Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I would like to salute 13 outstanding young women who have been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by Connecticut Trails Girl Scout Council in North Haven, CT. They are Katherine Berinato, Amy Suzanne Brink, Anne T. Dwyer, Sarah Erling, Carolyn Greeno, Paige Henninger, Bri Lyn Howell, Theresa Lacombe, Kristen A. McAree, Elizabeth Shepherd, Jennifer R. Westmoreland, Rebecca Wonneberger, and Heather Swanson. They are being honored on June 8, 1997, for earning the achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. The award can be earned by girls aged 14-17, or in grades 9-12. Girls Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 20,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award, and the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. As members of the Connecticut Trails Girl Scout Council, we believe they should receive the public recognition due them for their significant service to their community and their country.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those celebrating the 30th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. The Senate has before it a resolution commemorating this occasion. Its passage will be an appropriate and fitting testimony to the courage of those who reunited and reopened the city, and to the wisdom of those who have maintained it that way for the last three decades. Jerusalem is a city of faith. It is the spiritual home of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and it is the sacred symbol and temporal meeting place of their shared legacy and common humanity. Undivided access to its holy sites is a promise made in the tumult of war and kept in the name of peace. Those who made it and those who keep it are rightly remembered by us today. Jerusalem also is a national city. It is the undivided capital of Israel--the political and cultural center of one of America's staunchest, most important allies. The continued unity of Jerusalem under Israel's flag is not an issue for debate. It is our best assurance that America's most cherished values, including the rule of law and basic human freedoms, will be preserved and protected in a region critical to our own national interest. Thirty years ago, the people of Israel reunified Jerusalem. But for more than 3,000 years, Jerusalem has endured as the city on the hill. Geography and politics alone do not being to explain its significance. It is a place where God touches us and unifies our histories; it is where the privilege and responsibility of Abraham's heritage becomes our own. Peace with justice in Jerusalem is a measure of our integrity as people of faith; and the best hope for peace with justice in Jerusalem is continued undivided sovereignty. I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution congratulating the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel on the 30th anniversary of that city's reunification.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, and over 30 of our colleagues as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the Employment Non- Discrimination Act of 1997. By guaranteeing that American workers cannot lose their jobs simply because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, this bill would extend the bedrock American values of fairness and equality to a group of our citizens who too often have been denied the benefit of those most basic values. Our Nation's foundational document, the Declaration of Independence, expressed a vision of our country as one premised upon the essential equality of all people and upon the recognition that our Creator endowed all of us with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Two hundred and twenty years ago, when that document was drafted, our laws fell far short of implementing the declaration's ideal. But since that time, we have come ever closer, extending by law to more and more of our citizens--to African- Americans, to women, to disabled Americans, to religious minorities, and to others--a legally enforceable guarantee that, with respect to their ability to earn a living at least, they will be treated on their merits and not on characteristics unrelated to their ability to do their jobs. It is time to extend that guarantee to gay men and lesbians, who too often have been subject to incidents of discrimination and denied the most basic of rights: the right to obtain and maintain a job. A collection of nearly two dozen studies shows that as many as 46 percent of gay and lesbian workers have experienced significant discrimination in the workplace. The fear in which these workers live was clear from a survey of 1,400 gay men and lesbians in Philadelphia. Seventy-six percent of the men and 81 percent of the women told those conducting the survey that they hide their orientation at work out of concern for their job security. This result, although unfortunate, is not surprising in light of a University of Maryland study that found gay men's income to be 11 to 27 percent lower than that of heterosexual men, thanks to the effects of discrimination. The toll this discrimination takes extends far beyond its effect on those individuals who must live in fear and without full employment opportunities. It also takes an unacceptable toll on America's definition of itself as a land of equality and opportunity, as a place where we judge each other on our merits, and as a country that teaches its children that anyone can succeed here as long as they are willing to do their job and work hard. This bill provides for equality and fairness--that and no more. It says only what we already have said for women, for people of color, and for others: that you are entitled to have your ability to earn a living depend only on your ability to do the job and nothing else. In fact, the bill would even do somewhat less than it does for women and people of color, because it would not give gay men and women all of the protections we currently provide to other groups protected under our civil rights laws. Mr. President, this bill would bring our Nation one large step closer to realizing the vision that Thomas Jefferson so eloquently expressed 220 years ago when he wrote that all of us have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, and over 30 of our colleagues as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the Employment Non- Discrimination Act of 1997. By guaranteeing that American workers cannot lose their jobs simply because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, this bill would extend the bedrock American values of fairness and equality to a group of our citizens who too often have been denied the benefit of those most basic values. Our Nation's foundational document, the Declaration of Independence, expressed a vision of our country as one premised upon the essential equality of all people and upon the recognition that our Creator endowed all of us with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Two hundred and twenty years ago, when that document was drafted, our laws fell far short of implementing the declaration's ideal. But since that time, we have come ever closer, extending by law to more and more of our citizens--to African- Americans, to women, to disabled Americans, to religious minorities, and to others--a legally enforceable guarantee that, with respect to their ability to earn a living at least, they will be treated on their merits and not on characteristics unrelated to their ability to do their jobs. It is time to extend that guarantee to gay men and lesbians, who too often have been subject to incidents of discrimination and denied the most basic of rights: the right to obtain and maintain a job. A collection of nearly two dozen studies shows that as many as 46 percent of gay and lesbian workers have experienced significant discrimination in the workplace. The fear in which these workers live was clear from a survey of 1,400 gay men and lesbians in Philadelphia. Seventy-six percent of the men and 81 percent of the women told those conducting the survey that they hide their orientation at work out of concern for their job security. This result, although unfortunate, is not surprising in light of a University of Maryland study that found gay men's income to be 11 to 27 percent lower than that of heterosexual men, thanks to the effects of discrimination. The toll this discrimination takes extends far beyond its effect on those individuals who must live in fear and without full employment opportunities. It also takes an unacceptable toll on America's definition of itself as a land of equality and opportunity, as a place where we judge each other on our merits, and as a country that teaches its children that anyone can succeed here as long as they are willing to do their job and work hard. This bill provides for equality and fairness--that and no more. It says only what we already have said for women, for people of color, and for others: that you are entitled to have your ability to earn a living depend only on your ability to do the job and nothing else. In fact, the bill would even do somewhat less than it does for women and people of color, because it would not give gay men and women all of the protections we currently provide to other groups protected under our civil rights laws. Mr. President, this bill would bring our Nation one large step closer to realizing the vision that Thomas Jefferson so eloquently expressed 220 years ago when he wrote that all of us have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senators Coats and Brownback in introducing the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997, also known as the DCSOS Act. This legislation is quite similar to the provision that passed the House last year as part of the D.C. appropriations bill but failed to make it through conference. It would create a modest tuition scholarship fund that would enable 2,000 low-income students in the District to attend the public, private, or parochial school of their choice. It would also provide direct aid to an additional 2,000 public school students who want to improve their academic skills through after-school tutoring. But the circumstances surrounding this proposal have changed dramatically since it was considered last year, and I think it's important to make our colleagues aware of what's happened over the course of the last several months as they consider the bill we're introducing today. Most immediately, the deeply troubled D.C. school system has now hit rock-bottom. Last fall, the District Control Board officially declared the schools in crisis, stripped the elected school board of its authority, and authorized an emergency board of trustees to take over the city's public schools. In taking these drastic steps, the Control Board issued a report documenting the utter dysfunction of this school system--test scores ranking among the worst in the Nation, students and teachers subjected to violence at twice the national average, gross mismanagement of budget and personnel, buildings literally falling apart, and a tragic misplacement of priorities that puts job preservation ahead of the job of educating the city's children. But perhaps the most damning indictment of the D.C. schools came in a single sentence included in the report: the longer students stay in the District's public school system, the Control Board concluded, the less likely they are to succeed educationally. I would urge my colleagues to think about the import of that statement. Instead of helping these children learn more with each passing year, the D.C. schools in many cases have actually become hazardous to the academic health of its students. This conclusion should not be all that surprising when you take a closer look at the environment in which these kids are trying to learn. For instance, in April we saw a shocking breakdown of discipline at the Winston Education Center. Several fourth-graders slipped unnoticed into a sideroom right outside an ongoing class and engaged in oral sex, with two of the children's parents claiming their children were sexually assaulted. When the principal learned of the incident, his first reaction was to judge the sexual activity consensual. And earlier this month, Washington Post columnist Colbert King reported that a fifth- grade class at the Harrison Elementary School had gone without a teacher for the past 4 months. This outrageous situation may well have continued had King not exposed it and put pressure on the administration to correct it. To force children to attend these schools, where the breakdown is so complete a class can go four months without a teacher, is simply unconscionable. But that is exactly what is happening in the District of Columbia, where thousands of students are trapped in decrepit, dangerous, and disenfranchising schools simply because they cannot afford any alternative. That is why we believe there is an urgent need to pass the DCSOS Act. That acronym is not an accident, for this program would provide at least 2,000 of the most disadvantaged families in the District with an educational lifeline, a chance to seek out a school that they believe will offer their child a brighter future. It would give these families the same option that thousands of other families have already exercised by pulling their children from the D.C. public schools or moving out of town altogether. Some defenders of the status quo have tried for some time to get us to believe that the residents of this city don't want that kind of choice. But a poll that was released this week should shatter that misguided myth once and for all. This survey found that nearly two- thirds of public school parents would send their kids to private schools if money weren't an issue. The poll also shows that there is a strong base of support for the scholarship program we're proposing right out of the gate, before we've done anything to educate the public about it. And most important, it shows that the families we're trying to help would welcome this assistance, with 62 percent of low-income parents saying that the kind of choice we're offering would improve the quality of education for District children. Some of the opponents of this legislation will continue to argue that this program, like other attempts to expand opportunities for poor families, will harm or actually ruin the public schools. To suggest that this modest program could make a school system already in crisis any worse defies common sense. In truth, this is a case of the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--that is, the fear of moving beyond the status quo. Knowing that the D.C. schools have hit rock bottom, we shouldn't be closing off any options, which is exactly what influential columnist William Raspberry wrote last week when he endorsed giving choice a chance in the District. We need to get past the red herring argument that we must choose between choice and the public schools. Simply put, supporting this scholarship program is not the same as abandoning the public school system. This is not an either-or equation. And to help prove that to the citizens of the District, we have gone out of the way in this legislation to make sure that the funding for these scholarships does not come at the expense of the city's public schools. This is new money and that point should not be overlooked. Mr. President, the truth is that we fervently hope that the Board of Trustees and CEO Gen. Julius Becton can rescue this system and make the fundamental reforms necessary to give these students the education they deserve, and we will do what we can to support their efforts. Senator Brownback and I, as chairman and ranking member of the Senate's D.C. Oversight Subcommittee, made that very pledge to General Becton at a hearing we held in April. But this mission is at a minimum going to take several years, which begs the question, what happens to those many students who have no choice but to attend schools that most parents who could afford it have long since abandoned? We believe that we have a moral obligation to offer those children a way out. That is why many of us view this question not just as a matter of education, but a question of fairness. This is all about our values, specifically the value we place on giving every child--no matter their income, where they live or how they live--the opportunity to fulfill their God-given promise. No one is claiming that this scholarship program is a magic bullet. But we strongly believe it will give at least 2,000 disadvantaged students a shot at a better life. We also believe that by providing some competition to the public schools, this program will accelerate the pace of reform within the D.C. school system. Across the country, the growing numbers of charter schools and private scholarship programs are forcing public school systems to confront their failures and building pressure on them to take radical actions to improve the quality of their educational programs. This is starting to happen already in the District, and we are optimistic that this legislation will intensify that movement here. If nothing else, this legislation will create a program that will help us test what impact choice has on improving the educational opportunities of poor families in urban areas, and thereby help us make informed decisions in the future about whether to expand this kind of initiative to other cities. There have been some promising signs coming out of the choice programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland, but the reality is we don't know with much certainty whether expanding choice will produce noticeable results. This legislation could establish a national experiment, and provide us with some real answers to the critical questions we've been wrestling with. It's for that very reason we call for a thorough evaluation of the D.C. scholarship program in our legislation. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that it is time to give choice a chance in the District. We cannot in conscience continue to ignore the plight of these children any longer. They deserve an opportunity to break out of the nightmarish cycle of poverty, dependency, and violence and to live the American dream. This bipartisan legislation will begin to restore hope to some of these families, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am entering this statement into the Record because I am unable to return to Washington for the votes on the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriation conference report and the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution conference report due to my son's out-of-town college graduation today. Had I been there, I would have voted for the budget resolution and against the supplemental appropriation because of the automatic continuing resolution and other extraneous provisions in the bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senators Coats and Brownback in introducing the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997, also known as the DCSOS Act. This legislation is quite similar to the provision that passed the House last year as part of the D.C. appropriations bill but failed to make it through conference. It would create a modest tuition scholarship fund that would enable 2,000 low-income students in the District to attend the public, private, or parochial school of their choice. It would also provide direct aid to an additional 2,000 public school students who want to improve their academic skills through after-school tutoring. But the circumstances surrounding this proposal have changed dramatically since it was considered last year, and I think it's important to make our colleagues aware of what's happened over the course of the last several months as they consider the bill we're introducing today. Most immediately, the deeply troubled D.C. school system has now hit rock-bottom. Last fall, the District Control Board officially declared the schools in crisis, stripped the elected school board of its authority, and authorized an emergency board of trustees to take over the city's public schools. In taking these drastic steps, the Control Board issued a report documenting the utter dysfunction of this school system--test scores ranking among the worst in the Nation, students and teachers subjected to violence at twice the national average, gross mismanagement of budget and personnel, buildings literally falling apart, and a tragic misplacement of priorities that puts job preservation ahead of the job of educating the city's children. But perhaps the most damning indictment of the D.C. schools came in a single sentence included in the report: the longer students stay in the District's public school system, the Control Board concluded, the less likely they are to succeed educationally. I would urge my colleagues to think about the import of that statement. Instead of helping these children learn more with each passing year, the D.C. schools in many cases have actually become hazardous to the academic health of its students. This conclusion should not be all that surprising when you take a closer look at the environment in which these kids are trying to learn. For instance, in April we saw a shocking breakdown of discipline at the Winston Education Center. Several fourth-graders slipped unnoticed into a sideroom right outside an ongoing class and engaged in oral sex, with two of the children's parents claiming their children were sexually assaulted. When the principal learned of the incident, his first reaction was to judge the sexual activity consensual. And earlier this month, Washington Post columnist Colbert King reported that a fifth- grade class at the Harrison Elementary School had gone without a teacher for the past 4 months. This outrageous situation may well have continued had King not exposed it and put pressure on the administration to correct it. To force children to attend these schools, where the breakdown is so complete a class can go four months without a teacher, is simply unconscionable. But that is exactly what is happening in the District of Columbia, where thousands of students are trapped in decrepit, dangerous, and disenfranchising schools simply because they cannot afford any alternative. That is why we believe there is an urgent need to pass the DCSOS Act. That acronym is not an accident, for this program would provide at least 2,000 of the most disadvantaged families in the District with an educational lifeline, a chance to seek out a school that they believe will offer their child a brighter future. It would give these families the same option that thousands of other families have already exercised by pulling their children from the D.C. public schools or moving out of town altogether. Some defenders of the status quo have tried for some time to get us to believe that the residents of this city don't want that kind of choice. But a poll that was released this week should shatter that misguided myth once and for all. This survey found that nearly two- thirds of public school parents would send their kids to private schools if money weren't an issue. The poll also shows that there is a strong base of support for the scholarship program we're proposing right out of the gate, before we've done anything to educate the public about it. And most important, it shows that the families we're trying to help would welcome this assistance, with 62 percent of low-income parents saying that the kind of choice we're offering would improve the quality of education for District children. Some of the opponents of this legislation will continue to argue that this program, like other attempts to expand opportunities for poor families, will harm or actually ruin the public schools. To suggest that this modest program could make a school system already in crisis any worse defies common sense. In truth, this is a case of the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--that is, the fear of moving beyond the status quo. Knowing that the D.C. schools have hit rock bottom, we shouldn't be closing off any options, which is exactly what influential columnist William Raspberry wrote last week when he endorsed giving choice a chance in the District. We need to get past the red herring argument that we must choose between choice and the public schools. Simply put, supporting this scholarship program is not the same as abandoning the public school system. This is not an either-or equation. And to help prove that to the citizens of the District, we have gone out of the way in this legislation to make sure that the funding for these scholarships does not come at the expense of the city's public schools. This is new money and that point should not be overlooked. Mr. President, the truth is that we fervently hope that the Board of Trustees and CEO Gen. Julius Becton can rescue this system and make the fundamental reforms necessary to give these students the education they deserve, and we will do what we can to support their efforts. Senator Brownback and I, as chairman and ranking member of the Senate's D.C. Oversight Subcommittee, made that very pledge to General Becton at a hearing we held in April. But this mission is at a minimum going to take several years, which begs the question, what happens to those many students who have no choice but to attend schools that most parents who could afford it have long since abandoned? We believe that we have a moral obligation to offer those children a way out. That is why many of us view this question not just as a matter of education, but a question of fairness. This is all about our values, specifically the value we place on giving every child--no matter their income, where they live or how they live--the opportunity to fulfill their God-given promise. No one is claiming that this scholarship program is a magic bullet. But we strongly believe it will give at least 2,000 disadvantaged students a shot at a better life. We also believe that by providing some competition to the public schools, this program will accelerate the pace of reform within the D.C. school system. Across the country, the growing numbers of charter schools and private scholarship programs are forcing public school systems to confront their failures and building pressure on them to take radical actions to improve the quality of their educational programs. This is starting to happen already in the District, and we are optimistic that this legislation will intensify that movement here. If nothing else, this legislation will create a program that will help us test what impact choice has on improving the educational opportunities of poor families in urban areas, and thereby help us make informed decisions in the future about whether to expand this kind of initiative to other cities. There have been some promising signs coming out of the choice programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland, but the reality is we don't know with much certainty whether expanding choice will produce noticeable results. This legislation could establish a national experiment, and provide us with some real answers to the critical questions we've been wrestling with. It's for that very reason we call for a thorough evaluation of the D.C. scholarship program in our legislation. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that it is time to give choice a chance in the District. We cannot in conscience continue to ignore the plight of these children any longer. They deserve an opportunity to break out of the nightmarish cycle of poverty, dependency, and violence and to live the American dream. This bipartisan legislation will begin to restore hope to some of these families, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments and draw attention to a remarkable example of a Federal investment in science and technology that is producing a return to the benefit of society. In this case, it was the vision of an individual, combined with technical knowledge derived from space research, which has created an exciting new industry. Back in 1984, the inventor's idea was to design a robot that could be used in hospitals and eventually homes. Today, robots manufactured by HelpMate Robotics, Inc., of Danbury, CT, roam hospital hallways, delivering medications, meals, x- rays and patients' records. Handling these errands allows orderlies and nurses more time to concentrate on patient care. Central to the story of the hospital robots is the 72-year-old founder of HelpMate Robotics, Dr. Joseph Engelberger. Dr. Engelberger is widely acknowledged as the father of the industrial robot, an idea he had much more success selling to Japan's auto industry than in America. As a consequence, Japan grew to dominate the world robotic market and this was one of the factors that for many years enabled it to retain a competitive advantage over American automakers. Not content with having helped start one revolution, Engelberger founded HelpMate Robotics with the idea to use hospital robots as a step in the process toward design of machines that would be useful in personal homes. I am especially pleased to report that many of the achievements of Dr. Engelberger and HelpMate Robotics were made possible through close cooperation with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The new technologies necessary in the design of a robot that is capable of avoiding people in busy hospital hallways, summoning elevators, and recognizing familiar territory, were derived from research already underway at NASA. HelpMate has won several NASA SBIR [Small Business Innovative Research] awards, which were established to stimulate conversion of Government-funded R&D into commercial applications. Transfer of knowledge and expertise has also flowed from the company back to NASA. Late last year, the space agency awarded an SBIR grant to HelpMate for development of a prototype robot for terrestrial experiments that anticipate space utilization of robotics. The space robot will begin to pave the way for the next step in Dr. Engelberger's dream--a robot capable of helping the elderly stay at home by performing the myriad number of tasks that become difficult later in life. Also helpful in the commercialization of NASA technology was a unique program developed by the National Technology Transfer Center in Wheeling, WV, and Unisphere Institute in Washington, DC. The story of Dr. Engelberger and HelpMate Robotics is an example of the way that a patient Federal investment in science and technology can lead to new products that employ Americans and make for a better quality of life. It is also the story of one man's creative genius and untiring devotion in making a dream become reality. I salute Dr. Engelberger for his accomplishments with HelpMate and upon his receipt of the prestigious Japan Prize.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr President, I would like to rise to explain my vote on the Hatch-Kennedy amendment. The budget resolution under consideration is a fragile compromise. Support from the President, Republicans and Democrats was achieved after months of negotiation. One of the key provisions in this agreement of great importance to me is the additional $16 billion for health care coverage of children. This funding will be used to cover an additional 5 million children. Connecticut alone is estimated to have 85,000 uninsured children 18 years and younger. The new funding will go a long way to bring health care to those kids. The Hatch-Kennedy amendment was a good faith effort to go farther and I agree--we should go farther. Over 10 million American children lack insurance and more each month go uncovered. For these children and their parents health is not just a blessing, it is an economic necessity. The amendment sponsors also said much about tobacco today with which I agree. According to the CDC, smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Smoking is up among teenagers and this rise ultimately will translate into many premature deaths from smoking-related diseases. I have no hesitancy to support an increase in tobacco taxes. But the vote I cast today was not on children's health coverage. It was not on a tobacco tax. The vote I cast today was on whether to make substantial changes in critical elements of an arduously negotiated bipartisan budget agreement. On this issue, the issue of whether to risk the resolution, I disagreed with the sponsors of the amendment. I felt that the amendment threatened to undo the careful balancing and months of negotiation represented by the budget compromise. In the end, the effort to increase spending, threatened the children's health care coverage that we had achieved through negotiations. I hope that we will return to the issue of children's health coverage, but at this time the wiser course is to move forward in support of the resolution in front of the Senate. Compromise is never perfect, but perfection is rarely possible.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to James R. (Jim) Mellor, who retires next week from his position as chief executive officer and chairman of the board of General Dynamics Corp., a position he has held for 3 years. Jim has been with General Dynamics for a total of 16 years. Prior to becoming CEO and chairman, he was the president and chief operating officer and before that, the executive vice president--Marine, Business Systems and Corporate Planning. Jim Mellor is completing an illustrious 42 year career in the defense industry having worked at Litton Industries and Hughes Aircraft Corp. before joining General Dynamics. During his time with General Dynamics Jim took part in the delivery of 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines, the upgrade of the Army's M1 tank to the state-of-the-art M1A2, and the development and transition into production of the Tomahawk cruise missile. The Trident submarine played a major role in bringing about the end of the cold war, and we are all familiar with the important contributions made by the M1 tank and the Tomahawk cruise missile in our overwhelming success in Desert Storm. Jim is a graduate of the University of Michigan, earning both bachelor of science and master of science degrees from that institution. He served in the U.S. Army from 1952 to 1955. While at Hughes & Litton he received three patents relating to large screen display and digital computing technology. He has also authored more than 30 articles in national and international publications covering a wide range of management and technical subjects. In addition to these accomplishments, Jim has been active in many charitable and community causes. He is a member of the University of Southern California Business School Board of Councilors, a member of the National Advisory Committee of the University of Michigan, and a trustee of Ford's Theater. Under his leadership for the past 7 years, General Dynamics has sponsored the annual Memorial Day Concert held right here on the Capitol Grounds. Jim has also been an active sponsor of and participant in the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation's annual walk on the Mall. Jim and his wife, Suzanne, will be moving to California to be near their three children and nine grandchildren, but will maintain a residence in the Washington area and will remain active in business and governmental issues. Please join me in paying tribute to this distinguished engineer, business leader, civic sponsor, and family man.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend and colleague and, on matters of defense, my partner, Senator Coats from Indiana. Mr. President, I want to add a few words to those spoken by my colleague about the Quadrennial Defense Review, which was released by Secretary of Defense Cohen earlier today. It has been my pleasure to work with the Senator from Indiana, as well as with our colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, Senator Robb, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Levin, and many others in a bipartisan effort that led to legislation requiring the Quadrennial Defense Review and the National Defense Panel. Our intent in sponsoring this legislation, was to drive the defense debate to a strategy-based assessment of our future military requirements and capabilities, not to do a budget-driven incremental massage of the status quo. We were motivated by two factors in calling for this over-the-horizon review of our defense needs. First, we did not want this to be just another annual report on what our defense needs are. Second, we wanted to force the Pentagon to look beyond the short range and to understand that many of us inside and outside of Congress believe that the decisions we are making today will affect our ability to protect our national security 10 to 20 years out. From my first review of the Quadrennial Defense Review I would say while the report issued today does not live up to the high expectations I had for it, it is a step forward in the process that Senator Coats has just described. If we want to make defense decisions effectively, we have to consider two dramatic changes that have occurred in our world, which are influencing our defense needs. One is the dramatic and ongoing change in the post-cold-war world; second is the extraordinary change in technology, the transition we have made from an industrial age to an information age, which inevitably will affect the way wars are fought. Even before it was released, the Quadrennial Defense Review achieved, I think, an important part of our goal by catalyzing a broad and vigorous debate within the Pentagon which engaged more people who considered more options than either of the previous two post-cold-war security assessments done in the Bush administration and then in the first year of the Clinton administration. The reviewing process began, also, to stimulate similar debate outside of the Pentagon and outside of Congress. I believe that all those involved in the Pentagon effort have done well by debating the controversial questions and in making recommendations they believed were essential, even though some of those did not, in my opinion, go far enough and were not bold enough, and even though some of them are recommendations that will be controversial here in Congress. I want to particularly draw attention to significant steps forward that are made in the QDR in three critical areas. First, I believe the QDR has developed a much more comprehensive view of our strategic future military environment than we had from the two previous studies; that is, the way in which the national security environment, will be affected by unconventional threats to our security, including, of course, terrorism and chemical and biological warfare, but also including the capacity of an enemy to strike at us in what the military calls an asymmetrical way, that is, to find our vulnerability, invest much less than we spend on our military, and then to strike at that vulnerability. Second, I think the QDR has taken some significant steps forward in beginning to deal with management improvements within the Pentagon and in confronting the need for some reductions in manpower and some reductions in acquisition of high-visibility procurement programs and in recommending, as Senator Coats has indicated, two additional rounds of BRAC, of the base closure process. To put it mildly, that will not be popular on Capitol Hill. And, yet, the more you look at the reductions that have already occurred in the size of our military forces and the extent to which we have reduced tooth but not reduced tail, it is hard to conclude that, in the interest of our national security, we do not need to further reduce military infrastructure. Third, although I would criticize the QDR for being more budget driven than strategy driven, the Pentagon has presented some conclusions about reducing forces that they assume can help bring the defense program more closely and realistically in line with the fiscal assumptions that they are operating under. Nevertheless, why do I say the report, as I looked at it this afternoon, does not live up to my own hopes for it? I find it to be too much of a status-quo document. While it is true we have reduced personnel and force structure significantly since the close of the cold war, the shape and focus of our military remains substantially what it was then. This report represents, as others have said, essentially a ``salami-slicing'' approach. It is not a dramatic change, nor does it seem to point to future dramatic changes to deal with increased workload for our military forces to respond to the much more complicated geopolitical situation nor to changes in technology, which have created a revolution in military affairs. Mr. President, as I said a moment ago, the report was more budget driven than strategy driven. Perhaps that is understandable for the Pentagon has to live within the constraints we impose, but I must say, Senator Coats and I and the others did not introduce legislation which called for this Quadrennial Defense Review as a way to cut the defense budget. That might be a result, but a future-oriented review might just as logically lead to an increase in the defense budget, depending on what a strategic review of the world determines that our future defense needs will be. In fact, as you look at the more comprehensive strategic review of the future of the military environment that is in this QDR, it argues for additional capacity to that which the report continues to advocate: Which is the capacity to meet two major regional threats, a series of additional requirements, including terrorism, chemical and biological warfare, missile defense, and peacekeeping. Yet, I don't see the connection between what I think is the more accurately described complicated strategic future we have and the programs the report advocates to meet that future. The report is not strategy driven. It continues to require that the military be structured to deal with two major regional conflicts but its assessment of the strategic environment raises questions about whether that is an appropriate standard, particularly since one of those conflicts presumably would be on the Korean Peninsula against North Korea, a state that many question will constitute a threat to security very much longer. So, as we look 10 to 20 years out, will our major threat in Asia be on the Korean Peninsula, or will it come from another great power or midsize power that has gained nuclear capability and can disrupt the entire region? The report makes no recommendations for change to the organization of the current force and only minor changes to the size of that force. As I have indicated, some weapons-purchasing programs were reduced, but no major programs have been canceled. Perhaps even more important, from my own point of view, as we look forward, no new programs were recommended to deal with the extraordinary range of threats and responsibilities that are described in the strategic review part of the report. The explosion in technology could literally and totally change the way enemies will fight us and what weapons they will employ, while at the same time creating enormous opportunities for us, if we wisely and boldly use technology, to fundamentally improve our military capability to defend our interests perhaps in a much more cost-effective way. I also was disappointed that the report did not deal with the further implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation, which I think most observers would say has not fully achieved its goals for more jointness. The fact is, too much of what happens in the Pentagon and our military still happens in the stovepipes of the four services. We do not see enough cooperation across service lines--joint training, for instance--to either achieve the dollar savings or the increases in fighting effectiveness that many observers think will come from increased jointness. Mr. President, a final word. There is a brief reference to space and the role space may play in future warfare. Remember, we are talking about 10 to 20 years from now. It is hard to imagine as we see the world depend more and more on space-based satellites that our future enemies will not rely on a wide range of space-based capabilities to fight us. It seems to me this suggests a very, very urgent need for us to consider the implications of that for our future military preparedness, including very controversial questions, which I think we have to consider in the responsible exercise of our duties, whether we should proceed with what might be called the weaponization of space, and what we should do to develop capacity to defend against attacks on us from space. In summary, I feel strongly that we need to act more boldly and broadly now. We need to stop doing business as usual now so we can better respond to the challenges of the future, and that goes not just for those in the Pentagon, but also for those of us in Congress, because the decisions that we are making today will commit enormous national resources and determine the military forces we will have for decades. The fact is that the extraordinary victory we achieved in the gulf war was the result not only of the extraordinary military leadership we had and the extraordinary bravery and skill of our troops on the ground, in the air, on the water, but it also was the result of decisions and investments made in the seventies in military technology that came online and were available to be used in the early 1990's in the gulf war. We have to think, as we make the decisions we do committing hundreds of billions of dollars to defense programs, whether these are the programs we will need 10 and 20 years from now. The fact is, if we choose unwisely and a future opponent chooses more wisely, we may well be jeopardizing not only the lives of our soldiers, but also the lives of our children and our grandchildren. When we discover that, we will have precious little time and perhaps not the resources to fix our mistakes. So in those ways, I find the QDR to be lacking, but Senator Coats and our cosponsors anticipated this and believed it would be the first step in a dynamic process. I hope that is the way in which the QDR, will be seen--as a first step, an important one--in a series of steps to determine what our future military needs will be. It does, in fact, provide a sound base from which this critical discussion can proceed. I think Secretary Cohen himself has recognized this is only the beginning-- it is the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end--not only in what he specifically said, but in the fact that last week he announced the appointment of a task force which will now go the next step, particularly in considering reform of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We all have high hopes for the independent National Defense Panel, that was created as part of our legislation, to go further and create clear alternatives and to begin to identify the critical unanswered questions that we are left with after reading the QDR. Then, as Senator Coats has said, it will be up to those of us in Congress and to those in the White House and the administration to absorb the recommendations of the QDR we received today; then of the National Defense Panel which will be presented to us in December; and then to push boldly against the status quo. Our responsibility may require us to make difficult decisions about the weapons we buy and where our forces will be based and how they will be structured so that tomorrow's American military will be ready to meet the security threats of the next century in the most cost- effective and technologically dominant way. The point is this: Some people will say, ``QDR says it all, we're doing well, our security is clear. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Of course, we agree our security is strong today and it ain't broke today, but if we don't fix it, it will be broke 10 or 20 years from now, and we will not have fulfilled the fullest measure of our responsibility under the Constitution to provide for and protect the common defense. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Indiana for his comments, which I agree with totally. Part of what we are saying--I echo him--is the world is changing so dramatically that we must make sure that our national security structure changes as well. There is not a company doing business in America today the way it did 5 or 10 years ago, let alone 30, 40, or 50 years ago. What strikes me as so stunning is that the companies that are doing best today are looking ahead 3, 4, 5, 10 years forward to figure out how they are going to need to change to make sure they are still on top. There are limits to that comparison, but that is what we are trying to do with our national security structure. We are, in a sense, being the burrs under the saddle here because we are riding tall in the saddle right now as a country. We are very strong. But history tells us that unless you look forward and change with the times, particularly to begin to absorb the full measure of technological change in your military plans, then you are not going to be riding securely for very long. Just to echo a final point, a very important one, when we drafted this legislation, Senators Coats, McCain, Robb, Kempthorne, Levin, and others, and I had in mind that it was not just the Pentagon--as big and bureaucratic, although very effective, an institution as it is--that needed an outside push; it was Congress, it was us because we are as prone to ride along with the successful status quo and not take the painful looks out over the horizon, particularly if they affect us, as some of these changes may. So this is the first step. It is an ongoing process. I feel even more strongly that legislation was correct in calling for an independent panel, a national defense panel. And ultimately it will be up to the Armed Services Committees, the Appropriations Committees, and all the Members of both Houses to have the guts to make the tough decisions today that will guarantee that America is strong and secure tomorrow and a lot of tomorrows forward into the 21st century. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senators Mack, Lott, and Brownback as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act of 1997 (DCERA). The District of Columbia belongs to each and every one of us. As citizens of the United States, we have a stake in the successes, and a stake in the failures, of Washington, DC. It is America's city. But, for a variety of reasons, not all of them easily explained, Washington is in desperate financial straits. The here and now financial prospects are grim for the city, and the future gets grimmer. This is largely because middle-class families, the backbone of any successful community, are fleeing the District in alarming numbers. The legislation we are introducing today would instantly transform our Nation's capital, making it a more appealing place to live, to invest, to build, to buy, and to work. This bill is designed to reverse the flow of businesses and the middle-class residents who currently are fleeing the city for the suburbs. Those still in the District would have new incentives to stay. And many others now living elsewhere would have a very strong incentive to move into the District with their families and with their businesses. We cannot make the schools better in the District overnight. We cannot promise crime-free streets overnight. We cannot promise a revitalized economy overnight. What we can do is provide middle-class tax relief in the District, and as a way to lure these middle-class taxpayers to the District as a way to reestablish a tax base in the District. And once we bring these people back, safer streets and better schools can follow. This legislation is modeled on legislation that has been introduced in the House with broad, bipartisan support, by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. Both the House and the Senate version of the DCERA establish a maximum Federal tax rate of 15 percent. Both bills double the personal exemption, which would eliminate Federal income taxes for single residents who make up to $15,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who make up to $30,000 a year. At the same time, the bill retains the mortgage and charitable deductions and would allow a taxpayer to file under the old system, if that is what they prefer to do. In contrast to Representative Norton's bill, which provides capital gains tax relief only to D.C. residents, our legislation establishes a zero capital gains rate for D.C. investments held by D.C. or non-D.C. residents for 3 years. We believe that the broader exemption is necessary to spur as much investment in the District as possible. Also in contrast to the House DCERA, our bill includes a $5,000 credit for first time District home purchases and includes a provision to clean up abandoned brownfields within the District. Members of Congress not representing the District could not take advantage of the tax incentives in the bill, and the District already has enacted legislation ensuring that it would not take advantage of the Federal tax incentives in this bill by raising local taxes. I very much see this bill as a first step. Some of the urban problems Washington faces are unique to Washington because Washington has no State, no broader tax base, to draw on. At the same time, many of Washington's problems are problems that are faced by cities all across this country. If this approach works in Washington, I hope we can try it in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford as well. I should note that, unlike some proponents of this legislation, I am at best an agnostic on a flat tax. I believe progressivity in our tax rates is inherently fair and am pleased that the legislation we are introducing today has elements of that progressivity by providing such a generous personal exemption. At the same time, a good number of our cities are facing the loss of their middle-class population and the only way to rebuild that base may be through bold measures like a flat tax which has clear and compelling benefits for the middle class. The people we are really anxious to bring back to our cities are the 28 percenters. Under the current Tax Code a typical family in the 28- percent bracket would be a couple with two children who make roughly between $39,000 and $95,000 after deductions. Our bill would create a very favorable tax incentive for these people to stay in, or move to, the District. Mr. President, the most important thing there is to say about urban policy in this country is that we really do not have an urban policy. We know what has not worked; today we are introducing legislation that we believe will work and there is no better place to start than in Washington, DC, a city that belongs to all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today the Senate once again returns to the morally perplexing question of abortion, a question which has not only divided the Senate and divided America, but I would say that it divides individual Senators and individual Americans. I must say, as I have listened to this debate today, I am proud to be serving here, as difficult as the question before us is, because of the thoughtful, sincere and civil way in which this debate has proceeded. We have in front of us two responses to the problem of abortion: one that would prevent use of a specific medical procedure, intact dilation and extraction, which is used for abortion, and, a second that would prevent almost all abortions from being performed after viability. I believe that the second alternative, Senator Daschle's, more broadly and appropriately responds to the mix, the difficult mix, of moral and legal concerns at issue here, and, therefore, I will vote for Senator Daschle's amendment. In Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life, His Holiness writes that, ``The direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.'' I respect, with humility, the depth of the Pope's statement and the moral conviction of millions of Americans of all religions who recoil from abortion and believe that any abortion at any stage of pregnancy is a taking of life. The Pope's statement, and others by those who oppose all abortions regardless of how early in pregnancy are powerful expressions driven by deep convictions and high moral principles. I respect and value the sincerity and depth with which those convictions are held and expressed--certainly so by the Senator from Pennsylvania, who is the sponsor of the underlying proposal. In fact, I personally share many of those convictions. But the question for me today--and each of us must decide this personally--remains the same as it was when I was called upon to pass public judgment during my time as a State senator in Connecticut in the 1970's after the Roe v. Wade decision was passed down: What is the appropriate place for my personal convictions about abortion, my personal conviction that potential life begins at conception, and, therefore, my personal conviction that all abortions are unacceptable? How do I relate that appropriately to my role as a lawmaker? I struggled with this over and over again in the 1970's in the Connecticut State Senate. How does one, appropriately, as a lawmaker, balance the right of the mother to life, the right of the potential life to protection by the State, and the right of privacy of the woman, the right of the woman to choose, which is recognized by our courts? These competing interests that exist throughout the pregnancy are what we in the Senate are called upon, each in our own way, to try to balance and resolve. Our role here, it seems to me, calls on us to resolve that competition in a way that respects and reflects our own convictions, our constituents', and finally our Constitution. I was shaken, as I would imagine many Members of the Senate were, as the debate over this partial-birth-abortion ban went on, and it sent me back to the conflicts that I faced in the 1970's in the Connecticut State Senate because the partial-birth abortion, the intact dilation and extraction, is horrific; it is horrifying. Yet, the more I focused on it, the more I got concerned about the number of these abortions that are being performed--and as small as that number is--the number is unacceptable--the more I had to face my own personal conclusion that any abortion is unacceptable. Any abortion is horrific. It brought me back to the question of what the role of a body of lawmakers is in reconciling the interests of the mother, the interests of the fetus, potential life, and in respecting the judgments of our courts. In the end, again today, I resolve that conflict with a sense of humility about my authority as one lawmaker, about my capacity, about my judgment in the face of the uniquely private personal judgment and right to choose that a woman has up until the point of viability of the fetus, when that right is equalized by the right of the fetus to be protected by the State. The amendment in front of us, offered by the Senate Democratic leader, does, in fact, ban all abortions of viable fetuses, regardless of procedure, except where the physician certifies that continuation of the pregnancy threatens the mother's life or risks grievous injury to her physical health. It was my honor to work with Senator Daschle, Senator Snowe and many others in preparing this amendment. My personal conclusion, and here I speak as a lawyer, as a former attorney general, is that this amendment will, in fact, ban almost all postviability abortions that might otherwise be performed in this country. The definition of the exception, particularly with the addition of the words ``physical health'' tied to ``grievous injury,'' is very narrow. Senator Daschle's amendment sets up a procedure where the Department of HHS, Health and Human Services will, in fact, promulgate regulations about certification, will require the doctor to file a certification with the Department. What doctor, and there are only a few who perform postviability abortions, would certify inappropriately under the narrow definition in this law and risk losing his or her medical license? Tying the State's protection of the fetus to viability extends protection in a way that I do not believe we have before, to those fetuses that need all the assistance, postviability, that today's technology and medical science make available. It is a remarkable advance, if you will, for the pro- life movement in that regard. As I read Senator Daschle's amendment, and I have spoken with him about this and he has spoken to this, it would prevent abortions of any fetus that could survive outside the mother's body with or without life support. I asked him this question, ``What about a fetus postviability that a test reveals is disabled or may have Down's syndrome, but yet can survive with life support outside the mother's body?'' Senator Daschle said quite clearly to me that is a viable fetus which could not be terminated under his amendment. The term ``viability'' allows the protection of the law to move as medical science advances. When Roe v. Wade was handed down, fetuses under 28 or 29 weeks of gestation were not considered viable. Similarly, for many developmental and genetic defects that led to the death of a fetus or the inability to survive without the mother's bodily support, medicine has found ways to save those babies. Medical science has advanced, and with it, younger and sicker fetuses now are able to live. The term ``viability'' will allow the Government's responsibility to protect potential human life to move with medical science. I want to pick up on something that the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, said a short while ago. The truth is Senator Daschle, Senator Snowe and the others who sponsored this amendment have reached common ground. I think he has established a common ground here that both pro- choice and pro-life Members of this Senate can support. I understand that many will not support it today because it is a substitute for the underlying legislation proposed by Senator Santorum, and the Daschle amendment clearly does not protect fetuses previability. But if this amendment fails today, I believe that it is such an advance and provides such an opportunity for common ground that I hope Members of the Senate, regardless of their position on it, on this difficult and perplexing issue, will come together and help us on another day, if not today, pass this legislation. I thank the Senate Democratic leader and his staff and all who have worked conscientiously on both sides of the aisle for the thoughtful, constructive approach which will save a lot of fetal life, if it is passed--if and when it is passed. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senators Mack, Lott, and Brownback as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act of 1997 (DCERA). The District of Columbia belongs to each and every one of us. As citizens of the United States, we have a stake in the successes, and a stake in the failures, of Washington, DC. It is America's city. But, for a variety of reasons, not all of them easily explained, Washington is in desperate financial straits. The here and now financial prospects are grim for the city, and the future gets grimmer. This is largely because middle-class families, the backbone of any successful community, are fleeing the District in alarming numbers. The legislation we are introducing today would instantly transform our Nation's capital, making it a more appealing place to live, to invest, to build, to buy, and to work. This bill is designed to reverse the flow of businesses and the middle-class residents who currently are fleeing the city for the suburbs. Those still in the District would have new incentives to stay. And many others now living elsewhere would have a very strong incentive to move into the District with their families and with their businesses. We cannot make the schools better in the District overnight. We cannot promise crime-free streets overnight. We cannot promise a revitalized economy overnight. What we can do is provide middle-class tax relief in the District, and as a way to lure these middle-class taxpayers to the District as a way to reestablish a tax base in the District. And once we bring these people back, safer streets and better schools can follow. This legislation is modeled on legislation that has been introduced in the House with broad, bipartisan support, by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. Both the House and the Senate version of the DCERA establish a maximum Federal tax rate of 15 percent. Both bills double the personal exemption, which would eliminate Federal income taxes for single residents who make up to $15,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who make up to $30,000 a year. At the same time, the bill retains the mortgage and charitable deductions and would allow a taxpayer to file under the old system, if that is what they prefer to do. In contrast to Representative Norton's bill, which provides capital gains tax relief only to D.C. residents, our legislation establishes a zero capital gains rate for D.C. investments held by D.C. or non-D.C. residents for 3 years. We believe that the broader exemption is necessary to spur as much investment in the District as possible. Also in contrast to the House DCERA, our bill includes a $5,000 credit for first time District home purchases and includes a provision to clean up abandoned brownfields within the District. Members of Congress not representing the District could not take advantage of the tax incentives in the bill, and the District already has enacted legislation ensuring that it would not take advantage of the Federal tax incentives in this bill by raising local taxes. I very much see this bill as a first step. Some of the urban problems Washington faces are unique to Washington because Washington has no State, no broader tax base, to draw on. At the same time, many of Washington's problems are problems that are faced by cities all across this country. If this approach works in Washington, I hope we can try it in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford as well. I should note that, unlike some proponents of this legislation, I am at best an agnostic on a flat tax. I believe progressivity in our tax rates is inherently fair and am pleased that the legislation we are introducing today has elements of that progressivity by providing such a generous personal exemption. At the same time, a good number of our cities are facing the loss of their middle-class population and the only way to rebuild that base may be through bold measures like a flat tax which has clear and compelling benefits for the middle class. The people we are really anxious to bring back to our cities are the 28 percenters. Under the current Tax Code a typical family in the 28- percent bracket would be a couple with two children who make roughly between $39,000 and $95,000 after deductions. Our bill would create a very favorable tax incentive for these people to stay in, or move to, the District. Mr. President, the most important thing there is to say about urban policy in this country is that we really do not have an urban policy. We know what has not worked; today we are introducing legislation that we believe will work and there is no better place to start than in Washington, DC, a city that belongs to all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio, who has quite graciously allowed me to go forward for a few moments to join my colleague from Connecticut in kind of a statement of pride and gratitude, to commemorate and recognize the birthday this Monday of a beloved constituent but really one of the great motion picture actresses of all time, Katharine Hepburn. As Senator Dodd said, we have known Katharine Hepburn in Connecticut not only as one of our own, but as somebody who, quite appropriately, has preserved her privacy. We try our best to do that, and I suppose it is inconsistent to publicly acknowledge that this great lady is approaching her 90th birthday, on May 12. But in this case, we respectfully and humbly break the privacy and want to publicly honor her for the extraordinary career that she has had. She grew up in a small Connecticut town and has always consider herself--and still does--the ``local girl,'' as she puts it. She is the only four-time winner of the Academy Award for best actress, as I say, for the great roles she has played, 3 of which were won after the age of 60. Katharine Hepburn is, in the words of my colleague--and it is interesting that we both chose the same phrase, working independently-- a national treasure. For nearly 70 years of a brilliant acting career, she has captured the essence of not just what it means to be a great woman and a great person, but the American spirit both on and off the silver screen. In her leading roles and in her life, Katharine Hepburn has stood as a symbol of dignity and of independence, someone who, in the best American/New England traditions, has proudly lived life on her own terms, and with it, great results came. Katharine Hepburn once said of her home in Connecticut, ``I think I'm lucky because people with careers are attracted to the big city and lose track of where they come from. This''--speaking of our State and her beloved town--``is where I come from. I have roots, a sense of belonging somewhere.'' As much as we are honored that Katharine Hepburn has said she belongs in Connecticut, we are very proud to say that we belong to her and she to us. People around the Old Saybrook section of the State will tell you how thrilled they are to have seen her taking those dips into Long Island Sound, not only in the summer but occasionally in winter, and how grateful they are for the way in which, in her quiet way, she has become involved in the kinds of concerns that local communities have, such as buying a ladder truck for the fire department. She reaches an extraordinary age this Monday and can look back on a remarkable career. Katharine Hepburn's artistic brilliance, her outlook on life, her spirit, have served as a beacon of light and of truth for people in America and, really, throughout the world. I am delighted to join with my colleague, and I am sure everyone else in our State and everyone here in the Senate, in thanking her for what she has meant to us as an artist, in expanding our own sense of reality, our own horizons, our own appreciation of life. She reaches a substantial age on Monday, but the truth is that Katharine Hepburn, through the miracle of the movies, is ageless and immortal, forever beautiful, forever graceful, forever magnificently intelligent, forever brilliant, forever spirited, forever Katharine Hepburn. Happy 90th birthday. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I share Senator Bingaman's concern about section 305 of the bill, which would eliminate $100 million in funding for DOD's commercial operations and support savings initiative, known as COSSI. Under the COSSI program, DOD plans to insert new commercial technologies into weapons systems to reduce operations and support costs. DOD has learned that for many weapons systems, operations and support costs far exceed acquisition costs. By investing in upgraded commercial technologies with improved performance, the Department hopes to bring operations and support costs down in the long run. I am concerned that the elimination of the COSSI program will increase defense costs in the long run. At the same time, I agree that we should not try to fund the COSSI program at the expense of the Department's limited funding for dual use technologies. Senator Bingaman has worked long and hard to establish the Dual Use Program and to keep it going, and this program has shown real benefits for both the Department of Defense and the economy as a whole. I hope that the conferees will be able to find an appropriate level of funding for the COSSI program without undermining the Department's dual use technology initiative. section 314

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I share the Senator's concern. Under the COSSI program, DOD intends to make sensible investments that will reduce weapons systems costs in the long run. By upgrading the F-14A/B Inertial System, for example, DOD expects that it could increase the mean time between failures from 40 hours to 4500 hours, substantially reducing program costs over the next decade. Similarly, by installing constant velocity joints in its fleet of M939 5 ton trucks, the Department expects to reduce its tire costs by two-thirds. In my view, we can't afford not to make these kinds of money-saving investments.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to amendment No. 83 offered by the Senator from Wisconsin to S. 672, the underlying bill. I gather that Senator Feingold's amendment has been second-degreed by the Senator from Texas with amendment No. 177. In brief, the underlying amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill would prohibit the use of funds for ground deployment in Bosnia after September 30 of this year, 1997. The second-degree amendment changes the date of September 30, 1997, to June 30, 1998. Mr. President, after all the debate and discussion here on the floor of this Senate for the last 6 years, really after all of the diplomatic effort by our Government and other governments in Europe and throughout the world regarding the conflict in Bosnia, after all of the blood that has been spilled in Bosnia with hundreds of thousands of people displaced and killed, and after the heroic service of the American soldiers that have been part of IFOR and SFOR, joined with soldiers of other countries in separating the warring parties in the former Yugoslavia and stopping the conflict and beginning the peaceful reconstruction of that land, it is fundamentally inconceivable to me that the Senate here on an amendment to this supplemental appropriations bill would direct the military to pull out of this conflict, to walk away, in my opinion, before the job is done, to do something that is not in the best traditions of American diplomacy, let alone the American military. So, Mr. President, I strongly oppose these two amendments. If I may, I would like to take just a few moments to recall with my colleagues some of what has happened in this Chamber, in the former Yugoslavia, and in the capitals of the world regarding this conflict and why it is as important as I think it is that our actions are as constructive and courageous as I believe they are. This action would be, by virtue of this amendment, without the appropriate hearings by the relevant committees, without hearing from our military and civilian leadership, without even hearing from those such as Ambassador Holbrooke who negotiated the Dayton peace agreement--it would be so wrong for us to adopt these amendments. Mr. President, the conflict that broke out in the former Yugoslavia was one of the byproducts, if you will, of the collapse of the former Soviet Union. There are times, of course, when a war is over--in this case I speak of the cold war--when a time of instability and uncertainty prevails, and there are those who will seek to take advantage of that uncertainty with military force to turn the circumstance to their own benefit. That is the context in which I have always viewed the war that broke out in the former Yugoslavia. It is not, as we have said over and over again, that there are any saints in that particular region of the world. But it was clear to me that there was an intentional act of war, aggression, and genocide against people based on their religion, for the most part, if they happened to be Bosnian Muslims, by Serbia. That raged on and on--not stopped by the powers in Europe--raged on and on, as we witnessed continually on our television sets one horror after another. It was hard to believe that in the heart of Europe once again so soon after the end of the Second World War we were seeing aggression and genocide, even concentration camps for some period of time. We debated this here at great length in this Chamber. The United States, I think for reasons that were misplaced, I believe, in 1991 became part of imposing an arms embargo on the parties in the former Yugoslavia. The aim was to try to avoid conflict or to avoid the spread of conflict by keeping arms out of there--apparently well intentioned. Yet, the effect of it was horrendous and devastatingly unfair because the Serbs, by virtue of the division of the country, retained most of the war-fighting capacity and armaments manufacturing capacity of the former Yugoslavia. The Bosnians did not have that capacity. So, not only did the world stand by as the war went on and not intervene, but we were prohibiting the Bosnians, the Muslims, from obtaining the arms that they needed to defend their families, their neighbors, and their country. Former Senate majority leader, Senator Dole, led the effort to raise the arms embargo. It was a bipartisan effort in which I was honored to join with him in which we contended, if you will, with two successive administrations, one of each political party. Finally, after repeated attempts, in the spring of 1995 we were able to obtain a majority in this Chamber to lift the arms embargo. This was in response to one story after another of horror in Srebrenica, in all of that city, mass slaughter of people, discovery of concentration camps with bodies all around. And after that embargo was lifted, an act of real leadership by this administration, by the President, in calling for NATO strikes, which so many of us here continued to say, ``Strike from the air. Make the Serbs pay for their aggression.'' No one is doing anything to stop them. No one is doing anything which would indicate that the rest of the world cares about what is happening there or will care if this once again becomes a wider war in Europe, bringing in the neighbors all around, including the potential to bring in two of our allies in NATO, namely, Greece and Turkey. Force was used. The Serbs responded. The Dayton peace began. Ambassador Holbrooke was sent in by the President in one of the most extraordinary exercises in diplomatic leadership that we have seen in recent times, where the Dayton peace accord was signed leading to the so-called IFOR presence in Bosnia. Mr. President, we have been at a fork in the road in Bosnia before, forks that would have, if we took one turn, left the people of Bosnia to their own devices, the outcome to be decided by brute strength and savagery unknown in Europe for 50 years, risking the expansion of that violence to other parts of Europe with possibly much greater harm to our vital interests there. The other fork is the one we ultimately took, to try to stop the violence and bring peace, order, and justice back to the former Yugoslavia. The Dayton accords happened because the United States finally exercised its leadership and, with NATO, used collective power to bring the conflict to an end. IFOR was created to assure that territorial and other military-related provisions of the Dayton agreement were achieved. But although stopping the fighting was a necessary condition for achieving the goal of assuring the continuity of the single State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was never considered as a sufficient condition for achieving that goal. Unfortunately, it was this part of the agreement that received the vast majority of the attention and debate in the United States. American opponents of U.S. participation made dire predictions of disaster and casualties, and the result was a very narrow mission statement and an arbitrary 1-year time limit for IFOR deployment. I opposed that 1-year time limit because I believed that only when IFOR's success could be combined with the implementation of the civilian elements of the agreement at Dayton--rehabilitation of infrastructure, economic reconstruction, political and constitutional institutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, promotion and respect for human rights, return of displaced persons and pursuit of indicted war criminals--would it be possible for us to end our participation there. When some have started to talk about withdrawing on June 30, 1998, I said again I hope that we will be in a position to do that, but has it ever made sense in a military involvement to announce the date by which we are withdrawing, leaving those who would benefit from our withdrawal, who would try to take advantage of it, to lay in wait until that withdrawal, until that withdrawal which would leave them a clear field to proceed back to war and savagery and the threat of a wider conflict which inevitably will cost us more than we have spent to stop the conflict and prevent that wider war in the former Yugoslavia. So where are we, Mr. President, in the execution of the tasks we set at Dayton? I would say we are part of the way to our goal. We have officially declared IFOR successful and its mission complete. The first part of that task was accomplished magnificently by our forces. The violence stopped, an environment of relative stability emerged and not one IFOR member, thank God, was killed as a result of military action. This performance was due to the skill and professionalism of the IFOR soldiers, to the reputation accorded NATO and its soldiers and ultimately to the sine quo non of all of this, which is American leadership. But executing the essential second part of the task has not been as successful. The progress in rebuilding Bosnia has been slow, due in part to the difficulty of overcoming the antagonism engendered by a tragic war and the effects of a creation of ethnic areas, but it is also due to the fact that rebuilding a country is much harder than stopping the fighting, and we have given far less focus and far less support for the difficult tasks necessary to rebuild Bosnia than we gave to the military tasks. The mission of IFOR was very narrowly stated, and we avoided many opportunities for IFOR to support some of the most important civilian parts of the agreement. Most notable to me was our failure to direct IFOR or some international body to apprehend the indicted war criminals that bear such a large part of the responsibility for the afflictions of this fated land, the freedom of which, flaunting the indictment of an internationally constituted war crimes tribunal, will prevent genuine peace in Bosnia from ever occurring. These criminals are still at large. They can be seen, particularly Mr. Karadzic, one of the main perpetrators of the war crimes, indicted by an established international tribunal, seen almost daily controlling so much of what happens in the Serb part of Bosnia, still at large. And that freedom remains a profoundly serious impediment to attempts to build a civil society with functioning democratic institutions. Still we have made progress. The efforts of Ambassador Holbrooke reduced but clearly did not eliminate the deleterious effects of the war criminals. Elections for national leaders have been held. The government is functioning. So we have reason to be extremely grateful for the military and political successes that have been achieved. These successes have been extraordinarily important. Today we come to another fork in the road as a result of these amendments not considered at length by this Chamber, certainly not yet. As before, one fork would leave the people of Bosnia to their own devices regardless of what the condition on the ground was, first on September 30 of this year, an extraordinarily early date, and then on June 30, 1998. If we take the fork that leads to withdrawal on a date certain, it is axiomatic, it is without doubt that our NATO allies will follow us on the way out. They have said repeatedly: We went in together; we are going to go out together. This will probably lead either to the renewal of violence, bloodshed, genocide, rule of those willing to deploy the most savage force. At least I would guess it will lead to partition. Some will say that does not matter, but I believe it matters a great deal, not just to the people of Bosnia but to stability in Europe, which has always mattered to the United States--in fact, drew us into two world wars in this century at the cost of thousands of American lives. I have always seen our involvement in Bosnia as preventive. It is an attempt to prevent a wider conflict that would cost us more in blood, American blood, American lives and, yes, American money. As Ambassador Holbrooke recently pointed out in a letter in Foreign Affairs: A single Bosnia with two entities was the essential core of the Dayton agreements. The boundary line was to be similar to a boundary between two American States rather than a boundary between two nations. But the Serbs were at Dayton under duress and few expected they would voluntarily accept such a concept. Indeed, they have acted to undermine execution of the political and economic tasks, and are trying to turn the boundary line into a line of partition and ultimately into one of complete separation. Mr. President, why is partition, which I would see as the least devastating result of a hasty American retreat from Bosnia, why is it wrong? In my opinion, it is wrong morally, strategically and politically. Partition of Bosnia would be morally wrong because it would reward the aggression and the genocide that all of us have decried. But it would also be dangerous. Partition is strategically wrong because it contains within it seeds of violence. The history of places where partition has occurred is sad and bloodied, and they all continue to draw us into their sadness and blood. Ireland and Cyprus are examples that still threaten America and threaten the international order as a result of partition after many decades. The problems engendered by partition in Bosnia would, in my opinion, be even worse because Bosnia would end up partitioned not just into two parts but into three parts--the Muslim part, the Serbian part, and the Croatian part. The endless battles over the partition lines would have a high probability of impacting others in the neighborhood-- Albania, Greece, Bulgaria and Macedonia. And partition is particularly politically wrong because it would send a profoundly undesirable signal to ethnic activists in other places where boundaries were arbitrarily drawn and which politically divide historic ethnic groups, and that is that aggression will be rewarded with partition. Mr. President, if we were to withdraw in June 1998, let alone September 30, 1997, without successful implementation of Dayton's civil tasks, the Serb strategy will have succeeded. The fact is that, setting these amendments aside, soon we will conduct the first of the periodic assessments of SFOR, the follow-on force to IFOR. While these assessments might be envisioned by some as opportunities to determine if we can withdraw our forces even faster, I believe we should use them in an orderly, thoughtful way as opportunities to conduct a real debate about how we can successfully conclude all the tasks laid out at Dayton and achieve the objective we agreed on: A single Bosnia, where peace, justice, and the rule of law prevail. Mr. President, there are lives on the line here and they are American lives as well as Bosnian lives. We ought not after the money we have invested, the lives we have risked, the conflict we have stopped, the blood we have saved, the order we have returned to Europe, the larger war we have avoided, by virtue of an amendment not heard by the relevant committees direct the end of what up until this time has been a signal act of American leadership, American courage, American preventive diplomacy, American force used in the interest of peace and order and justice. So I strongly oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I thank the Chair. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge Adam J. Platzner. Adam arrived at the Kind & Low-Heywood Thomas School [KLHT] in September 1994--sophomore year. Almost immediately following his arrival he was elected by his classmates to the Student Government as a case representative. He was appointed by the Student Government president to the position of direction of Student Government Development. He was also appointed chairman of the Constitution Committee. In these posts he not only raised money but he also supervised the formation of, and coauthored the new Student Government's constitution. Through his efforts the students now have representation on the board of trustees' committees. In the middle of April 1994, Mr. Platzner among other things, founded and was elected chairman of the Political Union. He was also elected vice president of the Student Body and chairman of the Student Council. Adam Platzner was chosen to represent the school as the ambassador to the Hugh O'Brien Youth Foundation's annual conference. The following year--junior year--Mr. Platzner raised funds and chaired the Student Council. He was also selected to sit on the board of trustees' education committee--2-year term--and elected president of the Model United Nations Organization. Adam Platzner won the Outstanding Delegate Award at the Ivy League Model United Nations Conference, as well as the class prize for his hard work, leadership, and dedication In the city of New Rochelle, NY, Mr. Platzner was appointed to the Youth Court. During his senior year he continued to lead the KLHT Political Union forward. In the beginning of the year he was appointed to lead Students Against Driving Drunk. It was in decline and Mr. Platzner's job is to turn it around. Adam Platzner continues to be a dedicated member of the KLHT community.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge Sean J. White. Sean has been a member of the King & Low-Heywood Thomas School [KLHT] community since his freshman year. That same year he was elected treasurer of the student government. He also served as a ranking member of the Constitution Committee. Mr. White was a member of the school newspaper staff and became editor-in-chief of The Standard in 1997. He has been an active member of Model United Nations and Political Union, as the vice chairman. At the end of this year his term as chairman of the Political Union and as president of Model United Nations will begin.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, for the past 2\1/2\ years, members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services have been privileged to work with Dr. Paul G. Kaminski, who is serving as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Dr. Kaminski has led the Department of Defense through the most significant reform of the Nation's defense acquisition system in 50 years. I believe it is appropriate for the Senate to recognize the outstanding service rendered the Nation by Dr. Kaminski on the occasion of his retirement from Federal service later this spring. During his tenure as the Defense Acquisition Executive, Dr. Kaminski established the broad outlines of the technologies and systems that will form the cutting edge of this Nation's defense capabilities well into the next century. His scientific counsel and leadership were instrumental in charting a course ahead for a system of systems including this Nation's national security space systems, heavy bomber force, air mobility force, ballistic and cruise missile defense, tactical air forces, and attack submarine fleet. Dr. Kaminski ushered in a new era--a renaissance--in armaments cooperation with our friends and allies around the world. His vision, foresight and diplomacy have provided this Nation and our international partners with a broad spectrum of collaborative efforts and opportunities that include cooperation with Germany and Italy to develop a medium extended air defense system; cooperation with France, Germany, Italy, and Spain to develop, produce, and field an interoperable multifunctional information distribution system; and cooperation with the United Kingdom, Norway, and the Netherlands on the development of a revolutionary new joint strike fighter. As steward of the Nation's defense acquisition system, Dr. Kaminski has guided the defense acquisition establishment through a period of revolutionary change and reform. He has changed the way our acquisition system supports America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Through establishment of integrated product teams--composed of war fighters, testers, trainers, doctrine writers, acquirers, and their industry contractors--Dr. Kaminski has dramatically improved the way weapon systems are developed, produced, and fielded. Perhaps Dr. Kaminski's greatest accomplishment is the pride and professionalism he has reinvigorated in the acquisition work force supporting our war fighters. The American people can take comfort in the fact that the U.S. defense acquisition work force is the very finest in the world. Our people are willing to think ``out-of-the-box'' and pushing hard to be better. Dr. Kaminski has been responsible for initiating a wholesale re- engineering of the DOD logistics system. He recognized that for the revolution in U.S. military affairs to proceed--the DOD needed a new, compatible logistics support concept. His approach was to substitute information and fast transportation for inventory. As a result of his leadership and vision, logistics response times have improved significantly and inventories have been reduced dramatically. His reputation is well known in Congress--to those who have worked directly with him and even many who have not. He is highly respected as an individual of integrity, vision, scientific brilliance, and that rare trait of objectivity about what he is involved in. His work will continue to have a very profound and lasting impact upon the Nation's security for many years to come. The Nation owes a debt of gratitude to Dr. Kaminski. It has been my distinct pleasure to be associated with this exceptional public servant in conjunction with my duties on the Armed Services Committee. I wish him well and anticipate that his coming years in the private sector will further contribute to the security of this Nation. My best wishes to Paul, his lovely wife Julia, and his two children Laura and Garrett, as they mark this special milestone.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to Patrick H. Windham, the long-serving Senior Democratic Professional Staff Member for the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. Pat is leaving Washington for California with his wife Arati Prabhakar and newborn baby Katie after nearly 20 years of service to the Senate, primarily on science and technology policy issues. For the many people here who knew or worked with Pat, including my staff and me, he will be sorely missed as a great source of institutional knowledge but most of all as a friend, a genuine and nice guy in a town not always known for its friendliness. Originally from California, Pat completed his undergraduate work at Stanford, received a Masters in public policy from the University of California at Berkeley and first came to the Hill in 1976 as a Congressional Fellow to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. In 1982 Pat began his long association with Senator Hollings, joining his personal staff as a legislative assistant. He has held his present position of Senior Democratic Professional staff member for the Subcommittee on Commerce, Science and Transportation since 1984. I met Pat through his many hours of work on the important issue of technology partnerships, especially those run through the Commerce Department such as the Advanced Technology Program. Pat, along with my able colleague Senator Hollings, has been a tireless advocate of promoting the movement of new ideas generated by scientists and engineers in our universities and national laboratories out into the commercial marketplace. Widely respected for his substantive thinking on such topics, Pat has tirelessly worked on legislative solutions that would bridge the cultural gap existing between the differing worlds of academia, government and industry. I believe this effort to be critical towards ensuring the future ability of America to compete in a global market. During World War II and the subsequent Cold War, federal investment in science and technology was seen as essential to maintaining America's national security. A by-product of federal investment was an infrastructure of world-leading high tech defense companies, laboratories and universities and subsequent creation of an entire new generation of products and industries. With the end of the Cold War, the defense rationale for continued investment is not as politically compelling and the growth of information technologies continues to change the landscape for American business. We are now in a period of transition, looking for ways to move from the old system of innovation where the government funded the science, paid for development and then purchased the final product--to a new system that preserves both our country's security and its competitive economic advantage. It is not an exaggeration to say that Pat has been a major contributor in the development of science and technology policy during this turbulent transition period. My office and I particularly respect his work for Senator Hollings as an architect of both the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Program, both of which help move technology and information out to the manufacturing floors of America's workplaces. Pat has always been open minded, has carefully listened and will be remembered as a joy to work with. My staff and I hope that Pat will find some time to write and reflect on the technology policy issues he's been grappling with for so long, and welcome fresh insights from him. The Senate owes him a large debt of thanks for his fine work here. Good luck in California, Pat, and best wishes to your wonderful wife and daughter.