Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I do.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa has been very generous in yielding his own time. I wanted to make a brief statement and then pose two questions on what I take to be not just hypotheticals but real life probabilities. I followed the discussion on a particular element of the budget, whether State Department or defense. I don't think that is right on point to what is being said here. I think the amendment of the Senator from Iowa is saying that American subsidy, as it were, of the national expenses of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to meet their NATO commitments should not be more than 25 percent of all assistance provided to each of those countries by all NATO members. Let me lead into the questions that I want to ask the Senator from Iowa. The Senator from Iowa has said that his purpose in offering this amendment is to protect the taxpayers of America from incurring a liability greater than this 25 percent; that is, 25 percent of all assistance provided to each of these three countries by all NATO members. But I am concerned that there are some consequences in his amendment, perhaps unintended, which in fact not only do not protect the taxpayers of the United States but may hurt them, and certainly may hurt their security. And I want to describe two situations and then ask the Senator from Iowa if he would respond. The 25 percent number is one that has some currency--no pun intended--in NATO circles about the American share. So it is not the 25 percent that I think troubles those of us who oppose this amendment. It is what the Senator from Iowa is including within the 25 percent in subsection (C) of his amendment, and I go particularly to this and I read from the amendment. The assistance referred to in (A)(iii) above includes (1) Foreign Military Financing under the Arms Export Control Act. So here is the circumstance I am concerned about being covered here. At sometime in the future--next year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years--one of these three countries, the Czech Republic, Hungary, or Poland, decides that they, as part of their participation in NATO, their responsibility for their own defense, want to acquire certain modern military equipment systems. My concern is that by squeezing foreign military financing under the Arms Export Control Act--which is to say the credits that our Government gives to facilitate the sale of weapons systems by American manufacturers to foreign purchasers--we are going to block our defense companies from having a chance to compete equally with other foreign defense manufacturers to try to sell to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Because the credits will be included within the 25 percent, and the effect of that will not be to protect American taxpayers, it will be to hurt American defense workers, whose products will not be able to be sold to these three countries. So, I ask my friend from Iowa, is it not true, if the amendment he has submitted is agreed to, that we will limit credits for foreign military sales to these three countries and therefore limit the opportunity of American defense manufacturers to sell to these three countries, meaning that they will be pushed to buy from other producers elsewhere in the world?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wonder if, having discussed with the Senator from Oregon, I might yield myself time from his time so as not to deprive the Senator----

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might yield myself time from the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator raises a very good question. For me, at least, there is no good answer to that. That is why I say I believe that this may be an unintended consequence of the amendment that the Senator from Iowa has put forward. There is very spirited competition among the member countries of NATO in arms sales and arms purchases by NATO. For instance, right now there is a great issue about the Joint Stars Program, a remarkable air surveillance of ground activity system in which we had an original requirement of 19 planes; assuming that NATO would buy 6, we would pay for 13. Our military says these are extraordinarily valuable. They are going to be critical in future warfare. We have already used them in Bosnia before we thought we would have to. Our allies in NATO decided last fall that they didn't want to buy the six from us, they wanted to try to make them themselves. So there is very spirited competition that goes on among the NATO members for NATO acquisitions, let alone to other countries. I do want to say one word additionally on this point. The credits that are given for foreign military financing under the Arms Export Control Act are not literally spending; they are more in the form of a guarantee. I don't have the exact information before me, because I didn't realize we were going to get into this point this morning. I don't believe that the taxpayers have actually spent very much money on these credits. They are a form of a guarantee to facilitate these sales. Anyway, bottom line, I leave this part of the debate with a confirmed concern, which deepens my opposition to the amendment, that one of the unintended consequences--or consequences of this amendment, if it passes, would be to hamstring, to tie up, to put a cap on the ability of American companies and workers to compete with foreign companies and workers to sell these three systems that they may want to acquire in the future. Mr. President, I would like to go on and pose a second question to my friend from Iowa. Let me describe a different kind of fact circumstance. One of the reasons I am so strongly supporting the enlargement of NATO to these three countries is that it will help us--it will share our burden, to be as specific as I can. NATO, as we continue our historic mission of providing for the collective defense of the member states, will face threats, as it has both within their territories and outside. We have seen it in Bosnia. I suspect, as others do, that we will be threatened increasingly from the south of NATO, not from the east, because Russia is now our ally and our partner--Partner for Peace, as we say--in that specific program. And I am struck by what these three new members can add to NATO's military capacity. First off, and most explicitly, they will add 200,000 troops. And not just the troops, but I think what we will find, because these new members will have the enthusiasm of new membership, perhaps even a greater willingness to be involved in sharing the burden that would otherwise fall exclusively on the United States of America in responding to threats to the security of NATO and its member states, including our own security. Let me give a specific example. Hungary has been of great help to us already in Bosnia, giving us a base from which we can launch or source so much of our activity in Bosnia. But let me come to a much more specific and recent point. A short while ago, we were on the edge of military action against Iraq again, because the Iraqis wouldn't allow us, or the United Nations inspectors, access to their facilities, according to the post-gulf-war promises that they had made. And that conflict, for now--I am afraid not forever, but for now--has been avoided. But the record will show that during the period of time leading up to the possibility of military action against Iraq, these three countries--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--made unswervingly clear that they were prepared to stand by us. Let me be very blunt about this, undiplomatically blunt. They were much more supportive of military action against Iraq, much more willing to commit forces and materiel, much more convinced of the common threat that an uninspected Iraq posed to them, as well as to us, than some of our longest term and foremost allies in NATO. There is no secret here. The French were particularly reluctant about military activity against Iraq. So what I want to pose now is another fact situation. Let us say in the next half year--we all hope this does not happen, but we can feel it building in Iraq again. Mr. Butler, of UNSCOM, of the U.N. group charged with inspecting in Iraq to guarantee that weapons of mass destruction have been eliminated, has said in the last week or two that, yes, the inspectors gained access to Saddam Hussein's palaces, but as far as I interpret his statements, the Iraqis cleared out the palaces, let the inspectors in, the inspectors naturally found nothing--there was a lot of time that passed--the inspectors went out, and now the Iraqis say, ``That's it. Lift the sanctions.'' Mr. Butler, steadfast, honorable, independent, says, ``Hey, we don't have affirmative proof as required under the post-gulf war agreements that the Iraqis are not developing chemical and biological weapons.'' So let us go forward a few months, and the conflict grows, the disagreement grows, the Iraqis refuse to allow U.N. inspectors in, and we are on the edge of military conflict again, and as we hope it will not happen, in fact there is a decision to launch a military action, and in this we ask and receive the support of our allies in Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. I know I am speeding up the schedule a little bit because they will not in that timeframe have acceded to NATO membership. So let us take it forward a year or two or three. They want to help us in an international conflict. And the one in the gulf is most likely. To facilitate their aid to us, we have to invoke exactly the sections of law that the Senator from Iowa includes in his amendment under the 25- percent cap--transfers of excess defense articles under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, emergency drawdowns of our equipment to give to them no cost leases of U.S. equipment. All of this is not to throw it away but because they can share our burden. They can send troops to be with ours. But they may need some assistance, materiel assistance that we would normally draw down from. So perhaps this has been a longer way than necessary to say that my concern is, these additional sections of this law would prevent the United States from, in a crisis such as the one I have described, or God forbid a larger one, where the soldiers, the military forces of these three countries were ready to share the burden of the United States in defense, in fact the 25-percent cap would say, you cannot do it, you cannot help them help us. That is not only in the most limited and technical sense such a result in the interest of the taxpayers of the United States, it certainly is not in the interest of the security of the United States or in the interests of the well-being of the military of the United States, without assistance from countries like this, to have to shoulder more of the burden. So I ask my friend from Iowa, is it not true that these sections of this amendment would limit the ability of the United States to draw down, to transfer articles, to enter into no-cost leases of U.S. equipment to these three countries in a time of crisis, in which we would very much want them to be helping us with our assistance?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I appreciate the response of the Senator from Iowa, because I do believe the response confirms my concern that one of the effects of passage of this amendment will be to apply what I consider to be an arbitrary cap--which is to say a 25 percent cap--on all American expenditures related to the assistance provided to these NATO countries. Here is why I am concerned about that and why it does bother me. There are two different categories of expense. One is the direct amount we are contributing--common expenses, if you will--the $400 million that the Senator from Iowa refers to, to enlarge NATO to these countries. I do not consider the credits given to facilitate the sale of American military equipment to these countries in that same category. These are not giveaways. These are, in a long-established program, quite similar to what we do through the Export-Import Bank in other areas, or OPIC in other areas, to facilitate American companies' ability to sell their products abroad, creating or sustaining more jobs for American workers here at home. So, my initial concerns are confirmed. I think the effect of this amendment, if adopted, would be to limit the ability of American companies to compete equally with foreign manufacturers of comparable weapons systems to sell them to these three countries, and the losers in that would be the workers in defense companies all around America. So these export credits are not giveaways. Yes, it may take the budget, the possible spending, somewhat above the $400 million, but that is a different category. The $400 million, if you will, is a grant. This is a little bit like giving a bit of a subsidy so you can sell a multiple of many times more and create jobs for American workers.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator. What I am saying is that from the best estimates I have seen, the American contribution to the common costs of NATO will be limited to the $400 million. But there will be other cases in our self-interest, such as the ones I have mentioned, where there is an international crisis and we will want to draw down, to give no-cost leases to Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to help us so we incur less damage and less direct costs ourselves that I am afraid this amendment would limit. I consider that a very separate category than in the contribution we make to the common costs of NATO enlargement.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I will say a brief word or two more and then yield to the Senator from Oregon. What I fear from the amendment is that the effect of the amendment will be to limit our ability to sell cost-effective items to these three governments, not just the ones that the Senator may consider to be bloated in expense. And more to the point of the second example that I have asked him about, I think it will have the unintended consequence of shackling us in our attempt to benefit from the willingness of these three countries to assist us in a time of international crisis. I want to make a final point about the comment that the Senator made in passing that this is about, the NATO enlargement debate is about principle, not about jobs in America. I respectfully, loosely paraphrase there. In my opinion, as I tried to indicate yesterday, this debate really is about a principle, about the principle of freedom that was secured and won in the cold war and that we now, in my opinion, have a moral obligation to ratify that victory in the freedom won by countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, countries that suffered during the cold war and the long years of Soviet Communist domination, to welcome them into this military alliance which is based on the principle of freedom, also on collective defense. I know that there are some who have said that what drives this debate, what drives the move for NATO enlargement is the yearning by American military contractors for more sales in Central or Eastern Europe. I must say, I am on the Armed Services Committee and I have not had a single comment--I have contact on a regular basis with representatives of defense companies, and I have not had a single one of them say a single word to me about NATO enlargement. But that having been said, and looking realistically, the potential sales here are quite modest as a proportion of overall military sales throughout the world, particularly within the United States with the Pentagon as the purchaser. But if these three countries want and need to purchase new military equipment, why would we want to limit the ability of American companies to sell American made products to them? So, no, the debate overall is not about American workers; it is about the principle of freedom and collective defense, and the promotion of peace and stability on the European Continent, which is what NATO has done so greatly for almost 50 years and will do more broadly in the years ahead if we enlarge it. Way down on the list of effects is the possibility that there might be a few sales of American-made equipment to these countries. I fear that the unintended consequence of this amendment would be to limit those sales and, in that sense, to give an unusual and surprising competitive advantage to military contractors abroad, particularly in Europe, perhaps even in Russia or China, as well. I thank my friend from Iowa for what I hope has been an illuminating dialog and for the directness and eloquence of his own participation. I thank my friend from Oregon for yielding me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I wonder if the Senator from Washington will yield up to 5 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to support the resolution calling upon the Senate to advise and consent to the ratification of the Protocols of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. This is an important debate, an important week for this Chamber, for this country, for our alliance with our friends in Europe and, indeed, for global security. I appreciate very much the quality of the debate and the thoughtfulness of it as it has proceeded this afternoon. I must say that I am honored to be part of this debate and grateful to my constituents in Connecticut for giving me the chance to do so. It is a debate that looks backward and forward, and its significance goes in both directions. Looking backward in our history and in the history of Europe, it could well be said that the enlargement of NATO to now encompass these first three countries that lived under Soviet domination is a ratification of the end of the cold war. It is a validation that we have learned the lessons of that war. Looking forward, it is, in my opinion, and respectfully, directly at odds with those who oppose expansion and spoke earlier this afternoon, it is the best step that we can take to protect and sustain the peace and freedom that now has broken out across the European Continent. So I appreciate very much the opportunity to participate in this debate. Mr. President, there are three principles, three values, three ideas, three purposes that I want to speak about this afternoon in supporting NATO enlargement. They are freedom, collective defense and the promotion of peace. Each of those three, I think, speaks powerfully on behalf of the need to enlarge NATO, on the wisdom of that move. I want to speak particularly about freedom, because that principle may be lost in the strategic discussions and in the practical and tactical concerns that people in the circle may have about the effect of NATO enlargement. Freedom is at the heart of what it means to be an American. Freedom is at the heart of the American experience, and it is at the center of NATO and the NATO experience. The quest for freedom is what drove the founders of our country here, and they, in turn, were motivated by their faith, by their own quest for personal freedom and by the understanding their faith gave them that they expressed at the very outset of the Declaration of Independence, that all of us are created equal and we are blessed with certain rights--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--not by any assemblage of our fellow human beings, legislators, lawyers, philosophers, but we are endowed with those rights to freedom by our Creator. Freedom, the pulsating, motivating principle of the American experience, expressed in the declaration, fought for throughout our history, fought for particularly in this century in two great and terrible wars in Europe. After the second of those, when another threat arose to freedom in Europe from Soviet communism, the leaders of the Western European countries and the leader of the United States at that time, President Harry Truman, saw the need to come together in a military alliance, NATO, to protect what had been won, the freedom that had been won during the Second World War and to try to roll back the advance of tyranny and communism that had begun to occur in Europe under Soviet domination. That is what NATO is all about. Yes, I understand it is a military alliance, but it is a military alliance in defense of a principle, and that principle is freedom, individual human dignity and worth, as expressed in our Declaration, as I described a moment ago. Political freedom, religious freedom, the right to express oneself, the right to pursue one's own economic well-being without being dictated to by a central government--that is what NATO is about, a military alliance in defense of a principle. And that is what the cold war was about, not just a clash of blocs or power groupings; it was a great clash of ideas. Freedom against tyranny, the right of the individual against the right of the state to dictate to the individual; state-controlled economy against market economies. And freedom won, individual dignity won, market economies won. It is a remarkable story whose heroes are numberless, the soldiers in NATO who stood guard over those decades of the cold war, the proud and effective leaders of the Western democracies, the people who understood what was at risk and stood side by side in defense of these principles. In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. The Soviet Union began to collapse, and the countries that lived under its domination, not just the people of Russia, among whom there are so many heroes who brought this about, but the people in the constituent countries of the former Soviet Union who had lived under tyranny, whose national identities had been temporarily erased, at least from public expression, certainly not from within their own conscience, whose right to worship as they wished had been suppressed and stifled, whose drive to better themselves by working to build a better life for their family, to profit, to achieve success was undermined, was crushed by the power of the bloated bureaucratic Communist state. Those people who were suddenly freed, freed by the collapse of the Soviet Union, understood what the cold war was about, understood it was about freedom and understood what NATO is about. That is why they have come to us to ask for inclusion. After all those years of living in effective slavery, they have turned to us and said, ``By the grace of God and good leadership and faith, now we have the opportunity to express our national will, our individual selves to be free, to prosper,'' and they have turned to NATO and not to the European Union, as some of my colleagues would urge them to do, because they understand what the past was about and what the future is going to be about. Yes, NATO is a military alliance, but it is a military alliance in defense of a principle, which is freedom, and freedom and security precede commerce. Of course, inclusion in the European Union is important. But these countries now knocking at the door of the family of freedom, asking to become members of our community of freedom, they understand the significance of NATO. (Mr. GRAMS assumed the Chair.) And for us, who for years during the cold war would speak out across the Iron Curtain that dropped in the middle of Europe and say to the people in the suppressed countries--we used to call them the people of the captive nations; they were captives --``Rise up. Be strong. Have faith. A day will come when the Soviet Union will collapse or be defeated. You will have your opportunity to be free and we will welcome you into the community of free nations.'' That is what they are asking. Will we now turn our backs on them and the principle, the idea, the value of freedom that motivated us throughout the cold war and motivates them today? I hope not. I do not think so. I do not believe we will. Mr. President, collective defense is the second reason why we ought to expand the NATO alliance to embrace these three nations and keep the door open for others as they meet the tests, the standards. NATO, from the outset, was a military alliance to provide for the collective defense, to protect member nations from attack from an outside enemy. It was started quite clearly as a defensive alliance against Soviet aggression. We had hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe ourselves to protect our allies and ultimately ourselves from that danger. Now, times have changed. Fortunately, the threat of aggression from the East is not there. Some say that an alliance, a military alliance can only last as long as the threat that engendered it. Now that that threat is gone, some say NATO really ultimately will dissipate. Well, would that it were so that there were not threats in the world that should tie the member nations and those who choose to be added to NATO together in common defense. My colleagues have mentioned them. I will only repeat them very briefly. Today, the threats may be more from the south of NATO than from the east, from weapons of mass destruction, from terrorism, from threats via ballistic missiles. We may well--hopefully soon--work with our allies in NATO to form a regional missile defense to protect member nations from the threats posed by the high-tech war that we and our allies face. So I would say, unfortunately, though security is greater than it was on the European Continent during the cold war, there is still much to worry about. A strong NATO, working together, surely can provide a better defense against those common enemies than nations alone. In fact, Mr. President, though the NATO treaty, as originally stated--article V--talked about each member being obliged to defend and protect member states who might be attacked, it talked about focus on conflict within the area that is NATO. Clearly in our times some of those threats may come from outside--threats to security of the member nations. It was not so many years ago--it was 1990 and 1991--when Saddam Hussein drove his Iraqi Army into Kuwait, threatening not just the independence of that small country, but the energy supply on which not only we but our European allies and others depend. The gulf war, Operation Desert Storm, was not explicitly a NATO action, but it was surely NATO in the experience that we had together within NATO. That was not only the place on which the defense and counteroffensive against Saddam could be fashioned and formed, but it was where over those many decades we had learned to work so well together. So, in fact, I view the enlargement of NATO in our time, the post- cold war time, as the best step that the United States can take to bring others to share our burden of world leadership. We say repeatedly we are not going to be the policemen of the world, but the fact is that we are the world's only remaining global superpower, and responsibility and interests come with that. Our alliance in NATO is a place in which we can find allies to share the burden when a threat affects the security of the United States and other member nations of the NATO alliance and organization. The three nations that seek accession to NATO, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, have already helped us in Bosnia and elsewhere. Some helped during the gulf war. They add 200,000 troops to the NATO forces on the European Continent, providing hope that less will be asked of the United States, or at least we will only be asked in a more proportionate way when these three nations and perhaps others in the future are added. The third reason why I support this resolution so strongly, Mr. President, is the promotion of peace. That is to remember that NATO from the outset was never just a defensive alliance. It was always an organization which was aimed at promoting peace among its members, not just to bring its members together in alliance to protect them against outside threats. But acknowledging the war-torn history of Europe, feeling still the pain, the sting, the horror of the two World Wars that preceded it, NATO was formed to create an organization in which common interests could be stressed, yes, through military alliance, but through the sharing of opportunities and challenges. It has worked magnificently in that regard, and it will work even better in this post-cold war period to bring nations formerly under Soviet domination in Central and Eastern Europe within that zone of peace, within that community of which peace will be promoted and conflict will be avoided. That is the record of the now almost five decades of NATO in terms of the amity, the civility, the cordiality of the relations among previous enemies, now members, of NATO, and it will continue to play that role as we expand NATO to other countries on the European Continent. The fact is that it has already begun to happen in anticipation of this effort to accede to NATO membership of the three we are focused on today. And other nations hoping for NATO membership have begun to resolve long-standing conflicts. The conflict between the Hungarians and the Romanians comes to mind. That is the drive--the momentum will be on the side of conflict resolution among the member states of NATO and those who choose to become members in promoting peace on the European continent and again learning the lessons of the war-torn history of Europe. Mr. President, a final word about Russia. It is from within Russia that the Soviet Union and communism that I have spoken of and the denial of freedom began. It is from within Russia under the historic progressive leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev and from within the hearty and heroic band who resisted tyranny even as it began to rear its head again after the collapse of the Berlin Wall. It is from within Russia that this historic change began. It began, as I said earlier, and occurred because of the steadfastness, the sense of purpose, the heroism of people in the NATO alliance and Western Europe and the United States, and it began after a long period of suffering by those who lived within Russia and within the member states of the former Soviet Union under Soviet domination. It has to be a central tenet of priority of our foreign and defense policy to develop good relations with Russia. We have worked mightily at that. But I must say, as I hear some of those who oppose expansion, enlargement of NATO, who are prepared to blame enlargement of NATO on anything that goes wrong in Russia, I simply cannot accept that prediction. Those who foresee the most dire consequences of NATO enlargement, including, as some have suggested here, the heightened possibility of nuclear war--I simply do not see it. These arguments in some ways seem more psychoanalytical than geopolitical, more psychological than strategic. Yes, I know that Russia has struggled and has much work to do. I simply echo and embrace by association the comments of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, on this course. The fact is that Russia has come some distance in spite of the challenges it has faced. It has sustained a democratically elected government. It has fought off attempts to create denials of freedom within the country. If there is a threat to the continued movement forward of freedom within Russia, if there is a threat that will somehow raise the possibility of nuclear conflict with Russia, it is not the enlargement of NATO. I must say, as I speak to members of the Russian Government and private citizens, including businesspeople and think-tank people, I know there are some in the political community who are opposed to the enlargement of NATO, but honestly I do not find it to be the priority of concern that some on this floor have suggested. The fact is, as the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Grams, said, every poll I have seen taken in Russia shows that the people list NATO enlargement far down in their itemization of concerns they have about Western behavior. Think about how we and our people would feel if we were in Russia. What would be more important to us--that NATO is about to accept Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic into this alliance or that I am not getting my paycheck for working at the shipyard, or I am not getting my pensioners' check as a retired person, or my children's education is not as good as it used to be? Those are the things that the Russians are focused on. Those are the threats to stability if it exists within the Soviet Union. Those constitute the ground in which a more aggressive and warlike leadership might--I hope never will--but might arise again in Russia, not NATO enlargement. It simply, respectfully, does not make sense to me that that is the case. I have said before we have worked hard at building good relations with Russia. The Founding Act creates an institutionalized relationship between Russia and NATO that some feel actually goes too far. I think it is appropriately balanced. The relationship between President Clinton, President Yeltsin, Vice President Gore, former Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, and presumably the new Prime Minister Kiriyenko, is very strong. If we have had a shortcoming in our policy, in our post-cold war reaction to Russia that may have squandered an opportunity, which is a phrase that one of those who opposed NATO enlargement spoke about earlier, it is not to enlarge NATO, it is that we did not rush in early enough and broadly enough to help the Russians build their economy in the period after the Berlin Wall fell. There were some great voices at that time--late President Nixon, most prominently at that point, speaking to the historic opportunity we had. The truth is what we delivered was timid, was weak, was insufficient. If we squandered an opportunity, it was at that moment when, as some said, we might well in our own self-interest have adopted the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for Russia, encouraging and creating incentives for American businesses to go over and invest there and create opportunity. Not enough of that has happened. Very little of that has happened. It is in that neglect that we planted the seeds that might--again we hope and pray never will--grow into a less democratic, more aggressive Russian, but not NATO, enlargement. Let us come back to this. So much of the opposition to this enlargement is based on the effect it will have on Russia. That is what I said earlier, and I say respectfully, this becomes an argument more in psychoanalysis than in geopolitics or reality. NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO has no hostile intent on Russia. Does Russia fear military aggression from Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland? Of course not. So why do we yield to what we see or fear may be the opposition within Russia to the enlargement of NATO? When we do that, when we yield, we do something far more damaging. That is, we forget the principle I spoke about at the beginning, which is freedom. We forget what Winston Churchill said about that Iron Curtain falling in the middle of Europe. We forget what Harry Truman spoke to us when he joined in the creation of NATO, as he watched the Soviet threat in Europe against freedom. We forget what President Kennedy did at the Berlin Wall in the confrontation of Berlin in the 1960s. We forget what President Reagan said about the evil empire. Why was it evil? Because it denied its people freedom. And we forget we fought that cold war over an arbitrary, dictatorial, unnatural division in Europe which denied the principle of freedom, the line Stalin forced in Europe. So will we now, because of our fear--strange for a victor, the world's global superpower, to have such fear--will we now redraw that line by shutting people in Central and Eastern Europe out of the community of free nations? I don't believe we will. I am confident that more than the necessary number of our colleagues here in the Senate will see the historic opportunity we have to validate the end of the cold war, to uphold the principle on which it was at fault, and to create the conditions for peace and security in Europe among the member nations of NATO as those members expand and together between them, in a free, secure, and strong Russia. Mr. President, I close with words of one of the heroes of the century and certainly the heroes of the post-cold-war period, Vaclav Havel, who wrote almost a year ago in the New York Times, May 13, 1997: The [NATO] alliance should urgently remind itself that it is first and foremost an instrument of democracy, intended to defend mutually held and created political and spiritual values. It must see itself not as a pact of nations against a more or less obvious enemy, but as a guarantor of Euro- American civilization and, thus, as a pillar of global security. That is what this debate is about. I look forward to the dialog as it continues this week. It is a critically important debate, and I hope that we will join it directly and not hesitate to speak forcefully but, of course, respectfully to one another. That much is at stake here. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 216 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bipartisan resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding Japan's difficult current economic condition. I am privileged to do so on behalf of my original cosponsors, Senator Lugar, Senator Graham, Senator Brownback, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Rockefeller. Mr. President, for the last 46 years almost to the day--since April of 1952, when the American occupation of Japan ended and immediately our two Nations entered into a security agreement--the United States and Japan have shared the common goals of peace, stability, democracy and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and throughout the world. The fact is that Japan has been our most critical strategic ally and our most important economic partner in the region. We have worked together to bring unprecedented prosperity and security to our people's through mutual understanding and cooperation. The importance of the United States-Japan alliance was reaffirmed by President Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto in the April 1996 Joint Security Declaration and the United States-Japan bilateral military cooperation critical to our security in the Asia-pacific region. It was enhanced with the revision and promulgation of the United States-Japan Guidelines for Defense Cooperation in 1997. Japan is our second largest trading partner--not in Asia but in the world--and a huge and growing consumer of American goods and services. Japan imported $65.6 billion of American goods in 1997, third only to our neighbors to the north and south, Canada and Mexico. That figure has increased 37 percent from 1992 to 1997. In addition, Japan has played an important role in the current Asian financial crisis with financial commitments of approximately $19 billion through the International Monetary Fund, while we, as the news indicates today, have trouble coming up with a comparable amount authorized by members of Congress. However, the current economic crisis in Japan is real and represents a new and serious challenge to United States-Japan cooperation to achieve the common goals of economic prosperity and national security. We must not allow this extraordinary bilateral relationship to falter at this critical time, but, rather, we should do everything in our power to support the people of Japan and encourage the Government of Japan to implement new policies that will promote strong and sustained economic recovery. In less than a decade, Japan's economy has slowed so much that pundits have coined the phrase ``passing Japan,'' meaning that many in the world now look past Japan and toward its continental neighbor, China, as the economic engine for Asia. But I take these observations to be premature. Japan retains enormous long-term economic strength but, nonetheless, has some very serious immediate economic problems which cannot be ignored. Experts believe that Japan's economy will be stagnant or shrink this year; real industrial output was down 3 percent for the first 2 months of this year. Unemployment, while still low by world standards and American standards, is at approximately 3.6 percent, which is a 45-year high in Japan, in a society that, incidentally, lacks the kind of social safety nets that we have built in our country. The Nikkei Index is hovering around 15,000, near its lowest level in 10 years; bad and doubtful bank debts are estimated at an astounding $574 billion; the Asian crisis has dried up an important source of trade and corporate earnings for the Japanese economy--that is, the regional crisis--and the Bank of Japan's most recent Tankan survey showed Japanese business outlook for the future to be gloomy. At least so far, we have been fortunate that the fallout on our economy from Japan's economic woes, as well as the collapse of the other troubled Asian economies, has been minimal. That is another way of validating the enormous resilience and strength in the American economy. Nonetheless, we have had serious and real early warning signs. In the trade figures announced last week, we see evidence that Japan's economic troubles are starting to have a direct impact on us here in the United States. If Japan's economy continues to deteriorate, there is good reason to believe that it will affect our ability to create jobs and to sustain current GDP growth. Today, my colleagues and I introduce this resolution to express to our President and to the Government of Japan that the Congress of the United States is deeply concerned about Japan's poor economic performance and the pressure it is putting on our overall bilateral relationship. It is widely agreed among economists throughout the world, including most that I have read about in Japan, that more than a quick-fix fiscal stimulus is needed to address the underlying problems that are now being seen in the Japanese economy. In that regard, I was very encouraged to see that earlier today Prime Minister Hashimoto announced a more long-term approach to restoring economic growth in Japan than had previously been presented by his government. Along with the details of the Japanese Government's $123 billion stimulus package, the Prime Minister announced today that he would delay by 2 years his self-imposed deadline to balance the national budget. That is a significant change. This will provide the opportunity for Mr. Hashimoto to make his proposed income and targeted tax cuts permanent. And I believe this is the right policy and will help lead Japan out of its current economic troubles. The resolution that we submit today also calls for a number of fundamental economic reforms in Japan--deregulation of the Japanese economy, improvement of market access, and enforcement of fair trade. These are all actions which should increase the competitiveness of the Japanese markets and of Japanese companies and provide greater opportunities for investment in Japan and for the success of individual entrepreneurs within that country. Finally, the resolution describes the implications of the weakening Japanese yen which could lead to another round of competitive currency devaluations throughout the region. Of particular concern is the effect of the weak yen on the Chinese yuan. Further devaluation of the yen could lead to a devaluation of the yuan, an event with significant ramifications of the regional, global and, therefore, of course, American economies. For economic, political and strategic reasons, we must support and encourage economic reform in Japan. It is absolutely necessary. In the end, a more open and healthly Japanese economy is in the interest of the Japanese and American people. The sooner Japan recovers from its economic problems, the sooner the United States, Japan, and the world will reap the benefits of a stable and growing Asian-Pacific region. As we express our concerns about Japan's current economic difficulties, we must also remember the very significant economic strengths that Japan has. It is the second largest economy in the world, second only to ours, and maintains enormous human and capital assets. The fact is that one of this century's most dramatic stories is Japan's rise to economic superpower status, achieved by a citizenry dedicated to education, hard work, and fiscal responsibility. Japan is the most literate society in the world, and 94 percent of the population completes high school. The Japanese save more than any other people in the world. I know some critics may argue that too much savings is not good for the economy, but the point I want to make here is that in Japan saving is a virtue, as it was for a large parts of our own history. We lost that truth for a period of time and, fortunately, we are now recovering it, saving in larger numbers again, and that is part of the reason why our economy is doing so much better today. Japan also maintains huge foreign reserves and continues to be a major contributor to international organizations. Unlike the United States, Japan is a net creditor nation. Simply put, Japan's potential for the 21st century continues to be very bright. Its strategic importance to the United States continues to be critical. Long into the next century, Japan will remain our economic trading partner and strategic ally, sharing our goals of regional and world prosperity and peace. Given the significance of the current crisis in Japan and the importance of Congress making its voice heard on this crisis, I urge my colleagues to review and hopefully support this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have been authorized to confirm the time allocated to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, and yield myself up to 15 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator. My appeal is that when this bill passes, as I am convinced it will, that the conference committee, or meetings outside the conference meeting, including representatives of both parties, both Chambers, and the administration, sit down together and see if we can't put a package together that includes these education savings accounts, the A+ accounts, and opens the door and includes some of the proposals that have been made by some of my Democratic colleagues in this debate and are favored by the administration. I think that is the way to have the result of all of this debate this week to be more than noise and issues to carry into the campaign. That is the way to have this debate result in some real change, some real hope of reform in America's educational system, and, most specifically and in a more personal way, some real hope for a better future for the millions of children in America who are not being given that chance for proficiency because we are not giving them the educational tools they deserve. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask my colleague from Georgia for simply an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the Parent and Student Savings Account PLUS Act, which I am pleased to join Senators Coverell and Torricelli in cosponsoring, and also to urge my colleagues to give this bill a full and fair hearing before making up their minds on it. The core of this legislation is similar to a provision that passed both houses of Congress as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, but was stricken out before the President gave his final approval. The Taxpayer Relief Act authorized the creation of an Education IRA that would allow parents to set aside up to $500 each year in a tax-free account to help pay for their children's college education, a provision that I cosponsored. Senator Coverdell succeeded in adding an amendment that would permit parents to also use this Education IRA to pay for elementary and secondary education costs, but that provision was ultimately dropped from the final version of the Taxpayer Relief Act at the request of the Administration. The bill we are considering today, H.R. 2646, mirrors the modifying amendment that Senator Coverdell offered. It would increase the annual contribution limit for the Education IRA up to $2,000, and then expand the definition of ``qualified expenses'' to also allow families to withdraw money from the account without penalty for K-12 expenses, such as tutoring, tuition, books, uniforms, computers and special services for disabled students. Like the original Education savings account, this expanded version would be targeted at the broad range of working and middle class families with dependents under 18 years old, limiting eligibility to those households with annual income of less than $160,000. Judging this proposal on the merits, it makes eminent sense. At a time when parents are growing increasingly concerned about the quality of K-12 education their children are receiving and when many educators are trying desperately to spur greater parental involvement in their children's schooling, the expanded Education savings account would encourage parents to invest directly in their children's education, from kindergarten all the way through to graduate school, and take a more active role in the lives of their sons and daughters. And at a time when many parents are seeking more choices for their kids, especially for the students who are trapped in failing and unresponsive local schools, this bill would help make private or parochial school a more affordable option for those families who decide that is the best choice for their child, or in some cases, the only chance to get a decent education. For the average family, this plan would provide a significant incentive to set aside some of their savings for the myriad costs they may face in helping their children reach their full potential, such as the after-school math tutoring an underachieving child needs to reach grade level, or the new computer a budding programmer needs to upgrade his skills, or the special classes a dyslexic students needs to take to overcome her disability, or even the price of tuition a family needs to pay to ensure that their child can learn in a safe, disciplined environment. According to an analysis by the Joint Tax Committee, if a family with annual income of $70,000 contributed the maximum each year to the expanded IRA, they would accumulate a savings of more than $17,000 by the time their first child was age seven, while saving $1,000 in taxes. By the time that same child was ready to start high school, the account would be worth $41,000, and the tax savings would top $4,300. Those are significant sums of money, which could be used for immediate needs when children are growing up, or in many families, could be reserved primarily to help meet the financial burden of going to college. The choice is up to each individual family on how to spend their money--which is an important point to stress, that we are talking about after-tax income, not the ``government's'' money, not a tax credit or even a deduction. It is the parent's money, not the government's. The modest tax benefit we are proposing would simply reward them for saving for their child's future, which is exactly why we passed the original Education savings account with strong bipartisan support. This is all reasonable and sensible, which leaves me puzzled as to why some are attacking this bill as if we were proposing to destroy public education in this country as we know it. Judging from the overheated rhetoric we have been hearing, this plan is little more than a backdoor attempt to funnel money into private schools at the expense of public schools and create a new tax shelter for the wealthy. It would ``do nothing to improve teaching or learning in our public schools,'' in the words of one group; instead, it would ``undermine support of public education,'' in the words of the another. And a third organization seethed that this bill is really ``private and parochial school vouchers masquerading as tax policy.'' For those of us who have fought the school choice battles in the past, the nature and vehemence of these criticisms is familiar. Last fall, for instance, we called for the creation of a small pilot program here in Washington, D.C., that would have authorized $7 million to provide 2,000 disadvantaged children with scholarships to attend the school of their choice, without a dime away from the amount requested by the D.C. public schools. For that Secretary of Education Richard Riley, a man I truly admire, went so far as to suggest that our bill would ``undermine a 200-year American commitment to the common school.'' But what is surprising in this case is how utterly disconnected the current criticisms are from the bill we are considering today. Let's start with the fact that this measure does not remotely resemble a voucher or scholarship plan, nor does it target aid to private schools. This is a savings account bill, one that simply raises the contribution limit for the existing education savings account and gives parents the choice to use some of those savings for K-12 expenses. It is unequivocally neutral on its face--it does not distinguish between public school parents and private school parents. It is meant to help all parents, and the truth of the matter is that the clear majority of parents who are expected to take advantage of it--70 percent, according to the Joint Tax Committee--will have their children in public schools. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the growing variety of educational costs that many public school parents face these days, and overlook the tens of thousands of parents who are turning to places like Sylvan Learning Center to help improve their children's skills. The critics of the education savings account legislation are also off base when they proclaim that it would do absolutely nothing to help public education. To see why, I would urge my colleagues on both sides to re-read the President's major educational priorities. Both the President and the Secretary have rightly argued that stimulating greater parental involvement is critical to reaching all seven of the Administration's top goals, particularly when it comes to improving reading proficiency. The Secretary believes it is so essential that he established a broad-based national initiative--the ``Partnership for Family Involvement in Education''--to better engage parents. The bill we are debating today, H.R. 2646, will help by encouraging parents across the country to save for the future and take a more active role in their children's schooling. It will not singlehandedly raise test scores or prompt millions of new parents to join their local PTAs. But is will complement and reinforce the work that the Secretary and many national and grassroots education groups are already doing, and for that reason it is worthy of our support. Perhaps the most vexing criticism of this super Education IRA plan is the notion that it will only benefit the wealthy. The language of the bill explicitly refutes that point, and I would urge my colleagues to read it for themselves. They will see that it precludes any individual parent with income above $110,000 or any couple above $160,000 from contributing to an expanded IRA. I would also urge my colleagues to refer again to the Joint Tax Committee's analysis of the bill, which projects that 70 percent of the tax benefit from the expanded IRA will go to families with annual incomes less than $75,000--middle class families. And I would urge them to consider the provision in the bill that allows any corporation, union, or non-profit organizations to contribute to IRAs for low-income students. The growth of donations to private scholarship funds across the country--more than $40 million has been raised since 1991 for programs in more than 30 cities, including one in Bridgeport, Connecticut--suggests that there are many generous groups who would be interested in lending their support to an Education IRS for a disadvantaged child. Mr. President, in making these points, I harbor no illusions. I recognize that a relatively small number of poor families will likely benefit from the expanded IRAs, and that these accounts will primarily help middle and upper middle class families who have the means to maintain them. But that is a significant chunk of our populace, and most of them are financially stressed in trying to meet the costs of home, family and school. If this bill can spur them to invest in their children's education and generate parental involvement, then it will serve a valuable purpose. Moreover, I would also say to my colleagues that if they truly want to target aid to disadvantaged children who are not being well-served by the status quo, then they should support legislation that Senator Coats and I have sponsored that would establish low-income school choice programs in several major cities. These pilot programs would give thousands of poor students the opportunity to attend a better school and realize their hopes of better future, while providing us as policy-makers an opportunity to examine what impact this kind of narrowly-targeted, means-tested approach would and could have on the broader education system. Many of the supporters of the bill we are debating today also have expressed strong support for the Coats- Lieberman bill, so it's just not accurate to suggest that the sponsors of the education savings account legislation are merely interest in helping the well-off. Nevertheless, the opponents of this bill continue to insist that we are wrong no matter what the facts say. Last year, many of my Democratic colleagues and many of the leading educational groups voiced their strong support for the original Education IRA as a boon to middle class families struggling to pay for college. Today they turn around and attack the same concept with the same income caps--let me repeat, the same exact income caps--as a sop to the rich. The difference, of course, is that parents would have the choice to use the savings from the expanded IRA for K-12 expenses for public and private schools students, or college or both. That distinction is so significant to our cities that they are willing to eliminate the part of the A+ Accounts bill that would increase the contribution limit for the IRA from $500 to $2000, which would give millions of parents an even greater incentive to save for college, in order to prevent us from providing a modicum of relief for elementary and secondary costs. That facet of the bill has gotten lost in all the hyperbole of this debate, and it bears repeating: Beyond allowing parents to use the IRA to pay for K-12 expenses, this measure would significantly enhance their ability to meet the burden of paying for college. In fact, according to the Joint Tax Committee, the clear majority of the additional $1.64 billion in tax benefit that this bill would extend over the next 10 years would go to families who are saving for higher education, a very important purpose for them and for our country in this education age. That is something that the critics of this super Education IRA are reluctant to acknowledge. According to them, practically every last penny from this bill will end up in the coffers of private elementary and secondary schools. On the contrary, most of the money saved will go to colleges and universities. Hearing these misdirected attacks, I can't help but ask why so many thoughtful, well-intentioned educational groups are engaging in so many logical contortions to bring down this bill. To answer that question, I would repeat the simple theory I offered last fall during the rancorous debate over the D.C. scholarship bill: Love is blind even in public policy circles. I fear that our critics are so committed to the noble mission of public education that they have shut their eyes to the egregious failures in some of our public schools and insisted on defending the indefensible. And they are so conditioned to believing that any departure from the one-size-fits-all approach is the beginning of the end for public schools that they refuse to even concede the possibility that offering children a choice could give them a chance at a better life while we are working to repair and reform all of our public schools. In this week's debate, we are seeing this reflexive defensiveness again. We are not discussing a voucher bill. We are not attempting to give nay Federal money to private schools. We are proposing a modest plan to help families--not public school families, or private school families, but families of all kinds--provide the best educational opportunities for their children. It sounds a lot like the G.I. bill or the guaranteed student loan program, which we all support. But because some parents who take advantage of these accounts and the small tax benefit we are offering will choose to send their children to private schools, this bill is seen as anathema by some. Mr. President, as the consideration of this bill proceeds, I would appeal to my colleagues to lay down their rhetorical arms and listen-- not to be bipartisan co-sponsors of the bill, but to the people we are trying to help. Yes, they want smaller class sizes, and yes, they want safer and sturdier public schools, and yes, they want better-trained teachers. But those are not reasons to oppose this bill. In addition to seeking more money to improve our public schools, parents increasingly are demanding more choices for their children--be it in the form of public school choice, charter schools, or scholarships for low-income kids to attend a quality private or parochial school. And they are seeking more of a focus on results rather than a defense of the system and all who function in it. Poll after poll confirms this. For the sake of this debate, let me cite just a few. A recent survey by the Center for Education Reform found that 82 percent of parents said they would support efforts to give them the option of sending their children to the public or private school of their choice. A much-quoted study done by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies last year found that 57 percent of African-Americans and 65 percent of Hispanics favor the use of vouchers to expand opportunities for low-income students. And even Phi Beta Kappa, which is openly skeptical of private school choice, found in its annual poll on public attitudes towards public schools a slim plurality of Americans would now support a program using tax dollars to pay tuition at private school for some children. If my colleagues need any more evidence, I would point them to the mushrooming charter school movement, where parents and teachers hungry for alternatives to the status quo have started more than 700 new schools from scratch over the last five years, with hundreds more to open next fall. The bill we are considering today cannot and will not guarantee greater choices for every family. But it does offer a progressive response to the public's pleas for innovative educational solutions that focus less on process and more on children. That, in my mind, is what is truly at stake here in this debate. We cannot walk away from our responsibility to fix what ails our public schools, to set high standards, and demand greater accountability in meeting them. But in doing so, we must not be so defensive in our thinking that we reflexively rule out innovative options that deviate a scintilla from the prevailing orthodoxy. That is why I have urged my colleagues to give choice a chance. That is why I have urged this body to give charters a chance, which I am proud to report we did last year in raising Federal funding by 60 percent for this fiscal year. And that is why I am appealing to my colleagues today to give this Education IRA bill a chance. By doing so, we can prove that it is possible to encourage parents to invest in their children's future without disinvesting in our common schools. And hopefully we can begin to change the dynamic of what for too long has been a disappointingly dogmatic and unproductive debate on education policy in this country and lay the groundwork for a new bipartisan commitment to putting children first. Mr. President, again, this bill is part of a host of responses to a reality to, I think, all of us here in this Chamber, which is that while we have many extraordinarily positive things going on in our system of education in this country, while we have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of gifted and, I would say, heroically successful teachers, while we have excellent schools--public, private, and faith-based--in our country, the fact is that the status quo in American elementary and secondary education is not working for millions of our children. The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, spoke today with eloquence, with force, and with truth about the extent to which education, which has always been the way in which we have made the American dream of opportunity real for generations of our people, and which is even more necessarily so today because of the highly informational, technological age in which we live--how that ticket to a better life is being deprived to millions of our children today, who are going to school in buildings that are in shabby shape and schools that are unsafe--not only are the buildings unsafe, but it is unsafe to be there in many cases. Too often, they are taught--and I use the word advisedly--by teachers who are not prepared in the subjects that they are supposed to be teaching. Too many parents are wanting to help their children more, but they are too burdened economically to find a way to make that happen. Class sizes are too large, and professional development of teachers is not what it should be. Mr. President, I view this A+ Act, these A+ accounts, as one thoughtful, progressive response to that problem. It is not the solution to the problems that face American education and our children today. The fact is that there is no one answer to those problems. And the shortcoming of the debate that we have had here and the political jousting that is going on here--too much of it partisan--is that this debate is being framed as if it were a multiple-choice question on an exam for which there is only one right answer. That is not reality. There is not one right answer. The underlying bill here--the A+ accounts--is a thoughtful part of an answer. Many of the amendments offered, such as one regarding school construction, and class size, and Senator Boxer's on after-school education, are all part of the solution. And there are other decent, constructive, thoughtful answers to the crisis. I hope we can find a way--and I hope it is after we pass this bill, which I strongly support--to put aside the jousting and figure out a way to sit down together and find common ground that is aimed at benefiting the millions of schoolchildren in this country who are not being adequately educated today. That is going to require all sides to drop some of the orthodoxies, to drop some of the prejudices, to drop some of the political reflex instincts at work here today, and to go forward not to develop issues for the next campaign but to develop programs for the next school year for our children. That is the way I approach this legislation. This is similar to a provision that passed both Houses of Congress as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 but was stricken out before the President gave his final approval. The Taxpayer Relief Act did authorize the creation of an education savings account that would allow parents to set aside up to $500 each year in an after-tax account to help pay their children's college education--a provision that I was proud to have cosponsored. The income limits in that proposal were exactly the same as in the proposal before us today. That proposal enjoyed broad bipartisan support. No one called it a sop to the rich at that point, because it certainly was not. It was a helping hand to middle class families who are trying to send their kids to college to better educate them and to figure out how to do it without putting an enormous financial burden of debt on their backs. Senator Coverdell and Senator Torricelli have had the imagination to simply take that idea and increase the amount of money that could be put in up to $2,000, and make it, as the debate has made clear, applicable to elementary and secondary education as well as college, and to make it available for use by parents for both public school students and for students of those parents who choose to send them to private or faith-based schools. This bill could be called ``the private GI bill.'' It is really, in principle, no different than the GI bill that is one of the great accomplishments of the American Government in the postwar period. I say ``private'' because the money isn't governmental, the money is the parents'. It is the families' own money that they put into the accounts. Then they decide how they want to use it to benefit their child's education and to put their child on a path to self-sufficiency in this technological information age. Some people talk about this bill as if it were the beginning and the end for public education. How could that be so? This is the beginning of an assist to parents of working middle class families, to encourage them to save some money so that they can help us better educate their children. Our priority in this country has been and always will be public education. That is where most of our children will be educated. That is where most of our effort must be put. But the crisis that plagues too many of our schools today forces us to focus on results. What are the results of the education system? What are we getting for the money we are putting into it and not on protecting the status quo? I view this not as a revolutionary proposal. Not at all. It is a modest, thoughtful, progressive, cost-efficient way to help parents better educate their children. Let's not forget that one of the elements of the administration's education program is to get parents more involved in their children's education. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reread the President's major education priorities. Both the President and the Secretary of Education have rightfully argued that stimulating greater parental involvement is critical to reaching all seven of the administration's very worthy, right on target, top education goals, particularly when it comes to improving reading proficiency. The Secretary believes it is so essential that he established a broad-based national initiative, a partnership for family involvement in education to better engage parents. The bill we are debating today I am convinced will help by encouraging parents across the country to save for the future and to take a more active role in their children's schooling. It will not singlehandedly raise test scores or prompt millions of new parents to join their local PTA. But it will complement and reinforce the work of the Secretary of Education, the great work that he and many national and grassroots education groups are already doing. For that reason alone, to encourage more parental involvement in our children's education, I think this proposal is worthy of support. Mr. President, as I see you in the Chair, the Senator from Indiana, it reminds me to make this point. Some have said that this bill is a sop to the rich because of the income limits. In my opinion, it is a helping hand to the middle class working families. The reality is that the poorest families in our country probably will not have the money. I hope they can find some to put into these tax-free education savings accounts. But I appeal to my colleagues. If you really want to help give a boost to poor children, if you are looking for a program that targets aid to those who are most disadvantaged, please take another look at the low-income school scholarship choice programs that the Senator from Indiana and I have tried in vain to convince 60 of our colleagues, 58 besides ourselves, to support so we could at least give these programs a test. Those programs are totally means tested. There is no sop to the rich there--not even a helping hand. It is to the middle class and directed totally to the poorest of our citizens. Mr. President, let me make two final points. I listened very carefully to my colleague and friend, the distinguished Senator from California, who is troubled by at least two of the amendments that have been put forward, both of which I voted against, one by the Senator from Washington and the other by the Senator from Missouri. Her decision, which I respect, is to vote against this bill because of those amendments. My decision, because of my strong support for the underlying bill, the idea of these empowering education savings accounts, is to vote for the bill with the amendments, although I oppose the amendments, but to appeal to all of our colleagues who will sit on the conference committee on this measure to remove those amendments, to bring them back on another day, so that they do not jeopardize the enormous accomplishment that we can make by passing the underlying bill. I want to say specifically with regard to Senator Gorton's amendment on block grants that he spent a lot of time on it and he did a lot of good work. It is a very thoughtful proposal. It is significantly improved--if I could use that judgmental term at least in my frame of reference--from the last time he presented it to the Senate. I know he has met with education groups about it. But the reality is, in my opinion, that it is too large a change. The underlying bill, that is significant, as I have said, is not revolutionary. Senator Gorton's amendment is revolutionary. I think appropriately it ought not to be passed after a brief debate as an amendment to another bill; it ought to be considered in the fullest of time next year, when the Congress will take up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The final point is this: I hope beyond the effort to take these controversial amendments off, which are guaranteed to bring a Presidential veto, that the conferees will break out of the tug-of-war mode that the two sides are in and see if we can't find common ground. I have great respect for the Senator from Georgia, whose imagination built on the education savings account, the bill we passed last year, and made it into this excellent A+ account proposal. I know he has not spent the time which he has, as well as Senator Torricelli and others, just to pass a bill that is vetoed by the President and nothing happens. I know him well enough to know that he is not looking--if I may speak directly--for an issue, he is looking for an accomplishment, as all of us are.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, at more than two centuries and counting, America is a nation ever maturing with greater wisdom, experience, morality and humanity. For this we can thank many of our most senior citizens who continue to set proud examples of daily life, and who remind us of our rich and proud heritage as a nation of caring individuals. Leo Lakin of Gardner, Massachusetts--who will turn 100 years old on May 26th--is one such American. Millions of our friends and neighbors distinguish themselves every day as parents, small business owners, educators, and in every other personal dimension and chosen profession of American life. There are those, however, who stand out as role models for their families and their communities. Leo wears these titles effortlessly and modestly, which is one reason why our Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, our Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and Green Thumb, Inc. honored Leo as ``an outstanding older worker'' at the first Prime Time Awards Dinner on March 12, 1998 in Washington, DC. Praise of Leo has been both modest and inspirational. In her nominating letter to Green Thumb, Inc., Marcia Hopper of Gardner's downtown association wrote that ``Mr. Lakin's work ethic of kindness, compassion, generosity, and thoughtfulness to customers has brought him a loyal following based on both business and friendship. Many of his current customers are fourth generation.'' Pete Trudel, another long- time business owner in Gardner, said of Leo, ``He's intelligent and knowledgeable. He has always kept up with the latest business trends. He's personable and loves people. He always remains calm. He's just a lovely, lovely man.'' Leo Lakin was born in Boston on May 26, 1898. The Lakin family moved to Southbridge, Massachusetts when Leo was a small child. Leo became bilingual as he grew up, as the French American community in Southbridge was large, and speaking French served Leo and his family well. His father, Phillip, was able to develop deep roots into the community. Philip Lakin became known for more than owning a dry goods store. He was always helping some less fortunate person with food, clothing or a place to stay. That strong sense of community became part of Leo's life, just as a strong sense of family had been instilled in Leo from a very early age. Leo and his 4 brothers--Celec, Louis, Eddy and Bob--were extremely close to each other. Phillip had been a widower with 5 children when he married a young widow, Annie, who had a daughter, Sarah. Leo idolized his parents. When he was about 11 years of age, he overheard his parents speaking in Yiddish, expressing the hope that some day after their passing one of their sons would be sufficiently well versed in Jewish tradition to be able to say the Mourner's Kaddish to honor and respect their memories. Overhearing this conversation had an enormous impact on Leo's life. He promised himself that he would honor his parents in this way, and the study of Hebrew and Jewish tradition was a vital aspect of Leo's youth. He has spent many, many years helping to conduct synagogue services and enjoying the richness of Jewish studies. Leo left high school after his freshman year and went to work for the American Optical Company, one of the largest lens manufacturers in the world at that time. His career there began as so many do in America, with a summer job. Leo stayed for several years but eventually he longed for the freedom he could experience as an entrepreneur. In 1922 he and his brother Eddy opened Lakin's Brothers, a men's store located in Gardner's Webster Square. In 1933, relatives in Fall River introduced him to Ida Gollis, a personal shopper at the Outlet Company in Providence, Rhode Island. They married on June 2, 1935. To this day, Leo says, ``She's the best thing that has ever happened to me.'' In 1935, children's specialty stores were en vogue. Gardner was a virtual boom town known as ``The Chair City of the World.'' Heywood Wakefield, Gem Crib and Cradle, Nichols and Stone, Florence Stove, and Simplex Time Recorder called Gardner home. Two weeks after their marriage, Leo and Ida opened Lakin's Children's Shop. And just like Leo's dad had done, they observed an important ethic of treating their customers with the respect and kindness, never pressured a purchase, and made everyone feel welcome. For the next 51 years, Leo and Ida survived every challenge from the Great Depression to the rise of shopping malls and the demise of many small downtowns. Only Ida's death in June of 1986 ended that partnership on this earth. Leo continued to run the store, and his customers remained loyal and supportive. The store has remained the cornerstone of Leo's vitality, and a force that will not be beaten. In March of 1993, Leo broke his arm at work and recovered. In February of 1994, he contracted pneumonia and recovered. That July, he broke his hip at work, had a replacement at the age of 96, made a complete recovery, and returned to work 6 days a week. During the 6 months of Leo's recuperation from hip surgery, his daughter Phyllis ran the store for him knowing that Leo needed the promise of returning to work in order to recover. She worked full time at Harvard Medical School, but with the help of close friends Jean Johnson, Beverly Black, and Claudette Jackowski, Phyllis kept the spirit of Lakin's alive in mind, body and soul as Leo had always done: with their customers in mind. Phyllis has since decided that the family legacy of her father and grandfather will go on, and that eventually she will carry on the tradition her parents began in 1935. ``As long as I'm alive, Lakin's is alive!'' she says. Leo broke his leg on Nov 3, 1997, which was why he could not attend the Prime Time awards in the Capital this March. Leo has been a tireless and courageous patient, continually amazes old and new friends alike, touches all with his faith, optimism, and kindness, and plans to return to the work and people he loves so much. Mr. President, we often wonder what America and the world we live in will be like in the 21st Century. We wonder about our children and the values they are learning today in school, at home, on television, and from each other. We can only hope that as they navigate so many diverse and dynamic forces in their lives that there will also be a Leo Lakin or two to give them a sense of history, community, family, and hope for the future as he has most certainly given to all who know and love him in Gardner, Massachusetts.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to note the passing of another milestone by our esteemed Vice President and my good friend, Al Gore. On March 31, the Vice President celebrated his fiftieth birthday--in excellent humor and high spirits, I might add. Welcome to the ``Over 50'' club, Mr. Vice President. The passage of half a century of life is not a milestone everyone likes to celebrate. I know, having passed my fiftieth six years ago. But then again, I understand my colleague Senator Thurmond sent the Vice President a birthday greeting in which Senator Thurmond pointed out that he was running for president when Al Gore was born. Senator Thurmond will celebrate his 98th birthday in December. Al Gore has always been a man of exceptional accomplishment and character. His sense of wonder and enthusiasm for life is just as palpable today as it was years ago when we first met. There's no doubt he has been one of the most effective Vice Presidents in the history of our nation and I have no doubt he will be equally as effective in whatever future endeavors he chooses to pursue. I look forward to the 21st century knowing the Vice President will be leading us there. Trudie Feldman of the Free Press has penned a worthy tribute to the Vice President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sense of the Senate Amendment to double federal R&D investments over the next ten years. Federal support for research and development is all about creating wealth and opportunity and assuring a higher quality of life for our citizens. As policy makers, it is worth our while to focus on wealth creation because it enables everything else we want to do. We have an awful lot of data these days that tell us there is a firm connection between R&D expenditures and subsequent economic growth. One commonly cited figure--derived from Dr. Robert Solow's Nobel prize- winning research--is that 50% of America's post-World War II growth can be attributed to technological innovation--innovation largely driven by the discoveries that flow out of the nation's R&D laboratories. Economists do not give us the tools to determine the optimum level of R&D spending, but is clear from all the data that we are far, far below the point of diminishing returns. Numerous studies indicate that the marginal rates of return on publicly-financed R&D investments are extraordinarily high. These high rates of return tell us that federal R&D expenditures are an especially efficient investment vehicle, that we are currently underinvesting in R&D, and that we are underutilizing our nation's existing R&D infrastructure, including its pool of talented scientist and engineers. Why is the government involved in research in the first place? These days industry funds nearly twice as much R&D as government does, why don't we let them do all of it? The problem with that notion is that the private sector, for the most part, does not fund discovery-- government does. The private sector funds the later phases of the innovation process--those phases closest to product development. Privately-financed R&D--which is mostly D--provides the critical link between research and the subsequent creation of new wealth and opportunity. It is vitally important, but it depends on publicly- financed R&D for fundamental knowledge creation. The benefits of knowledge created in the nation's laboratories and universities are diffuse and typically yield economic returns only after a significant time lag--a time lag well beyond the planning horizon of most commercial firms. Moreover, the benefits cannot be anticipated in advance. The chemists and physical scientists who first conceived of utilizing nuclear magnetic resonance to determine chemical structure never imagined that their discovery would become the basis of a whole new medical diagnostic industry. Firms realize that they cannot capture most of the benefits of fundamental research. It is a classic market failure. The returns are very significant, however, and they are fully captured by the society as a whole. Because federal investments are typically focused on the early phases of the innovation process, they exert tremendous leverage. This is part of the reason why the returns on federal R&D investments are so high. The early phases are the high-risk, high-payoff phases. There may be many misses, but the hits are very large indeed. In recent years, we have not maintained federal R&D investments at traditional levels as a fraction of either discretionary spending or, more significantly, as a fraction of national income. I would argue that, in a society and an economy that are increasingly knowledge- intensive, we ought to be increasing our investments in knowledge creation not reducing them. Nonetheless, federal support for research and development has declined substantially since the 1960s as a percentage of national income. We have to turn this situation around. Robust federal support for R&D and the American research enterprise is one of the key elements in sustaining high levels of economic growth in the future. We cannot take America's current economic and technical leadership for granted. If we are to maintain our nation's leadership position, we must be prepared to make the requisite investments in our R&D system--the most productive system of its kind in the world.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Airplane Emergency Locator Act. This important legislation would require most small aircraft to have emergency locator transmitters. A similar bill was introduced in the House by Representative Christopher Shays. On Tuesday December 24, 1996 a Learjet with Pilot Johan Schwartz, 31, of Westport, Connecticut and Patrick Hayes, 30, of Clinton, Connecticut lost contact with the control tower at the Lebanon, New Hampshire airport. The crash occurred in poor weather and after an aborted landing. Despite efforts by the federal government, New Hampshire state and local authorities, and Connecticut authorities, extremely well organized ground searches failed to locate the two gentlemen or the airplane. The thick pines of the NH countryside have hampered the effort. This plane did not have an emergency locator transmitter, a device which could have made a difference in saving the lives of these two men. The legislation I am introducing today is straightforward--the only aircraft that would be exempt from having emergency locator transmitter's would be planes used by manufacturers in development exercises and agricultural planes used to spread chemicals over crops. It is my strong belief that these devices will play a vital role in search efforts, where timing is so critical in any rescue mission. I applaud my colleague Christopher Shays for introducing similar legislation in the House and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of the Airplane Emergency Locator Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.