the building or any of us worshipping there, but my neighbors who are not Jewish, as they see me, say ``Good morning, Mrs. Manger, good Sabbath to you.' '' This to her expressed the essence of what it meant to be American and free and the gratitude that she felt. In some measure, I suppose many of us are supporting this legislation and trying to express that gratitude by extending as best we can that freedom and respect to people around the world. Some say, ``OK, it is good for the United States. What gives you the right to tell other countries how they should treat their citizens?'' What we are saying here is that we have the right to express our values; we have the right to put our values at the center of our foreign policy. Countries can do what they will, but we have no obligation to deal with countries on a normal basis, to give them aid and comfort if they are violating a central animating principle of American life, which is freedom of religion. Who else, if not a nation whose forebears and citizens, beginning with the Puritans and continuing to this day, suffered under persecutors in foreign lands before coming to this country? Who else will speak for those around the world who are denied those basic liberties? Mr. President, this legislation, finely crafted, worked on for more than a year, expresses, in sensible terms, those values to which I have spoken. It clearly states America's unwavering commitment to religious freedom around the world. It requires that every succeeding American administration report once a year on the state of religious freedom in every country in the world--put it on the record--and also report on the steps the administration has taken to encourage--and that is the way this proposal will best work--and raise the status of religious freedom in every country around the world to a level of visibility and report on it. We have given the administrations--this and all future administrations--a menu of choices to respond to, some modest and, in most extreme cases of persecution, some severe. In nations where violations are particularly egregious, where torture, execution and inhumane punishment routinely are used to limit the free expression of religion, today the President may choose from a list of economic incentives to pressure the offending government to reform. The menu of sanctions in this bill is narrowly focused. It is designed to mitigate the offending behavior without causing economic hardship to our own country. The President has a waiver authority on the sanctions and is also required to seek, first, multilateral cooperation in this sanctions bill. But this is much more than a sanctions bill. It is a reminder to the executive branch of the American Government, both now and in the future, that as it encourages human rights around the world, it must consider freedom of religion. This bill requires training in religious freedom issues for foreign service and immigration officials. It establishes an independent commission to monitor religious persecution around the world and to make recommendations to the administration on how to encourage greater religious freedom. Mr. President, right now somewhere in the world a man or woman languishes in prison, some on death row, because he or she did nothing more than choose faith in God over personal expediency. They probably wonder if anyone cares about what has happened to them. In too many places in this world today, a group, a village, perhaps a province, will suffer economic hardship, lack of access to medical care, systematic harassment and intimidation because its citizens refuse to turn their backs on the most fundamental definition of who they are. They wonder, I suppose, whether anyone cares or has noticed. And this bill, the International Religious Freedom Act, says to them that we notice, we care and the Government of the strongest nation in the world will speak up for them to protect their right to worship their God in the way in which they choose. Mr. President, just a final word about our retiring colleague from Indiana, Senator Dan Coats. As fine a person of faith as I have ever known in my life, as trustworthy a man as I have ever had the privilege to work with, worked very hard on this piece of legislation because the principles embodied in this legislation spring from the inner core of this man of surpassing and illuminating Christian faith. In some measure, I think this is one of the great testaments, one of the great monuments that he will leave as he leaves the Senate. With this act, we send a message that our Nation, founded under God, with freedom of conscience on religion as its cornerstone is prepared to do what it can to extend those values reasonably, sensibly to people throughout the world.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Oklahoma for his kind words and for his extraordinary leadership on this measure.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. As did my colleague from Vermont, I thank my friend from Missouri for his consideration on this issue of profound importance to New England veterans. notice of prepayment

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, news accounts have indicated that New England's veteran health care system will suffer additional cuts despite recent efficiency and consolidation efforts. Veterans could find themselves cut off from health services throughout the region. Is the Chairman aware that without additional dollars administrators will have to cut deeply into valuable health care programs and basic administrative support services?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Connecticut for the purpose of a colloquy with the Chairman and the Senator from Vermont. Is the Chairman aware of the financial constraints facing the veterans health system in New England's VISN 1?

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to say how pleased I am that this chamber has finally come to agreement on S. 442, the Internet Tax Freedom Act. First, I would like to thank Senator Wyden for introducing this bill and his perseverance to see this legislation through. I would like to thank Chairman McCain for his management of this bill, and Senator Dorgan for working so closely with Senator Wyden to arrive at a compromise. I would like to thank Senator Gregg for his unwavering insistence on what he believes is right. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Bumpers and Senator Graham who come to this issue from a different viewpoint but have tried to seek a common ground in what has been a polarizing and difficult negotiation. I truly believe the most important things accomplished by this bill will be, first, to raise the visibility of the issue of taxation of the Internet. Just having this debate in Congress has stimulated discussion and thought about the future of electronic commerce and the Internet throughout the country. Three states--Texas, South Carolina, and my home State of Connecticut--came forward and said that they did not want their States' taxes to be grandfathered into the tax moratorium, but instead preferred to stop taxing the Internet. This debate has raised the consciousness of public leaders as to the great benefits electronic commerce holds for U.S. business to improve its productivity and reach new customers, and even more importantly, the level playing field the Internet provides for small businesses. At the same time, we have become aware of the enormous problems faced by small businesses which are suddenly, over the net, selling beyond their physical reach and the uncertainties they face in the legal and tax environment in 30,000 taxing jurisdictions. The second major benefit of this bill will be to slow down the taxation of the Internet. The moratorium in S. 442, while grandfathering in existing State taxes on Internet access, will prevent new taxes from being added. The third, and I consider the most important, major benefit of this legislation will be the creation of a commission to draft model State legislation creating uniform categories for these new Internet companies and transactions that gives these firms some certainty as to how they will be treated tax-wise in the different States. This is the essence of the bill that Senator Gregg and myself introduced in March, called NETFAIR, S. 1888--to remove the uncertainty under which electronic commerce companies have had to operate in the United States and bring some order into the present business climate. It is our intent that this model State legislation would not preempt the States, but would be adopted by the States, at their choice. The Senate agreed to expand the duties of the commission beyond that of drafting model State legislation to looking at the States' collection of use taxes on all remote sales. This is a legitimate area of study and of concern to the States and to their revenue base. In opposing this amendment, I was merely voicing my concern that the commission may become bogged down in a debate over the taxation of catalog sales that I fear it will not be able to stay focused on the Internet and accomplish the very useful purpose of helping create a predictable legal environment for electronic commerce. It is my hope that the commission will try to complete the draft State legislation outlined in S. 442 first before turning to this larger debate. At this point, I want to thank Senators Roth and Moynihan and the rest of the Finance Committee members for adding the international element to this bill. The Finance Committee reminded us to consider our domestic policies toward the Internet in the context of the international environment. Just as the Internet puts small companies on an equal footing with large companies, it also is creating a new level playing field internationally. Developing countries that have not yet fully industrialized, and countries whose telephone penetration is only a fraction of that in the United States, can leap frog entire stages of technology and move straight into fiber optic and wireless technologies that will carry video, sound, data, and voice. A number of my colleagues and I have had an opportunity to speak with John Chambers, the President and CEO of Cisco Systems, one of the major suppliers of networking equipment at a breakfast last week. He knows something about electronic commerce since his company accounted for one-third of all electronic commerce last year. I was very impressed when he said that, on his trip through Asia, the political leaders of Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and China wanted to hold substantive one- to two-hour conversations with him because they understand the power on the Internet and understand that information technology will change, not just their country's economy, but the economy of the world. They understand that those countries that embrace the information age will prosper and those who don't will fall behind. Once again, Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues and their staffs for the extraordinary effort they made to reach this point where we can finally vote on this bill. Finally, I would like to thank Laureen Daly of my staff who put in an enormous amount of work to assure that Connecticut's constituents, businesses and government will benefit from this legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Benefit Verification and Integrity Act. This legislation takes a government- wide approach to improving eligibility verification and debt collection in Federal benefit and assistance programs by identifying, testing, evaluating, and, in some cases, implementing ``data sharing'' information technologies. Federal agencies would be encouraged to make use of federal, state, and private databases such as the National Directory of New Hires and credit bureau data to help ensure that the government delivers benefits to the right person, at the right time, for the right amount. This bill mirrors Title VI of H.R. 4243, a bill introduced in the House by Representatives Steve Horn and Carolyn Maloney. The President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency has found that the federal government loses billions of dollars each year by not adequately verifying information in applications for federal benefit programs. For example, an audit by the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General disclosed that approximately $109 million in Pell grants had been over-awarded in 1996 because students failed to report or under-reported their income. The Department of Housing and Urban Development projected that during the same year it had paid out at least $600 million in excess rental subsidies because of tenants' under-reporting of income. News reports confirm the pervasiveness of this type of fraud against the government. One story in the Wall Street Journal described how ``student-aid consultants'' charged clients $350 each for phony tax returns, which would under-report the student's family income. Because the government does not compare the tax return accompanying the student loan application with the tax forms that had been submitted to the IRS, the student can fraudulently apply to the government for financial aid and receive thousands of dollars in Pell grants. In another example, the Washington Post reported that an owner of a California trade school was indicted on allegations that he stole $1 million in federal Pell grants by creating imaginary students. Since the government never compared the names of these students with information it already had, the school was able to hide its crimes for years. The report of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency concluded that federal agencies need eligibility verification to deter and detect the growing fraud in federal benefit and assistance programs. Several federal agencies do have procedures to try to verify information submitted by applicants by comparing it with information contained in various federal and state government databases. Unfortunately the legislative authority for gaining access to this verifying data often does not encompass many of the most useful government sources: there is no comprehensive authority to share data among agencies. Private industry has made great strides in improving eligibility information accuracy, and the federal government could clearly learn from the best business practices of companies like American Express, Visa, Citicorp and Nationsbank. This bill contains provisions to encourage the government to test and incorporate best commercial business practices for eligibility verification. Similarly, information contained in the National Directory of New Hires and other databases could be a vital aid to the Department of Education's efforts to locate debtors under its student loan programs, and to other agencies trying to locate and collect from debtors. The Department of Education devotes 70% of its debt collection efforts to locating debtors. The National Directory of New Hires, a comprehensive database that lists where virtually all Americans are employed, was recently established as part of the legislation to find and crack down on ``deadbeat dads''. The Directory is maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services, and the data contained in the database cannot be shared with other agencies without explicit legislative authorization. As with child support collection, the Department of Education could use the New Hires directory as an enormously helpful tool to locate where a debtor lives and works. Once a debtor is found, the Department could then use its existing authority to notify the debtor, and then as a last resort and after meeting all due process requirements, the Department could garnish the debtor's wages. To improve government-wide data-sharing coordination, this legislation creates a ``Federal Benefit Verification and Payment Integrity Board'' which would provide oversight and foster agency interest in pursuing data sharing ideas and technologies. Once an agency tests an idea and obtains a positive result, the Board can recommend to the Congress that permanent authorizing legislation be enacted. Federally funded benefit programs that could use data-sharing technologies include: the Pell Grant program, federal student loan programs, Medicaid, the Food Stamp program, USDA and HUD housing programs, veterans compensation programs, Social Security programs, the Railroad Retirement Survivor program, the Civil Service Retirement Program, Small Business Administration programs, and USDA business programs. While this list is not exhaustive, the legislation would promote data-sharing between agencies that have the current statutory authority to do so. In addition, this legislation balances the need for data in verifying eligibility with the paperwork burden and privacy intrusion that data sharing imposes. In fact, this legislation contains a number of increased privacy protections, including requiring that agency proposals contain administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of records; prohibiting nonessential duplication and re-disclosure of records within or outside an agency receiving information for a test; expanding encryption and electronic signature technology to protect the confidentiality and integrity of information; and doubling the penalty for willfully violating the privacy act to $10,000. Existing computer matching and privacy act laws will not be changed. The act also expands on the present full due process rights of beneficiaries, including all rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The bill ensures that agencies administering federally funded benefit programs adequately inform applicants applying for benefits that their data can be shared to verify their eligibility for those benefits. The agency will be required to maintain a record of each applicant's acknowledgment. In this way, agencies can encourage individuals to provide accurate information when applying for benefits. Moreover, applicants will be given the opportunity to explain inconsistencies. Finally, the Committee recognizes the importance of keeping the National Directory of New Hires data secure and private. Consequently, this legislation intends that any agency requesting access to the National Directory of New Hires have the statutory authorization to access the same kind of data from other data sources. Also, all data matches with the New Hires database must occur under the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency who owns this information. This way, the government would be able to centralize all data matches at one location--where the data resides. By using data-sharing technologies, agencies can deter and prevent fraud while becoming more accurate and efficient. This bill promotes data-sharing tools which can save taxpayers substantial resources and at the same time encourage beneficiaries of government programs to deal honestly with their government. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his comments. I thank him for his leadership. Senator Gregg and I were happy to merge together with the work the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Arizona have done. I want to end with one story the Senator from Oregon has stimulated in my memory when I visited that hardware store. It shows how you not only jump over the big store down the block but into the global shopping mall. One of their favorite stories--and this is not a pure market example because the particular customer I am about to refer to is from a Middle Eastern country--is about a man who happened to work for his country's national airlines, so his trip here was paid for, but he needed some large, heavy tools. He went on the Internet, found his way to the Coastal Tool & Supply web site, competitively priced, figured out the advantage, was on a flight to New York as part of his normal work, got off the plane, rented a truck, drove up to Hartford, bought the tools that he needed, drove back, put them on the plane, and went back to the Middle East, all smart shopping and good for business. So I hope that our colleagues will resist the allures of this second- degree amendment and will not disrupt the noble and, I think, very necessary intention of the underlying bill. We can come back some other day, hopefully, informed by the work of the commission created herein to deal with the border problems that I know concern the Senator from Arkansas and the other cosponsors of the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will be glad to yield to my friend from Oregon.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas and others and to express my support of the underlying amendment offered in the first instance by the Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the committee. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that one. I was a cosponsor of the initial legislation, one of the pieces of legislation earlier in the session, along with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, which had the intention of trying to create some order and predictability and a little space for this extraordinary new area of economic activity, activity which has benefited so many people around our country, which is to say, e-commerce over the Internet. The aim was to say to the taxing jurisdictions, of which there are thousands and thousands and thousands--30,000, as a matter of fact-- potential taxing jurisdictions which exist in the United States, catch your breath, sit back, and let this new sector of our economy--Internet commerce, e-commerce, which the United States is heading and which has benefited so many people, which has created so many jobs--let it grow out of its infancy before we begin to put the teeth of the taxman into various parts of its anatomy; and let's let this commission begin to grow some ground rules for the consistent and fair handling of this new area of economic activity. The fact is today that an Internet service provider, or a merchant selling goods or services over the Internet, has no way of knowing in advance whether a State decides to tax them. As an example, in New Mexico, Internet access charges are subject to New Mexico gross receipts taxes. In Ohio, their sales are taxed as an electronic information service; in Tennessee, it is a telecommunications service; in my own State of Connecticut, as a computer and data processing services. Texas officials, I gather, have threatened to tax transactions that go through Internet servers in its State, even if the buyer and seller, in conventional terms, are not located in the State of Texas. The uncertainty of this tax liability is real and is having what you would expect--a negative, destabilizing effect on this business. Peat Marwick, a respected, recognized firm, just released a survey of industry executives of companies that sell over the Internet. Fifty percent of the executives said that the current State tax ambiguities and conflicting tax treatment of electronic commerce among the States are inhibiting their companies' involvement in electronic commerce. Ninety percent describe the current State sales tax procedures with regard to electronic commerce as ``overly burdensome,'' and 75 percent expressed their concern that State and local tax laws will place their companies at a disadvantage. It is because the industry is in its infancy. A predictable legal environment is exactly what the President's Report on Electronic Commerce recommended that we promote internationally. In fact, the administration has been sending out emissaries over the last year to persuade international organizations and individual countries to agree to create a predictable legal environment for the spread of electronic commerce. That is not only fair, it is good for American business, which happens to have a lead over business in any other countries in the effective use of the Internet. What the underlying bill, the underlying amendment, is saying is that it is time that we create the same sense of predictability here in the United States that our Government is urging on countries around the world. That is what this commission would do. The commission is asked to draft model State legislation that creates uniform definitions and categories of commercial transactions on the Internet so that States will be using the same vocabulary when it comes to categorizing the tax liabilities of an Internet company, or transaction--not unifying a tax rate among States, but creating a legal environment in which companies can do business. The National Commission on Uniform State Legislation has been working for the past 2 years on updating the treatment of Internet transactions according to various State laws. But it has not looked directly at taxes. This commission that would be created by this legislation would work with the national commission and other groups that have already been active in trying to update laws to be certain that Internet commerce is treated fairly. We would extend their work through this commission in the tax arena. I want to stress that the measure introduced by the distinguished chairman of committee, the Senator from Arizona--Senator Gregg, I, and others are proud to be cosponsors--does not preclude the commission created by this legislation from considering the question of nexus or taxation of remote sales. The danger in this amendment before us, the second-degree amendment, is that it singles these particular questions out as a requirement and thereby, I think, puts the commission in danger of falling into a very dense thicket. A battle has been waging for more than three decades, and taken right to the Supreme Court at one point, as to how remote sales by catalog- telephone sales would be taxed by the 30,000 taxing jurisdictions in the States in the country. In so doing, I think the amendment threatens what is and should be the focus of the commission, which is to direct its attention on this extraordinary new sector of commerce, Internet commerce, and it runs the risk really of getting the commission so tied up in the thicket of remote sales that it will never really contribute what we hope it will to creating some order and predictability in e- commerce. Mr. President, the fact is that this commission that is created by the underlying legislation may well--I think we who are its sponsors hope it will--create some language to reach some judgments that may in fact offer some counsel and help in this ongoing debate about taxation of remote sales, but let that happen naturally--that is my hope and prayer--as opposed to forcing it into the second-degree amendment in a way that would run the risk of destroying the underlying purpose of the proposal, and in that sense doing damage to Internet commerce and all who both benefit from it as consumers and benefit from it because they work in companies that are using it. I want to mention one other matter before closing. That is this: There are times when we talk about Main Street and the effect of Internet commerce on Main Street as if it were, one wins and one loses. The reality is that e-commerce has the potential to expand the winner's circle, to make more winners. I want to cite real cases from Connecticut which I learned about in the last 6 months to a year, and I think are typical of what is happening all over the country. First, let me say that a recent survey in Connecticut found that 38 percent of small- and medium-sized companies have a web page--almost two out of five. A little over half of those are using their web page to sell goods and services--right now. And 21 percent are planning to add a web page next year. I am sure those numbers are going to grow dramatically in coming years. The fact is, insofar as some folks who are in taxing jurisdictions and the concern of this amendment has to do with treatment of direct mail-order sales or phone sales, if the mail-order catalogs that I get at my house are any indication of what the future is, I am being truly encouraged, aggressively encouraged by those catalogs instead of calling up, to use the Internet. So I think more and more of that kind of commerce will be done by e-commerce. But let me give you two great examples from home about the effect that the Internet is having on Main Street. A small company in old Broad Brook, CT, beautiful town by the water on Long Island Sound, called Stencil Ease, family-owned, 18 employees, sells stencils for home decorating and crafts. It started a web page in 1996. They have been averaging 100 to 200 hits a day. Their sales increased 10 percent the first year due to the web site and 20 percent the next year. Here is a startling story in the second one--Coastal Tool & Supply. I have been there. It is a small, family-run hardware store in Hartford, CT, capital city. It was threatened, interestingly, by a location nearby of one of the large chain hardware stores. It was having a hard time. They decided to go on the Internet, in a sense to leap over the big competitor down the street. I think it was Home Depot, but it doesn't matter--a big competitor down the street and in a sense enter the global main street and hired a very able young man, skilled in computer matters, who put their catalog essentially on the Internet. Sales have grown almost 500 percent. They are doing more business over the Internet than they are from people coming into the store. So this is what the future holds, and it is a situation, if we do it right, where not only the big companies, but a lot of mom-and-pop stores and businesses are going to be able to benefit from Internet sales. Now, as it grows, it will actually have an effect on taxing jurisdictions, and we will naturally, in the normal order of business, want to create an opportunity for equity and to protect State and local jurisdictions that we represent. But this is not the time to do it, and this amendment is not the place to do it. Let's let this commission deal with the unique problems of e-commerce.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Hatch for introducing this important legislation, which I am pleased to co- sponsor with him and Senators Dodd, Ashcroft, Sessions, and Torricelli. As Senator Hatch already has explained, this bill addresses an issue-- asbestos litigation--that has clogged the federal and state courts for some time now. Due to the huge number of these cases and the massive verdicts they often yield, it is unclear whether those who have been exposed to asbestos, but have not yet become sick, will be able to gain full compensation for their injuries should they become sick in the future. To address these concerns, and respond to calls from the courts and others for creating an alternative mechanism for resolving these disputes outside of the court system, a settlement was reached several years ago that, among other things, would have created an alternative claims resolution system for dealing with certain asbestos claims. Unfortunately, despite the desire of representatives of the interested parties--both victims and defendants--to enter into this settlement, and despite the trial court's belief that the settlement was fair, the Supreme Court voided it. The Supreme Court acted, however, not because it believed that the settlement was in any respect unfair, but instead because it concluded that only Congress has the authority to sanction such a settlement. That is the goal of this goal--for Congress to step up to the plate and authorize a solution to the asbestos litigation problem that will ensure that all those who become sick from asbestos are fairly and efficiently compensated, as contemplated by the parties' earlier settlement. Because I believe this is a problem crying out for Congressional action, and because I believe the settlement reached by the parties was a fair one, I am supporting the bill. With that said, I understand that representatives of some of those exposed to asbestos who supported the settlement are not currently supporting this proposed legislation. Because I firmly believe that this should go forward as a consensus bill, I remain open to supporting any reasonable changes that would be required to gain the support of all parties with an interest in asbestos litigation. I am hopeful that we can gain their support and move forward with and pass this legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Hatch for introducing this important legislation, which I am pleased to co- sponsor with him and Senators Dodd, Ashcroft, Sessions, and Torricelli. As Senator Hatch already has explained, this bill addresses an issue-- asbestos litigation--that has clogged the federal and state courts for some time now. Due to the huge number of these cases and the massive verdicts they often yield, it is unclear whether those who have been exposed to asbestos, but have not yet become sick, will be able to gain full compensation for their injuries should they become sick in the future. To address these concerns, and respond to calls from the courts and others for creating an alternative mechanism for resolving these disputes outside of the court system, a settlement was reached several years ago that, among other things, would have created an alternative claims resolution system for dealing with certain asbestos claims. Unfortunately, despite the desire of representatives of the interested parties--both victims and defendants--to enter into this settlement, and despite the trial court's belief that the settlement was fair, the Supreme Court voided it. The Supreme Court acted, however, not because it believed that the settlement was in any respect unfair, but instead because it concluded that only Congress has the authority to sanction such a settlement. That is the goal of this goal--for Congress to step up to the plate and authorize a solution to the asbestos litigation problem that will ensure that all those who become sick from asbestos are fairly and efficiently compensated, as contemplated by the parties' earlier settlement. Because I believe this is a problem crying out for Congressional action, and because I believe the settlement reached by the parties was a fair one, I am supporting the bill. With that said, I understand that representatives of some of those exposed to asbestos who supported the settlement are not currently supporting this proposed legislation. Because I firmly believe that this should go forward as a consensus bill, I remain open to supporting any reasonable changes that would be required to gain the support of all parties with an interest in asbestos litigation. I am hopeful that we can gain their support and move forward with and pass this legislation.