Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in sadness at the great crisis which threatens to end the Oslo Peace Process in the Middle East. The crisis, as we know, has been caused by the most recent cowardly and criminal acts of those who are enemies of not only the peace process but of the Israeli and Palestinian people themselves. My hope is that a solution to the crisis may be found through the ingenuity, faith, and the actions of those who have the courage to rise above hatred and suspicion. It is for that reason and in that spirit that I wish to express my strongest support for the mission of Secretary of State Albright to the Middle East this week. The recent bombings in Jerusalem were detestable acts of terrorism which had only one purpose--killing the peace process. Both Israelis and Palestinians alike will be the victims if the criminals succeed. Secretary Albright's mission is nothing less than an attempt to save the peace process. But the peace process can recover and move forward only in a secure environment, and the Secretary has properly identified security as the primary and essential focus of her trip. This, I must emphasize, must be transparently as important to the Palestinian Authority as it is to the Government of Israel. Those that have planned and carried out these acts of terrorism against Israel have at the same time weakened the Palestinian Authority. Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority must address this problem at its root and without equivocation. The coordination of security efforts is not and cannot be a bargaining chip to be turned on or off at will. There can be no tolerance for the perpetrators of violence--those who plan, finance, supply, or abet terrorism must be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned. No exceptions and no revolving doors. Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated that there can be no peace without security. This is a commitment we share, and a commitment that must be evidenced by the Palestinian Authority beyond question through its own unilateral actions. At the same time, and as noted by Secretary Albright, we do not ask the impossible and, against suicide terrorists, cannot expect 100-percent success. There must, however, be nothing other than a 100-percent effort in this regard by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. With this security perspective as the foundation, there must also be a political environment that makes it possible to rebuild the trust that has been a victim of the violence and move ahead to achieve a peace for all. Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed his commitment to ``a peace that will surprise the world.'' We must encourage all parties to embrace such a commitment, and I fully support the Secretary in her efforts to that end.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1080 (Purpose: To increase funding for the Public Charter Schools Program under Part C of Title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1976)

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska very much for his statement. The willingness of the Senate conferees to yield to the House on this would accomplish an enormous step forward in Federal support of the charter school movement. There is no need to take any more time of the Senate. Obviously, the word of the Senator from Alaska is bankable. I thank him for that. I thank my colleague from Indiana and I appreciate very much another expression of bipartisan support for this educational reform movement that is sweeping America. With our help, it will help it even more with this additional amount of money. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today to offer an amendment, along with my good friend and colleague Senator Coats from Indiana, which would increase our investment in one of the most promising engines of education reform in America today, which is the charter school movement. This amendment would increase funding for the charter school grant program from the current level of $51 million up to $100 million for fiscal year 1998. Mr. President, we recognize that this is a sizable jump in funding, but let me put it in context and then go on to explain why we believe it is more than warranted. Earlier this week, on Tuesday of this week, my friend and mentor, Bill Bennett, wrote a column on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal in which he began with some startling numbers. ``This morning,'' that is Tuesday morning, ``a record 52 million children will walk into America's classrooms. And this year Americans will spend more than a quarter of a trillion dollars trying to educate them.'' So when we think, as this amendment would do, Mr. President, of taking the $51 million the Federal Government now invests in charter schools and raising it to $100 million--a sizable jump; just about doubling it--let us put it in the broader context of the quarter of a trillion dollars that is being spent every year in this country to educate our children. This additional $50 million, I think, provides enormous hope that the remaining quarter of a trillion dollars will be better spent. Dr. Bill Bennett went on to say that these numbers alone ensure that education will be at or near the top of the national political agenda, and indeed, in addition to this, there is greater political emphasis on social issues. Education is how many people talk about the condition of our children, cultural decline, and the Nation's moral well-being. Dr. Bennett goes on to cite a number of hopeful signs of reform and progress occurring in our education system, including some of the superb experiments that are now being tried with school choice or school vouchers, school scholarships. But he also mentions charter schools. I quote from his article. ``Public schools that are freed from many regulations, in exchange for greater autonomy and more accountability, are flourishing. There are now more than 700 charter schools in 28 States.'' Mr. President, the goal of this amendment is to help us open, help the States, help individuals, help entrepreneurs open hundreds of more charter schools. This movement has quickly become one of the most popular and encouraging developments in the world of education reform. Since the first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1991, 29 States and the District of Columbia have enacted charter programs. And as children head back to school this month, it is expected that more than 700 charter schools will be in operation across the country, including a whole new group in my own State of Connecticut, practically tripling the number of charters that were in existence just 2 years ago. The appeal of this new breed of schools is obvious. In the context of a school system that is not adequately educating too many of our children, charters offer the promise of higher standards, greater accountability, broader flexibility to innovate in the classroom, and ultimately greater choice, which is what more and more parents want in public education. So far the broad array of charter schools already in business are delivering on that potential. Parents give overwhelmingly high marks to charter schools for their responsiveness to them, the parents, as customers. Several independent studies show that this, in turn, is helping to generate greater parental involvement in the education of their children. These studies also show that charters are effectively serving diverse populations, particularly many of the disadvantaged and at-risk children that traditional public schools have struggled to reach. While it is too soon to determine what impact charter schools are having on overall academic performance, the early returns in places like Massachusetts suggest that charters are succeeding where it matters most, in the classroom. Perhaps the most powerful endorsement of the charter school approach came recently from the superintendent of public schools for the Seattle public school district, who suggested that the city should consider making every school in its district a charter school, freeing the schools of the burdens of the central bureaucracy, setting a series of standards of accountability that would have to be met by those who run the school in a given amount of time and understanding that the charter is not forever. The charter is only renewed if the goals set out within it are realized. The movement is being driven by a growing legion of parents, educators, business leaders and community activists who are convinced that alternatives in public education, including charter schools, represent the future of public education in America. But Congress, to our credit, has made a valuable contribution to the growth of charters through the Federal charter grant program, which was authorized in 1994 with broad bipartisan support. I was privileged to be a cosponsor of that legislation with Senator David Durenberger, the main sponsor, Senator from Minnesota. Over the last 3 years, the Federal charter program has helped scores of charter schools open. What do we do? We defray the costs many groups face in trying to start a school from scratch. That is what the Federal money goes to. Most States provide charter schools, and this is the case in Connecticut, with a per pupil allotment once they are in operation. But charter operators have to scramble to cover such startup expenses as planning a curriculum, leasing a building, hiring a staff. A survey of charter school operators recently conducted by the Department of Education highlighted this problem showing that it was by far the biggest obstacle to success that charter school operators face. It is that obstacle that this amendment intends to diminish. As the charter movement expands, the demand for this aid will only continue to grow with it. With the number of charter schools mushrooming each year, our ability to help them meet their startup costs will quickly diminish, unless we increase the amount appropriated, as this amendment would do. President Clinton recognized this when he issued a challenge in the State of the Union to double the funding for the Federal charter program. That is what we do, Senator Coats and I, in this amendment. By doubling funding for this program, we would help scores of new charter schools make the transition from the drawing board to the blackboard, and provide thousands of additional students with an opportunity to attend one of these innovative, performance-based programs. Moreover, we would also send a strong message to charter advocates and to families in general that the Federal Government is committed to supporting the good work that is happening at the State and local level and that we are serious about fundamentally improving public education. To make sure we spend this new money wisely, Senator Coats and I also intend to introduce legislation this fall aimed at strengthening the Federal charter program. From our experience to date, we have learned some valuable lessons about how we can improve this program to speed the development of charter schools in participating States and to also encourage nonparticipating States to join this movement. The legislation we're preparing would use the new Federal funding to reward those States that are most actively moving to create charters. It would also tighten a few unintended loopholes in the current law that have allowed schools that are not true charters to receive Federal aid that was not intended for them. We can begin strengthening this program immediately by increasing our investment in charter schools. And that is the purpose of our amendment today. To pay for this new investment, we are proposing shifting a relatively small amount of funds from three broad-based Federal programs--the title VI block grant account, Goals 2000, and the Fund for the Improvement of Education. All three of these programs are aimed at promoting educational reform and innovation, which is the same exact mission of the charter school program. So in essence, rather than cutting these three broad-based accounts, our amendment would simply earmark a fixed portion for a highly effective, well-targeted, and broadly supported program. The three programs from which we are shifting funding are all worthwhile efforts. But we feel strongly by earmarking a relatively small amount from them for the charter school program, we will be getting the most bang for the books. We are convinced that the charter movement, as charter expert Bruno Manno of the Hudson Institute has said, is arguably the most vibrant force in public education today. It has managed to bring together parents, educators, and political leaders from both parties in support of an effort to inject more choice, accountability, and competition into our public schools, an effort that focuses first and foremost on performance, not process--performance in educating our children. I hope we can come together ourselves in a bipartisan fashion, as we did in launching the Federal charter program, to demonstrate our commitment to these goals by passing this amendment. I thank the managers of the bill for the opportunity to speak on this important issue, and would ask them for their support. Mr. President, let me discuss the funding offsets for the Lieberman- Coats charter school amendment. The Lieberman-Coats amendment would increase funding for the Federal charter school grant program by $49 million. Here is a breakdown of how this amendment is paid for: $25 million would come from the title VI block grant program that supports State and local driven innovation efforts. This would leave funding for this account at $285 million; $14 million would come from the Goals 2000 program. This would leave funding for this account at $515.9 million, which would still amount to a $25 million increase over the fiscal year 1997 level; and $10 million would come from the Fund for the Improvement of Education, a pool of discretionary funds administered by the Secretary of Education. This would leave funding for this account at $40 million, the same amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997. All of these programs are broad-based efforts aimed at promoting education reform and innovation and lifting standards. The charter school program is dedicated to these same goals. So rather than cutting the three programs listed above, the Lieberman-Coats amendment simply earmarks a fixed portion of these accounts for arguably the most promising education reform and innovation initiative in the country. I notice the presence on the floor of my cosponsor and Senator Stevens as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend and colleague from New York for yielding and for his statement. Mr. President, as a result of a terrorist act, blood has been spilled in the streets of Israel as its citizens go about the most normal day- to-day tasks, walking, shopping. Lives again have been lost to the terrorist hand. It is a very sad and dispiriting moment, not just, of course, for those who have suffered in this terrorist attack and for the families and friends who pray now that the lives of the wounded will be saved. It is also a sad and dispiriting day for all of us who hope for the continuation of the peace process in the Middle East, begun in Oslo, ratified at a historic, dramatic, hopeful signing on the lawn of the White House on September 13, 1993 by the late Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat. The agreement, the understanding, the exchange made in the declaration of principles in the Oslo accord was complicated in one sense, but simple in another. It was an exchange in which the Israeli Government would yield land in recognition of a Palestinian self-governing authority in exchange for the Palestinians-- and particularly their eventually elected leadership, Chairman Arafat and others--giving security to the people of Israel; freedom from fear of the kind of terrorist acts that have been committed again today in Israel. Mr. President, I know the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is controversial in many areas of this country, and there are different acts that he has carried out as a leader that some challenge and question. But it seems to me, if you look at the agreement made in the Oslo accords and you look at what was required of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu, since he has been Prime Minister, has kept those promises made by Prime Minister Rabin. The same cannot be said of Chairman Arafat. It is not just, although it is significant, the failure, as promised in the Oslo accord, to remove from the Palestinian Charter these clauses which threaten the destruction of the State of Israel. It is not just, though of course it is tragic and painful, the terrorist acts that continue. But it is the tone, it is the context of what is happening. The Israeli intelligence gathers evidence, presents it to Mr. Arafat to show him, a month or so ago, that the person he has appointed as the chief of the Palestinian Authority police has been involved in planning terrorist acts. How would we feel if we had evidence from intelligence showing that the minister of defense of Russia, with whom we were negotiating an arms control agreement, had been involved in planning terrorist acts against the United States? The dreadful moment, after the bombing in Israel, in Jerusalem, a few months ago, Chairman Arafat, instead of taking action to reassure the fear of average Israelis about their security, holds a conference with Hamas and other terrorist groups and embraces and kisses one of the leaders of that group. Again, the chief of police of the Palestinian Authority at one point declares with some pride that more than 100 members of Hamas are members of the Palestinian Authority police. The effect of these actions leading, again, to this tragic terrorist act today, is not just to affect the political leadership of Israel. Israel is a democracy. That is why Mr. Netanyahu is Prime Minister. The effect of these acts that I have described is to undercut severely the trust, the confidence, the hope of the people of Israel for peace. Because they don't trust the Palestinian Authority and Mr. Arafat, based on these various acts I have described and Senator D'Amato has described, to carry out the promises in the Oslo accords to provide security and peace. The late Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel, was a great leader, a great soldier of the peace, so-called peace of the brave. But I would say today, if Prime Minister Rabin was alive and was still Prime Minister today, he could not accept the continuation of the peace process under the status quo, because the Palestinians have not kept their part of the bargain. So, I fully support the statements made by the Senator from New York. I am grateful the Secretary of State is underway to the Middle East. It will take a courageous and bold action. But the main point here is that Chairman Arafat has to understand---

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent I be given 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, what I am saying here is that this process--for the first time since September 1993 I fear that the peace process in the Middle East is unraveling. And that would be a terrible result for the people on both sides in the Middle East. The only way it can be brought back on track is for Chairman Arafat to take some unequivocal and strong actions to make clear that he is an enemy of terrorism. That will probably include arresting suspected terrorists. That will include a direct break of this embrace with Hamas. It will include a dedication to destroying the terrorist infrastructure that is part of Hamas. If that does not happen, the process will not go forward. Because the people of Israel--leave aside the Government--the people of Israel will not have the confidence to take it forward. Here our options are limited. The Secretary of State and her designees are there to try to bring some sense to the parties on both sides. But, insofar as we have options, it suffices to say that in the climate and the reality that has occurred, as Senator D'Amato has indicated, it seems to me there is very little chance that this Congress would appropriate any funds for the Palestinian Authority. It will make it difficult to renew the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, which allowed the PLO, the Palestinian Authority, to have an office here in Washington which was closed in August because we didn't renew it. These are serious consequences which go to the heart of the process and to the hopes of people, on the Palestinian and Israeli sides, for a better future than the war-torn past. I think we are all here appealing to Chairman Arafat, who remains the elected chairman, to seize this moment, show his leadership, or forever be seen in the eyes of history as the man who destroyed the hopes for peace in the Middle East. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Chester Hose Company on their 85th anniversary. On September 7 they will be honored by the town of Chester and the Chester Historical Society with a Chester Hose Company Day celebration. For the past 85 years this dedicated group of men and women have strived to ensure the safety of the community of Chester, CT. Their dedication is evident in their unshakable commitment to self-sacrifice for the security of their friends, families, and neighbors. Indeed, some have given the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives while trying to protect their fellow citizens. This organization's dedication and commitment to the town of Chester can be seen not only through the company's actions, but also in the great confidence and respect the residents of Chester place in these men and women. These are ordinary citizens asked to perform extraordinary tasks, and never asking what was in it for them. The community's faith in their company has not wavered in its first 85 years and will undoubtedly continue through the next century. The Chester Hose Company has been an important stone in the foundation of the town of Chester. The people of Connecticut thank them for their service, dedication, and contribution to their community.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Resolution 98. I believe climate change is a serious problem that requires credible action by the international community. Negotiations on an international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions will conclude this December in Kyoto, Japan. This is an essential step in the long-term, global efforts to deal with climate change. While I support Senate resolution's call for increased involvement of developing countries in the Kyoto agreement, the resolution does not take into account other key components of the treaty that are essential to its success, particularly for the United States' business community. The scientific basis for moving forward with an international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions is compelling and significant. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--a group of 2,500 expert scientists representing more than 50 countries, the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the global climate. Given the potential impacts of climate change predicted by the IPCC--more droughts, more floods, sea level rise, water scarcity, and increased incidence of infectious diseases--it is not surprising that nations of the world agreed to find more effective ways to understand and deal with the problem. If we don't agree to long-term greenhouse gas limits soon, and instead wait to see how our climate changes, it may be too late. Greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, and there is a long lag time between when gases are emitted and when the climate consequences of those emissions appear. So we need to begin reductions soon to have any long-term effect. And, a new generation of energy- efficient technologies requires a long lead time for development and implementation. This won't happen without clear signals to the market that an international agreement on climate change would provide. Senate Resolution 98 focuses on the role of developing countries in the Kyoto agreement. The principles expressed in the resolution regarding developing countries are on target. Climate change cannot be solved by the developed countries alone--we are indeed all in the same boat. New commitments by developing countries regarding their performance under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, of course, need to be consistent with their historic responsibility for the problem, as well as their current capabilities. The ground rules for the negotiations-- the Berlin mandate--recognize these common, but differentiated responsibilities. It is clear that the Berlin mandate can be carried out in a way that is consistent with Senate Resolution 98. The resolution says that developing countries can start with a commitment that is lower relative to the industrialized countries at first. Over time, however, the commitments of developing and developed countries must become comparable to ensure that every country does its fair share to address the problem. Senate Resolution 98 states that developing countries have to start making quantified emissions reductions objectives within the same compliance period as developed countries. This means that at a stage to be negotiated over the compliance period of the Kyoto agreement, developing countries must begin to make quantified emissions reductions objectives. Senate Resolution 98 says that it is entirely appropriate for industrialized countries to start making quantified emissions reductions first, as long as developing countries also commit to making quantified emissions reductions before the end of the time period worked out for the Kyoto agreement. I agree with this basic approach-- the sooner developing countries take on quantified emissions reductions targets, the sooner we can achieve a global solution to the climate problem. At the same time, I am concerned that the resolution does not take into account other key components of the treaty that are essential to protect U.S. competitiveness. I am concerned that elevating one issue to a level of importance that will overshadow other key matters may harm the United States' efforts to ensure that the climate agreement is realistic, achievable, and will not harm the U.S. economy. For example, the need for flexibility in implementing a treaty is critical to protect U.S. competitiveness. Some countries, such as members of the European Union, would prefer highly prescriptive policies and measures to meet reduction targets. The United States' negotiating team has made flexibility an absolute prerequisite for any agreement, and I want to commend them for this approach. I believe that, to be acceptable, our businesses must have the most flexibility possible to find the least- cost ways to reduce emissions. This means the agreement must contain provisions that are so important to our business community: emissions trading, joint implementation between nations, and appropriate credits for those countries that have already made certain emissions reductions. Senate Resolution 98 is silent regarding these provisions. As we grapple with the human judgments and values that inevitably will determine how we handle climate change, we must base our actions on the facts--the scientific evidence of climate change, the physical effects that are likely to result from it, and the ways we can credibly address this problem on a global basis. While Senate Resolution 98 is only part of a bigger picture that needs to be addressed, it is a step toward adressing this global issue.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Department of Commerce's Advanced Technology Program or ATP. This is an important program and I have long appreciated Senator Hollings' work in founding and continuing it. The amendment offered by Senator Brownback would prohibit ATP awards to companies with revenues that exceed $2.5 billion. I oppose Senator Brownback's amendment and would like to thank Senator Frist for his floor statement explaining why he too has voted against the amendment. Like Senator Frist, I think there are several solid reasons as to why Senator Brownback's amendment should be opposed. My first concern is process--this is an attempt to legislate a very complex issue now being considered by the authorizing committee, on an appropriations bill. The Senate Commerce Committee, Science and Technology Subcommittee under Senator Frist, the Subcommittee Chair, and Senator Rockefeller, ranking Democrat, are planning legislation on ATP, including a careful look at this issue, later this session. I believe in this case that the Senate should vote to wait and see what action the authorizing committee takes. I would also highlight recent changes to the ATP proposed by Commerce Secretary William Daley that may assist in resolving this debate. The Secretary's action plan for changes is very responsive to recommendations I and other Members of Congress made. Specifically the evaluation criteria will be changed to put more emphasis on joint ventures or consortia. This will help ensure that the program funds only pre-competitive research and development; for if competitors in the development phase cooperate in research and development, they are very unlikely to allow access to each other's product development efforts. Secretary Daley has mandated that the cost-share ratio for large companies, applying as single applicants, will be increased to a minimum of 60 percent. Proposals will also be reviewed by venture capital experts to ensure that private sector financing would not be available and a government role is needed. When combined with changes in the evaluation criteria favoring small and medium sized businesses, these changes will result in virtually all ATP grants being awarded to either consortium or small and medium sized company single applicants. Finally, modifications to the ATP's rules and procedures would help facilitate cooperative ventures between industry and universities and national laboratories. To date, university and Federal laboratory participation has been hindered over concerns regarding intellectual property and project management. After studying the Secretary's report, I believe that the ATP will emerge both as a more effective program and one with a significantly reduced political profile. Its new structure appears to have answered criticisms raised and is consistent with the bipartisan ideas endorsed by the Senate Science and Technology Caucus of which I am a member. I believe that the changes introduced by Secretary Daley, now under review by the Commerce Committee, are a better way to ensure the continued effectiveness of the Advanced Technology Program than the pending amendment which would completely ban large companies from all participation in the ATP. Large companies play a key role in the innovation process through their organizational ability, resources and market experience. To entirely preclude their participation in the ATP would be a mistake. I will vote to oppose this amendment and look forward to Senator Frist's subcommittee review. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I concur. That is my understanding as well.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I was concerned that my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, thought I was missing in action on a controversial matter. I apologize. I was involved in a Government Affairs campaign finance investigation. I stand solidly and strongly with the chairman of our subcommittee. It is my privilege to be his ranking Democratic member in fashioning the proposal on compensation of executive salary which is in the DOD Authorization Act before us. We compromised and, as I believe I just heard the Senator from Pennsylvania say, we specifically rejected a proposal from the administration that would have permitted reimbursement of salaries as high as $4 million a year for some senior executives in the largest corporations. To tell you the truth, they had a plausible argument in terms of getting the best people to do the job for our defense needs, but it was, we thought, an untenable argument so we came up with this modest increase in the cap. The cap is rationally based. In fact, in some ways it is tighter than any of the limitations in law today for the simple reason that, unlike those limitations, our provision would apply to all costs charged on all defense and nondefense contracts regardless of when the contracts may have been entered. The flexibility provided by our approach, which is to say to base the limitation on a median private sector salary, is likely to be particularly important to small companies that rely on Department of Defense business. Unlike the larger and diversified companies that can eat the larger executive salaries, many smaller businesses, particularly the high-technology businesses that are the source of so much growth around our country, are not in a position to pay their executives what the market requires and absorb or, to use the phrase I used before, ``eat'' any unreimbursed amounts. If the cap that we set is too low, some of these businesses are going to have difficulty attracting and retaining qualified personnel. Mr. President, the proposed amendment, which would lower the cap to $200,000, is, in my opinion, not necessary to protect the taxpayers from excessive executive salaries. If a contractor pays an executive, for instance, the $4 million a year that might have been allowed under the Pentagon proposal, the provision in the underlying bill would disallow $3,660,000 of that salary. The proposed amendment would save an additional $140,000. That is a difference of less than 4 percent, and the cost of it in terms of lost opportunity is much larger. What we will lose by going after that additional amount is far more significant than the amount of money that will be gained. We are going to lose the flexibility for small businesses that are dependent on Government contracts to pay what the market requires to attract the skilled professionals that they need to provide the quality products and services that we need to maintain our national security. We risk driving such experts out of companies that work for the Government and reducing the expertise available to our Government, the Pentagon and other Federal agencies, and, most important I believe, we risk driving some small businesses that are highly reliant on such experts out of doing business with the Government at all. Mr. President, the amendment before us, of course, is an easy amendment to vote for. We can say we took a whack at high salaries of executives of companies. What I am suggesting is the difference between the amendment and the underlying bill is minimal and the consequences for a lot of people, for a lot of companies, for a lot of areas of our country where those companies exist, for our Government itself in obtaining the highest quality, most cost-efficient products is much, much greater. So it is not an easy vote. But, of course, that is not why the Senate is here. This is the right vote. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and stand by the very reasonable proposal in the underlying bill. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I agree with the Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss three provisions of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997. I begin by congratulating my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee for their efforts on this bill. They have worked hard to craft legislation that is forward looking and sensitive to the needs of our economy, working Americans, and our children. For the next few minutes, I would like to highlight several provisions of the bill that I believe are particularly important to our national economy and my State of Connecticut and are issues that I have supported and worked on over the years. economic growth and u.s. competitiveness in a global economy The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 is a timely piece of tax legislation. It comes at a moment when our economy is in the midst of a transition to one that is more global and outward looking, more competitive, and more innovative. American companies and workers, whether they are in manufacturing, high-technology, or service industries, are more dependent on the world economy than ever before. It is with this assumption that we must consider our economic future. Today in this new global economy, more Americans are taking part in employee ownership programs than ever before. Employees increasingly have a stake in the performance of their company and are sharing in its growth. As a result, our workers are directly benefiting from the dynamic economic expansion that is sweeping across our land. Our economy is once again being driven by aspirations for a better living. This bill represents an understanding of our new economy and the aspirations of working Americans. It understands that education is the key to social mobility and economic security; it understands that small businesses are the backbone of our economy; it understands that increased savings and investment means greater independence and growth; and it understands that urban renovation means enlarged opportunity. It is a bill that sets our economy on a sound footing for the next millennium. kidsave Let me now turn to some of the specific provisions that I believe are at the heart of this tax legislation and the reasons why I will support this bill. First, I am pleased that my colleagues have included in the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 a child tax credit for children under age 17. This provision is a modified version of a proposal Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and I first discussed in the 104th Congress. The inclusion of Kidsave reflects forward thinking and, according to a recent New York Times editorial, ``a clever way to convert a pro-consumption tax cut * * * into a pro- savings tax cut.'' I congratulate Senators Kerrey and Breaux and their colleagues from both sides of the aisle on the Finance Committee for their work on this proposal. The key word here is pro-savings. At a time when one of our greatest challenges is how to create economic opportunity and wealth for the working families of this country, I believe Kidsave helps us meet that challenge in an affordable, responsible way. If there is going to be a tax credit to help families with children, I believe there is no better way to provide that help than to offer parents the opportunity to ensure a sound financial future for their children. One additional advantage of Kidsave should be noted, although it is harder to quantify at this time. This is the effect of encouraging Americans to save. The ethic of thriftiness seems to have been lost in recent decades, replaced by a credit card mentality. We would compound our problems if we pass such bad habits on to future generations. Kidsave can help us turn the tide of indebtedness into a groundswell of savings and can transform our whole attitude toward money and how to use it to best advantage. That will yield incalculable dividends for our nation down the road. Kidsave will help our economy today by creating a pool of savings available for investment. As you know, savings and investment rates in the United States are at historic lows: our household savings rate is 4.6 percent of disposable income, compared to Japan's 14.8 percent and Germany's 12.3 percent. Under the provisions of the bill, parents will have the option of depositing $500 into an IRA-like account for children from birth to age 13, and be required to direct $500 into an IRA from age 13 to 16. This money will serve as an education fund for individual children, as well as a long-term retirement account; it will also provide investment capital for our economy. Most importantly, unlike any other proposal that has come before, Kidsave gives our children a tangible, financial head start on the rest of their lives. capital gains I am also encouraged that the drafters of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 decided to include broad-based capital gains cuts and targeted cuts directed toward small businesses. The bill calls for reducing the top rate from 28 percent to 20 percent for the highest earners and down to 10 percent for more modest household incomes. This decision too reflects a forward-looking perspective on our economy. I was pleased to cosponsor similar legislation with Senator Hatch earlier this year. In today's global economy, small businesses and start-ups must rely on investors willing to take a risk on their venture. And in today's financial markets, investors are not only the wealthy, but include all working Americans. As a result, the benefits of this capital gains cut will not flow just to people of wealth. Anyone who has stock, who has money invested in a mutual fund, who owns a home, who has a stock option plan at work, has a stake in capital gains tax relief. According to the provisions included in this bill, homeowners will now be able to exempt up to $500,000 in gains from the sale of their principal residence. In addition, $1.5 million in assets of a family business will be exempt from estate taxes. All of this means that millions and millions of middle-class American families stand to benefit from this bill. Small businesses will also particularly benefit from the provision in this bill. In a country where small businesses comprise a growing percentage of GDP, it is critical that their economic growth is not stifled by limited capital, but encouraged through greater investment. The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 increases the size of an eligible corporation for additional favorable capital gains treatment. It also cleans up some of the implementation problems from the 1993 capital gains legislation for smaller firms which I strongly supported at that time. This means that the thousands of smaller companies and start-ups will attract more investors and capital. This will be especially helpful in the capital intensive high-technology and biotechnology industries where much of the growth in our economy is today. brownfields I am also pleased to see that there is a tax relief provision for restoring brownfields, abandoned commercial and industrial properties believed to be environmentally contaminated. The Revenue Reconciliation Act will provide clear and consistent rules regarding the Federal tax treatment of certain environmental remediation expenses. This too is an issue that I have supported for some time. In fact, earlier this year, I advocated the restoration of brownfields with Senators Abraham and Moseley-Braun. In a perfect world, I would like the clean-up of all brownfield sites to begin tomorrow. However, revenue constraints preclude us from doing so. But we do have to start somewhere and what better place to start than Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities, areas that have been designated as economically distressed. These are arguably the areas of this country that are most in need of economic development. And that is precisely what this brownfields tax incentive is designed to do--bring economic development to the places that need it most. If this incentive works in our most economically distressed areas, I hope this Chamber will work to have this incentive cover a broader range of areas in the future. conclusion In closing, I would like to encourage my colleagues to vote for the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997. It is a fair and sensible bill that is pro economic growth and pro-job creation. At a time when we are facing many economic challenges, this bill helps our companies and workers more effectively compete on the global economic stage. But more importantly, it is a bill that will broaden educational opportunities for our children and promote economic security for their retirement.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Mack, in introducing the Hong Kong Press Freedom Act. In a very few days, Hong Kong will revert to Chinese sovereignty. Already, there is evidence that China will not fully honor its commitment to preserve Hong Kong's democratic institutions and way of life under the rubric, one country, two systems. Beijing has announced it will eliminate Hong Kong's democratically elected legislative council and that it will reimpose several restrictive civil order statutes, including against certain types of political expression. Even more disturbing, there are indications that media self-censorship is replacing freedom of the press. It is fitting and proper that we introduce this legislation now. Eight years ago, Chinese authorities, most of whom remain in power today, brutally massacred students and others who wanted assurances that their government would become more accountable to the will of the people. They were seeking democratic progress, not revolutionary license. Beijing answered them with tanks, and 8 years later, Tiananmen Square remains a vivid reminder of what autocrats can and will do even in full view of astonished world opinion. This bill would not have prevented the evil of Tiananmen Square; and it is not intended as a warning to China. It is simply principle put into action. As Americans, we understand how important a free press is to preserving the rule of law and to protecting the rights and dignity of individuals against the power of the state. Our action here will help assure that reporters in hong Kong will not be cowed by the memory of Tiananmen Square. This bill supports those who choose to put themselves at risk by reporting honestly and openly what they see and hear when the Chinese flag replaces the Union Jack. We owe them our gratitude and protection, and this bill will help us provide it. Specifically, this measure offers special immigration status to journalists and their families if they are threatened with reprisal because of their work. A similar measure was introduced in the House by Representative Porter and 27 other Members in February. I urge my Senate colleagues to join this effort and to pass the Hong Kong press freedom bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Mack, in introducing the Hong Kong Press Freedom Act. In a very few days, Hong Kong will revert to Chinese sovereignty. Already, there is evidence that China will not fully honor its commitment to preserve Hong Kong's democratic institutions and way of life under the rubric, one country, two systems. Beijing has announced it will eliminate Hong Kong's democratically elected legislative council and that it will reimpose several restrictive civil order statutes, including against certain types of political expression. Even more disturbing, there are indications that media self-censorship is replacing freedom of the press. It is fitting and proper that we introduce this legislation now. Eight years ago, Chinese authorities, most of whom remain in power today, brutally massacred students and others who wanted assurances that their government would become more accountable to the will of the people. They were seeking democratic progress, not revolutionary license. Beijing answered them with tanks, and 8 years later, Tiananmen Square remains a vivid reminder of what autocrats can and will do even in full view of astonished world opinion. This bill would not have prevented the evil of Tiananmen Square; and it is not intended as a warning to China. It is simply principle put into action. As Americans, we understand how important a free press is to preserving the rule of law and to protecting the rights and dignity of individuals against the power of the state. Our action here will help assure that reporters in hong Kong will not be cowed by the memory of Tiananmen Square. This bill supports those who choose to put themselves at risk by reporting honestly and openly what they see and hear when the Chinese flag replaces the Union Jack. We owe them our gratitude and protection, and this bill will help us provide it. Specifically, this measure offers special immigration status to journalists and their families if they are threatened with reprisal because of their work. A similar measure was introduced in the House by Representative Porter and 27 other Members in February. I urge my Senate colleagues to join this effort and to pass the Hong Kong press freedom bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill contains provisions that impact most of the programs and services provided by the Federal Government. Few people in the United States are not touched in some way by the changes we have voted for during this debate. I would like to touch upon just a few of the provisions. The bill includes significant progress toward protecting the Medicare Program. Without the changes included in this legislation, the Medicare trust fund would go bankrupt in 2001. The changes include the first major structural changes to Medicare in its 30-year history. The Senate bill modernizes Medicare by offering seniors the option of choosing from among a range of quality private health plans in addition to existing fee-for-service Medicare. It includes important new health insurance coverage for the Nation's children. It returns a degree of protection for people who live and work in our country, but because of foreign birth are not citizens of the United States. The bill makes substantial advances in ensuring that Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries can get comparative information to help them choose the best available health care plan for their needs. An amendment I sponsored with Senators Chafee, Jeffords, Kerrey, Breaux, Wyden, and Kennedy requires that includes comparative information on benefits, cost sharing, premiums, service area, quality and performance including disenrollment, satisfaction, health process and outcomes, grievance procedures, supplemental benefits, and physician reimbursement method be provided to Medicaid recipients in managed care. In many cases, Medicaid managed care plans have significant differences in the treatment of asthma, immunization, heart disease, diabetes, and other problems endemic to the Medicaid population. This amendment should assist Medicaid beneficiaries in choosing high-quality plans, and through competition among plans, increase the quality of all. The bill also included an important demonstration program for Medicare based on the Government's own employee health care plan. That demonstration program includes provisions to improve the quality of health care for Americans based on a bill I sponsored, S. 795, the Federal Health Care Quality, Consumer Information and Protection Act. The dramatic drive of millions of people into managed care was all geared toward stopping unacceptable cost increases in healthcare. Now cost increases have slowed and it is time to focus on quality. Congress has made some initial, spasmodic efforts, such as last year's drive- through delivery legislation. The health care quality provisions in this demonstration program represents an effort to take a more comprehensive and durable approach to improving health care quality. The Government has a powerful tool we think has gone unused--its purchasing power. The Federal Government is the single biggest purchaser of health care in the country. If we use that purchasing power wisely, the quality of health care in the country will be pulled upward dramatically. If we don't, the Federal Government will drag down the efforts the private sector is making to improve their employee's quality of health care. If the bill passes, the Government will only purchase Medicare coverage in this demonstration program that satisfies two requirements: First, plans will have to provide information that allows people to make straightforward plan-to-plan comparisons of health care quality. With that information, Medicare beneficiaries could look up the plans in their area to see which had the best record of care for the elderly. Empowering consumers with comparative quality information would force health care plans to compete continuously and aggressively on quality resulting in ongoing health care improvements. Second, all health care plans in the demonstration would have to meet certain minimum criteria or they couldn't be purchased by the Federal Government. Setting uniform federal criteria provides a powerful tool to address quality issues that emerge from the rapidly evolving health care industry. Existing accrediting agencies like the National Committee on Quality Assurance for Quality Assurance [NCQA] or the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations [JCAHO] could be licensed to certify that the health care plans are in compliance with the minimum criteria which should minimize bureaucratic duplication. Finally, to hold this proposed system together and prevent the standards from becoming outdated, an Office of Competition is created within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Director of the Office of Competition will set and update the basic requirements for comparative data and minimum criteria. They will also work out a formula to pay for value. High quality plans will get paid slightly more than low quality plans. The Director will draw on the expertise already developed by large private purchasers and coordinate with them in improving the purchasing requirements over time. The stakes are high. This year over $1 trillion, almost one-seventh of the economy, will go toward health care services. Purchasers, both private and public, need to demand quality from the health care marketplace. Today you can identify a good stereo, a good car, or a good shampoo. But, you can't get the most basic information about the quality of your healthcare. That lack of information on health care quality is no longer acceptable, it can be fixed, and the Government should join the best corporate purchasers in the repair effort. I am deeply concerned about one aspect of the Medicare package that is included in this budget reconciliation bill. The Senate Finance Committee has enacted a series of reforms that would dramatically change the methodology by which payments are made to Medicare managed care plans as well as the new plans envisioned in the bill. This new payment structure would result in a redistribution of Medicare resources that is very beneficial to areas that have low health care costs and very damaging to areas where the delivery of health care services is much more costly. In my home State of Connecticut, seniors in four of our eight counties would suffer from Medicare managed care payments that, under this bill, would decline by more than 20 percent relative to current law. Don't misunderstand--I support actions to keep the Medicare trust fund solvent. But these reformulations don't just produce savings--they fundamentally shift expenditures from high cost to low cost areas. In one Connecticut county, this legislation would extract 57 times more savings from seniors enrolled in managed care than would the House Ways and Means Committee bill, which achieves similar savings. These are sobering figures--and they do not even take into account the impact of the bill's risk adjustment mechanism, which would automatically reduce Medicare payments by an additional 5 percent for all new managed care enrollees in their first year of enrollment. This legislation over-reaches in seeking to achieve a greater measure of geographic equity in the Medicare payment system. Instead of making the modest adjustments that are needed to improve the fairness of the current system, this bill calls for sweeping reforms that would disrupt the coverage of many seniors in order to help others. Tragically, many of those who would be hurt the most are low-income seniors who already have selected Medicare managed care plans because they need the additional benefits--such as prescription drug coverage, and dental and vision care--and the low out-of-pocket costs that many of these plans offer. These low-income seniors cannot afford to expose themselves to the high deductibles and copayments of the Medicare fee- for-service system, nor can they afford to purchase an expensive supplemental Medigap policy. As I consider this issue, I think about the many areas in Connecticut that have suffered from economic downturns in recent years and, even today, are not enjoying the strong economic growth that is evident throughout much of the country. Seniors in these areas are particularly vulnerable. Considering that a disproportionate number of Medicare managed care enrollees are low-income seniors, I believe we should proceed carefully as we contemplate reforms that affect their coverage. For many of these seniors, a reduction in their Medicare benefits would cause severe financial hardship. I want to emphasize that I have no desire to be involved in any contest that pits the Medicare beneficiaries of Connecticut against those of Iowa, Nebraska or any other State. I completely support the expansion of new health care choices to all seniors, regardless of where they live. I am convinced, however, that this can be accomplished without awarding 60-percent payment increases for certain low-cost areas--many of which tend to be sparsely populated--at the expense of other areas where large numbers of seniors are already enrolled in private health plan options. The number of seniors who would be penalized by this shortsighted approach far exceeds the number who would benefit. I strongly believe that a more cautious, thoughtful approach is warranted. For example, a 70/30 blend between local and national payment rates would go a long ways toward eliminating the disparities that currently exist--without causing massive cuts in certain areas. In addition, a minimum annual update for all plans, combined with some kind of link between growth in fee-for-service spending and managed care spending, would help to assure that the resources available to Medicare managed care plans do not fall hopelessly behind the growth in medical inflation. It is totally unrealistic to think that we can allow payments to decrease in certain areas--while actual costs are increasing by 5 or 6 percent annually--without having any adverse affect on seniors. As we move forward with Medicare reform, we need to acknowledge that it is, in fact, more costly to serve Medicare beneficiaries in some areas of the country than others. There are legitimate reasons why it costs more to deliver health care services in densely populated urban areas. The wages of medical personnel and the capital costs of medical facilities differ considerably from region to region and from State to State. Even within individual States, medical costs vary from county to county. To discount this economic reality, as this legislation does, is sheer folly. Perhaps the most troublesome component of this Medicare payment proposal is the new enrollee risk adjustment mechanism. This provision arbitrarily and automatically reduces Medicare payments by 5 percent for all new managed care enrollees--regardless of their age or health status--in their first year of enrollment. I have serious concerns about the implications of this proposal. How are we supposed to promote competition within the Medicare Program if we begin by saying that everyone who leaves the fee-for-service system will be subject to a 5 percent penalty? This new enrollee tax will limit beneficiary choice by discouraging health plans from entering markets in which seniors do not have private health plan options at this time. Everyone in this chamber should be deeply alarmed by this misguided provision. Having given this Medicare payment proposal an honest and thoughtful evaluation, I am convinced that we should work toward a more sensible and well-reasoned approach when this legislation is considered in the Senate-House conference committee. I want to state very clearly that I do not have a problem with the amount of Medicare savings this legislation would achieve; I just believe we have an obligation to achieve these savings in ways that do not disrupt the coverage of seniors. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for a new approach.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of New Haven Light, also known as the Five Mile Point Lighthouse in New Haven, CT. One of New England's most recognizable landmarks, New Haven Light has weathered countless storms yet still stands its silent watch over the waters of Long Island Sound and one of the region's busiest ports. This year's annual SNET New Haven Harborfest is made all the more special by the anniversary of this beloved landmark and local treasure. I commend those who have worked so hard to preserve New Haven Light and maintain the vitality of New Haven's harbor and Long Wharf district. This Nation's proud history is forever linked with the important waterways of New England. From the battles in the War for Independence to the economic prosperity of the late 20th century, ports like New Haven Harbor have always played a critical role in the development of the United States. I am proud to stand today and recognize the importance of New Haven Harbor as well as celebrate the milestone anniversary of New Haven Light.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I particularly thank my friend and colleague from Texas for her graciousness, and her graciousness will allow this Senator to find his way to his daughter's school to watch the moving-up ceremony. I appreciate my good friend, the Senator from Texas.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, yesterday we passed the State Department Authorization Act by a vote of 90 to 5. Today there is comment on the bill that we passed yesterday in the Washington Post regarding particularly the sections of that legislation that deal with the city of Jerusalem and the recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. In this article, the State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns is quoted as saying: Our view is that Jerusalem is the most emotional and complex issue that Israel and the Palestinians will have to deal with in the permanent status negotiations. We do not believe it is wise for the United States or any other outside country to make an initiative on Jerusalem that in effect prejudges that issue. Then later on in the article, the writer of the article says: The State Department regards Jerusalem as ``disputed territory'' with its permanent status to be settled in negotiations and has kept the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv. Mr. President, I want to respond very briefly to that and say that the suggestions made by the State Department spokesman in my opinion are wrong. The commentary by the reporter does not recognize the fact that in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995--both Houses of Congress passed and it became law--is a provision that not only directed that our Embassy be placed in Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv thereby doing what we have done in every other country but one in the world, which is to have our Embassy in the city in which the host country had designated as its capital. But, Mr. President, in that bill--that bill now law--this Congress made very clear its intention that it is American policy to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. We, in fact by strong bipartisan majority, adopted a resolution a short time ago on the 30th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem restating that position. So, Mr. President, this may be controversial. But trust is built up among parties, including those who are involved in the Middle East process, including Israel, the Palestinians, and other countries. Trust is built on honesty. And honest reflection of not just American policy but American law as adopted by this Congress in 1995 is that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel. It is time, therefore I would say, to bring our policies in line with our law; that time for the statements such as those made by the State Department spokesman in my opinion respectfully has passed. I appreciate very much again the graciousness of my friend from Texas for allowing me to say this. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to congratulate Senator Helms, Senator Biden and the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the bipartisan spirit reflected in the Foreign Affairs Reform bill, and particularly for their efforts to restructure the foreign affairs agencies for the 21st century. When a proposal to consolidate agencies came to the floor last year, I offered an amendment that would have struck provisions integrating the United States Information Agency into the Department of State. At that time, there appeared to be a serious risk that the valuable mission of USIA, public diplomacy, would be harmed in a consolidation process overly inspired by a zeal to slash budgets and bureaucracies. I will continue to watch this closely. Those of us who shared this concern are pleased that the effort being made now will strengthen and not diminish public diplomacy by keeping the focus on the team responsible for its conduct. Despite the wonderful capabilities of technology, we cannot count on it alone to carry America's message to foreign countries. There will always be the problem that Edward R. Murrow described as taking the message ``the last three feet.'' What I imagine Murrow meant was that foreign publics will be open to understanding America's case only when they know us and respect us, and when we know enough about them to relate to their interests and values. This means more than shouting at them through technology's loudspeakers. It means ``being there,'' having foreign service professionals in the field whose work it is to cultivate relationships that go beyond government-to-government communiques. American interests and values will be served through effective use of the international media, the internet, and government broadcasting capabilities such as the Voice of America. But we must not allow these tools of mass communications to become separated from the professionals on the ground who follow the pulse of the people, whether in the market or at the University. American foreign policy needs engagement, up close and personal, now more than ever. And so I am heartened by the efforts this legislation makes to advance public diplomacy and I encourage my colleagues here in Congress, and the Administration, to remain focused on the importance of the mission at hand rather than on the potential for modest savings later on. In that same vein, Mr. President, I also would like to thank Senator Lugar for introducing in this legislation a foreign affairs review process as a necessary corollary to agency reorganization. Senator Lugar and I worked together to craft this approach because we believe it is time to examine systematically what our diplomacy must do for us in the 21st century. The review, which has been endorsed by a large, distinguished, and diverse group of foreign affairs experts and others with a great deal of public and private international experience, will look at the functions of all the federal departments and agencies with interests and assets overseas. Some describe the way we do America's business abroad as ``a 40 agency conundrum.'' Dozens of agencies, in addition to State, USIA, AID and the other ``traditional'' members of the foreign affairs community, pursue separate overseas agendas with little coordination or cooperation between them. It is an inefficient and, as the world continues to change from the stark East-West split of the Cold War, an ineffective way to advance our interests and values around the globe. The end of the Cold War has brought new challenges and opportunities to our international relations. We have seen how these can erupt into conflicts that disrupt economic life, produce waves of desperate refugees, threaten public health and the environment, and sometimes provoke horrible violence. We cannot respond to these new circumstances by relying on old methods. Streamlining bureaucracies is an important step in the right direction. But we need to do more. It will not serve our interests to do the wrong things more efficiently. We need to look inside the organizations themselves to see what they do and how they do it. We need to evaluate both the necessity and the manner of their work. Our representatives overseas often are locked in mind-numbing endeavors with no discernible value apart from feeding an insatiable Cold War dinosaur. Jurassic Park was a terrific movie; but it's a lousy model for foreign policy. This legislation addresses that problem. It creates an outside commission to examine the way America conducts its international relations and it reinforces that effort with parallel study by the Secretary of State. Ultimately, the Secretary, the official with responsibility for the conduct of our foreign relations, will reconcile the reviews and make proposals to the Congress for any needed changes. Our goal here is not just to improve the way we organize foreign policy. It is to improve the way we conduct foreign policy. Mr. President, the key to continued American leadership in the 21st century will be our ability to create more options. Not just to identify the trends and possibilities that circumstances present to us, but to create the opportunities for action that reflect our values and advance our interests. We are the world's indispensable country because we are the only nation with the resonating ideals, the geographical size and location, the economic and military strength, and the political and social diversity to make our presence felt and to exert our influence in every corner of the globe. No other nation can provide that leadership to the world's democratic nations, the leadership to shape a world in which our people can pursue their destiny less encumbered by the unnecessary divisions among the world's people. We in Congress have the privilege and responsibility of safeguarding and enhancing America's moral and material leadership around the world. We do that, in part, by supporting and renewing the agencies and people charged with representing us overseas. We do that by focusing on their mission, and giving them the resources to carry it out. This bill is a an important step forward. It recognizes that we need more money for aggressive, smart diplomacy--that we cannot continue to conduct it on a frayed shoestring. It recognizes that our world has changed, and is continuing to change, by directing that we begin to conduct our diplomacy more effectively and to begin to think seriously about what our foreign affairs agencies must be able to do so that the 21st century will not be, in the words of one diplomat, a repeat of the 20th century. And by resolving a serious, lingering conflict over the UN, it recognizes that we are an inseperable part of the family of nations, and that we must work to make the only global organization for this family better--not withdraw from it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a class of students from Trumbull High School in Trumbull, CT, who won an award at the ``We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals held in Washington, DC. These students, under the direction of their teacher, Rita Altieri, were recognized for their expertise on unit 6, ``Role of Citizen'' of the ``We the People * * *'' curriculum. This award is given to the school achieving the highest cumulative score during the first 2 days of the national finals in each of the six units. I hope my colleagues will join with me in recognizing these outstanding young Americans who competed against 50 other classes from all across the Nation. They have clearly demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government.