Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss the status of the President's nomination of Anthony Lake-- Tony Lake--to be the Director of Central Intelligence. Mr. President, I read from the New York Times this morning, which reports in its lead story, ``Leaders in the Senate demand FBI files on CIA nominee.'' I quote from the lead paragraph: Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said today that unless he received all of the FBI files on Anthony Lake, he would not hold confirmation hearings for Mr. Lake. Later, in that same story, the author says: It is reported that two senior Republican members of the committee, Senators Lugar and Chafee, said today they would probably vote for Mr. Lake, barring some devastating disclosure at the confirmation hearings. Senator Lugar, our distinguished colleague and friend from Indiana, says that he strongly disagrees with the demand for the opening of these files and the delay of the hearing. According to Senator Lugar, ``The whole confirmation process becomes more and more outrageous. People feel it is their duty to engage in character assassination or to cause the nominee's defeat, or to discourage and demoralize them. The FBI files are raw files,'' Mr. Lugar said. ``They may contain rumor, gossip, hearsay, or innuendo. They may be true, they may be false, they may be scandalously defamatory, but they should not be the basis of evaluating someone's character.'' Mr. President, I come to the floor to appeal to the leadership of the Intelligence Committee to move forward with the hearing on March 11 and to treat this nominee fairly, because the process is becoming unfair. Every time a hurdle is erected for Mr. Lake and he jumps over it, another one seems to be erected in its place. Continuing with the sports analogy, every time Tony Lake moves the ball toward the goal line, the goal line is pushed back. And the process is beginning to look more like a fishing expedition than like a process of congressional evaluation of a Presidential nominee--one who has served his country with distinction over the course of many years--that is fair and proceeding expeditiously and with a sense of due process. Mr. President, in speaking about Tony Lake's nomination, I think it is important that I share my belief of what our role is when we advise and consent here in this Senate to nominations of the President. I faced this question early in my time here, in 1989, on several occasions regarding the nominations of President Bush. I supported almost all of them. It seemed to me then, as it does now, that our role here is not to substitute ourselves for the President. The President is elected to make these nominations. I decided that the standard I would impose is not whether I would have nominated this individual. That is what Presidents are elected for. The Senate's role is to advise and consent. I think that means the standard we should follow is to determine whether the President's nominee is within the acceptable range for the particular job for which that person is nominated, not whether we would have nominated that person. Mr. President, on that standard, it seems to me that Tony Lake more than meets the qualifications for being a superb Director of Central Intelligence at a very, very critical time for the intelligence community in the history of our Nation. As I indicated a few moments ago, Mr. Lake has served our country in various capacities with great honor over many years. He has been a student of government and a teacher of government in universities, and returned to government again to serve for the last 4 years with dignity and, I think, great effect as the National Security Adviser. What standards do we hold up for this particular nomination? I am pleased to be able to find a good source to rely on. That is an article written by Robert Gates, CIA Director under President Bush, published in the Wall Street Journal on January 29 of this year. Bob Gates held up three standards for judging a nominee for Director of Central Intelligence. No. 1, is that person recognized as a man of integrity and principle, a man prepared to stand up for what he believes is right? No. 2, is that person knowledgeable about foreign affairs? No. 3, does that person have the confidence of the President and know well the rest of the President's national security team? On all three counts, Bob Gates, a distinguished public servant with an excellent record of service to our country, found Tony Lake qualified with a lot to spare. I quote from that article in the Wall Street Journal. First, Bob Gates says, Tony Lake is ``broadly recognized as a man of integrity and principle, and as a man with courage to stand up for what he believes is right. This offers reassurance that he will be independent of the White House in which he served and will be directed by a moral grounding most Americans would find admirable.'' It is hard to convey this in a few moments on the floor. But I have known Tony Lake for a number of years. And I do not agree with everything he has ever done in his career. But, believe me, this is a person who has always been animated by a desire to do the right thing for his country. And that is why Bob Gates says accurately that Tony Lake ``* * * will be directed by a moral grounding most Americans would find admirable.'' Second, whether or not one agrees with him on the issues, he is thoroughly knowledgeable about foreign affairs. That is self-evident based on the enormously successful record he has made over the last 4 years sitting at the center of America's foreign policy during a difficult time, and one in which I think most observers agree has seen America remain strong and recognized as not only the one superpower in the world but a superpower that has used its power effectively and ethically and morally. Third, does he have the confidence of the President? I suppose that is self-evident since the President appointed him. He does. And, of course, he knows the rest of the people that comprise the national security team in this administration. That is important, not just for matters of friendship, but because the intelligence functions should be at the heart of our foreign policy. Because of the personal relations Tony Lake has with the President, the Vice President and others in a foreign policy apparatus of this Government, he will bring intelligence to the center of their deliberations, where it clearly belongs. I have said that in this process of evaluating Tony Lake's nomination, at every point where a hurdle was established he jumped over it, and then more hurdles were erected. Some of these questions have been fair. The questions about how he handled stock holdings were examined by the appropriate oversight bodies and he was cleared. And I have some personal knowledge on questions about how he handled the shipment of arms from Islamic countries through Croatia to Bosnia because, along with the former majority leader, Senator Dole, and other distinguished colleagues here, I worked for a long time to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnians. The question was, did Tony Lake do anything in response to messages from our Ambassador to Croatia indicating that the Croatians were wondering how we would react to shipments of arms across this country to Bosnia? Tony Lake responded that there were no instructions. Some critics have seemed to suggest that there was a point in these deliberations where, although Tony Lake clearly said there were no instructions, somehow his body language conveyed a different message. Now, if we are getting to the point where we are beginning to question the capacity of people to be Directors of Central Intelligence because of their body language, we are heading down a very unusual road. I think questions about this incident have been well handled. Not only was the no-instructions policy not covert, but it was not an action within the meaning of relevant statute. And, in my personal opinion, because our European allies were taking a position against lifting the arms embargo and letting these poor Bosnians defend themselves, I think Tony Lake's decision to give no instructions successfully resolved a very difficult situation and was the absolutely moral decision to make. OK, so he jumped those two hurdles. But now, as the process goes on, it seems that every accusation made against the White House, that every question of criticism about foreign policy, is being put on his desk. He is being held up to a standard that is impossible to meet and fundamentally unfair. One day, somebody says, we will have to ask him questions about the administration's policy on Haiti. Another says that we have to check to make sure he had no involvement in any of the political fundraising going on in the White House. He seems to have kept himself very, very far from all of that. Now, there is the question of the FBI report. Knowing Tony Lake as I do, knowing his desire to cooperate with this Congress, I agree with Senator Robert Kerrey, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, when he says in the newspaper today that Tony will try to work out some agreement by which the members of the Intelligence Committee can see the FBI report. In some substantial sense, I regret that. Senator Kerrey has seen the report in full. I asked him for his judgment. I trust him totally. He said that there was nothing he saw in that report which would alter his decision to enthusiastically support Tony Lake's nomination. So I appeal to the leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Senator from Alabama, the chairman, is a good friend and an honorable, standup individual. I understand that some people may oppose this nomination, but, please, go ahead with that hearing on March 11. Let the man have his day. Ask him the tough questions. Then let the matter go to a vote in that committee. Bring it out to the floor. We can debate it out here. Let us vote on it. But let us not subject this fine man, this great public servant, this patriot to a kind of water torture where we keep dripping water on his head and do not treat him with the respect and dignity that he and the agency that he is nominated here by the President of the United States to lead both deserve. Mr. President, Senator John McCain, distinguished colleague and friend from Arizona, usually a pretty good guide to what is right around here--I say usually because he has a few gaps in logic with regard to the submarine construction program, but I leave those aside for now--sent a letter to all of us on January 29 in which he said: I support the nomination of Tony Lake to be the next Director of Central Intelligence and will introduce him to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when it holds hearings on this issue. I have worked frequently with Tony Lake over the years, and I agree with Bob Gates-- Referring to the earlier article I mentioned-- that he is a knowledgeable man of principle and integrity who can be expected to work well with other members of the President's national security team and with Congress. End of the quote from the Senator from Arizona, the Honorable John McCain. Mr. President, let me just add this one word about the intelligence community. I just do not think it is in the interest of the intelligence community or the country to permit Tony Lake's nomination to be unfairly delayed or to get mired in partisan politics. This nomination should be judged on its merits. That is all the nominee, that is all the Commander in Chief, that is all any of us who support him are asking. Delay and political warfare risks doing serious damage not only to Tony Lake's honor and good name but also to an agency that has traditionally enjoyed and still fundamentally and seriously deserves bipartisan support. The CIA and the intelligence community are at a crossroads. They need a principled and strong leader now, and that man is Tony Lake. Mr. President, at the end of the column he wrote for the Wall Street Journal, Bob Gates summed it up very well, and I quote finally from that article. Bob Gates says: As the last CIA Director, nominated by a Republican President and confirmed by a Democratic controlled Senate, I strongly believe that hard questions should be asked of Mr. Lake and then he should be confirmed expeditiously with broad bipartisan support. This would be in the best interests of the country and of the intelligence community. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, together with Senator McCain and a number of other Senators from both sides of the aisle, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1997. This bipartisan bill responds to a looming crisis affecting more than 7 million patients annually who rely on implantable life-saving or life-enhancing medical devices such as pacemakers, heart valves, artificial blood vessels, hydrocephalic shunts, and hip and knee joints. These patients are at risk of losing access to the devices on which their lives and well-being depend because, as a result of actual and potential skyrocketing legal costs, the companies that supply the raw materials without which those devices cannot be made are simply refusing to sell their raw materials to device manufacturers. If we do not act soon, makers of the life-saving medical devices that we take for granted today may no longer able to buy the raw materials and components necessary to produce their products, and the public health may be seriously jeopardized. By taking the small step Senator McCain and I propose today, millions of Americans will no longer have to worry about losing access to the life-saving medical devices on which they depend. The reason for this impending crisis is an all too common one: an out-of-control product liability system. During hearings I held in 1994, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulation and Government Information, and again during hearings held by the Commerce Committee last Congress, we heard the same story from witness after witness. They all explained that the current legal system makes it too easy to bring lawsuits against raw materials suppliers and too expensive for those suppliers to defend themselves--even when the suppliers are not at fault and end up winning, as they virtually always do. According to one study, only three out of hundreds of liability cases brought against a raw material supplier led to a finding of wrongdoing against the supplier. Nevertheless, in all of those cases, the suppliers had to spend enormous amounts of money to defend themselves--often much more than the supplier ever profited from its sale of the raw materials. Many suppliers consequently have made the entirely rational decision that the costs of defending these lawsuits are just too high to justify selling raw materials to the makers of implantable medical devices. In short, for those suppliers, it just isn't worth it. How could this happen? A study by Aranoff Associates paints a clear, but dismal, picture. That study surveyed the markets for polyester yarn, resins such as DuPont's Teflon, and polyacetal resin such as DuPont's Delrin. The study showed that sales of these raw materials for use in manufacturing implantable medical devices was just a tiny percentage of the overall market--$606,000 out of total sales of over $11 billion, or just 0.006 percent. In return for that extra $606,000 in total annual sales, however, that raw material supplier, like others, faced potentially huge liability related costs, even if they never lost a lawsuit. To take one example, a company named Vitek manufactured an estimated 26,000 jaw implants using about 5-cents worth of DuPont Teflon in each device. The device was developed, designed, and marketed by Vitek, which was not related to DuPont. When those implants failed, Vitek declared bankruptcy, its founder fled to Switzerland, and the patients sued DuPont. DuPont has won virtually all these cases, but the cost has been staggering. The study estimated that DuPont spent at least $8 million per year over 6 years to defend these suits. To put this into perspective, DuPont's estimated legal expenses in these cases for just 1 year would have bought over a 13-year supply of DuPont's Dacron polyester, Teflon, and Delrin for all U.S. makers of implantable medical devices, not just makers of jaw implants. Faced with this overwhelming liability, DuPont decided to stop selling its products to manufacturers of permanently implanted medical devices. One supplier's decision alone might not be troublesome, but it is not just one supplier that has reached that decision. When I rose during the debate over the product liability bill last year, I put in the record the names of twelve suppliers who had withdrawn from the biomaterials market. Since then, I have learned that at least two more suppliers have done the same. There is no reason to believe that the economics will be different for other suppliers around the world. One of the witnesses at our 1994 hearing testified that she contacted 15 alternate suppliers of polyester yarn worldwide. All were interested in selling her raw materials--except for use in products made and used in the United States. By itself, this is a powerful statement about the nature of our American product liability laws, and it makes a powerful case for reform. What's at stake here, let me be clear, is not protecting suppliers from liability and not even just making raw materials available to the manufacturers of medical devices. What's at stake is the health of millions of Americans who depend on medical devices for their everyday survival. What's at stake is the health of children like Thomas Reilly from Houston, TX, who suffers from hydrocephalus, a condition in which fluid accumulates around the brain. A special shunt enables him to survive. But continued production of that shunt is in doubt because the raw materials' suppliers are concerned about the potential lawsuit costs. At our hearing in 1994, Thomas' father, Mark Reilly, pleaded for Congress to move forward quickly to assure that the supply of those shunts will continue. What's at stake is the health of adults like Peggy Phillips of Falls Church, VA, whose heart had twice stopped beating because of fibrillation. Today, she lives an active, normal life because she has an implanted automatic defibrillator. Again, critical components of the defibrillator may no longer be available because of potential product liability costs. Ms. Phillips urged Congress to move swiftly to enact legislation protecting raw materials and component part suppliers from product liability. The scope of this problem affects young and old alike. Take a pacemaker. Pacemakers are installed in patients whose hearts no longer generate enough of an electrical pulse to get the heart to beat. To keep the heart beating, a pacemaker is connected to the heart with wires. These wires have silicone rubber insulation. Unfortunately, the suppliers of the rubber have begun to withdraw from the market. With this pacemaker, thousands of Americans can live productive and healthy lives for decades. Take another example, a heart valve. Around the edge of a heart valve is a sleeve of polyester fabric. This fabric is what the surgeon sews through when he or she installs this valve. Without that sleeve, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to install the valve. Without that valve, patients die prematurely. In short, this developing product liability crisis will have widespread and serious effects. We cannot simply allow the over 7 million people who owe their health to medical devices to become casualties of an outmoded legal liability system. Because product liability litigation costs make the economics of supplying raw materials to the implantable medical device makers very unfavorable, it is imperative that we act now. We cannot rationally expect raw materials suppliers to continue to serve the medical device market out of the goodness of their hearts, notwithstanding the liability related costs. We need to reform our product liability laws, to give raw material suppliers some assurance that unless there is real evidence that they were responsible for putting a defective device on the market, they cannot be sued simply in the hope that their deep pockets will fund legal settlements. I have long believed that liability reform could be both proconsumer and probusiness. I believe the testimony we heard on this subject during the past two Congresses proved this once again. When fear of liability suits and litigation costs drives valuable, lifesaving products off the market because their makers cannot get raw materials, consumers are the ones to suffer. When companies divert money from developing new lifesaving products to replace old sources of raw materials supplies, consumers are again the ones to suffer. When one company must spend millions just to defend itself in lawsuits over a product it did not even design or make--for which it simply provided a raw material worth 5 cents--it is the consumer that suffers the most. Based on the testimony we heard in 1994, I, along with my distinguished colleague from Arizona, committed to forging a solution to remedy this immediate threat to our national public health. That year, and again in the 104th Congress, we introduced the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act, which we reintroduce again today. This bill will establish clear national rules to govern suits against suppliers of raw materials and component parts for permanently implantable medical devices. Under this bill, a supplier of raw materials or component parts could be sued only if the materials they supplied do not meet contractual specifications, or if they properly can be classified as a manufacturer or seller of the whole product. They could not, however, be sued for deficiencies in the design of the final device, the testing of that device, or for inadequate warnings with respect to that device. Our colleagues recognized the need for that bill last year, and so passed it as part of the 104th Congress' product liability reform bill. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that bill, but in his message to Congress, he made clear that he viewed the biomaterials provision portion of it as, in his words, ``a laudable attempt to ensure the supply of materials needed to make life-saving medical devices.'' We hope that he continues to see the provision in that light. I believe that enactment of this bill would help ensure that America's patients continue to have access to the best lifesaving medical devices in the world. We must act now, however. This piece of legislation is preventative medicine at its best and is just the cure the patients need. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, together with Senator McCain and a number of other Senators from both sides of the aisle, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1997. This bipartisan bill responds to a looming crisis affecting more than 7 million patients annually who rely on implantable life-saving or life-enhancing medical devices such as pacemakers, heart valves, artificial blood vessels, hydrocephalic shunts, and hip and knee joints. These patients are at risk of losing access to the devices on which their lives and well-being depend because, as a result of actual and potential skyrocketing legal costs, the companies that supply the raw materials without which those devices cannot be made are simply refusing to sell their raw materials to device manufacturers. If we do not act soon, makers of the life-saving medical devices that we take for granted today may no longer able to buy the raw materials and components necessary to produce their products, and the public health may be seriously jeopardized. By taking the small step Senator McCain and I propose today, millions of Americans will no longer have to worry about losing access to the life-saving medical devices on which they depend. The reason for this impending crisis is an all too common one: an out-of-control product liability system. During hearings I held in 1994, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulation and Government Information, and again during hearings held by the Commerce Committee last Congress, we heard the same story from witness after witness. They all explained that the current legal system makes it too easy to bring lawsuits against raw materials suppliers and too expensive for those suppliers to defend themselves--even when the suppliers are not at fault and end up winning, as they virtually always do. According to one study, only three out of hundreds of liability cases brought against a raw material supplier led to a finding of wrongdoing against the supplier. Nevertheless, in all of those cases, the suppliers had to spend enormous amounts of money to defend themselves--often much more than the supplier ever profited from its sale of the raw materials. Many suppliers consequently have made the entirely rational decision that the costs of defending these lawsuits are just too high to justify selling raw materials to the makers of implantable medical devices. In short, for those suppliers, it just isn't worth it. How could this happen? A study by Aranoff Associates paints a clear, but dismal, picture. That study surveyed the markets for polyester yarn, resins such as DuPont's Teflon, and polyacetal resin such as DuPont's Delrin. The study showed that sales of these raw materials for use in manufacturing implantable medical devices was just a tiny percentage of the overall market--$606,000 out of total sales of over $11 billion, or just 0.006 percent. In return for that extra $606,000 in total annual sales, however, that raw material supplier, like others, faced potentially huge liability related costs, even if they never lost a lawsuit. To take one example, a company named Vitek manufactured an estimated 26,000 jaw implants using about 5-cents worth of DuPont Teflon in each device. The device was developed, designed, and marketed by Vitek, which was not related to DuPont. When those implants failed, Vitek declared bankruptcy, its founder fled to Switzerland, and the patients sued DuPont. DuPont has won virtually all these cases, but the cost has been staggering. The study estimated that DuPont spent at least $8 million per year over 6 years to defend these suits. To put this into perspective, DuPont's estimated legal expenses in these cases for just 1 year would have bought over a 13-year supply of DuPont's Dacron polyester, Teflon, and Delrin for all U.S. makers of implantable medical devices, not just makers of jaw implants. Faced with this overwhelming liability, DuPont decided to stop selling its products to manufacturers of permanently implanted medical devices. One supplier's decision alone might not be troublesome, but it is not just one supplier that has reached that decision. When I rose during the debate over the product liability bill last year, I put in the record the names of twelve suppliers who had withdrawn from the biomaterials market. Since then, I have learned that at least two more suppliers have done the same. There is no reason to believe that the economics will be different for other suppliers around the world. One of the witnesses at our 1994 hearing testified that she contacted 15 alternate suppliers of polyester yarn worldwide. All were interested in selling her raw materials--except for use in products made and used in the United States. By itself, this is a powerful statement about the nature of our American product liability laws, and it makes a powerful case for reform. What's at stake here, let me be clear, is not protecting suppliers from liability and not even just making raw materials available to the manufacturers of medical devices. What's at stake is the health of millions of Americans who depend on medical devices for their everyday survival. What's at stake is the health of children like Thomas Reilly from Houston, TX, who suffers from hydrocephalus, a condition in which fluid accumulates around the brain. A special shunt enables him to survive. But continued production of that shunt is in doubt because the raw materials' suppliers are concerned about the potential lawsuit costs. At our hearing in 1994, Thomas' father, Mark Reilly, pleaded for Congress to move forward quickly to assure that the supply of those shunts will continue. What's at stake is the health of adults like Peggy Phillips of Falls Church, VA, whose heart had twice stopped beating because of fibrillation. Today, she lives an active, normal life because she has an implanted automatic defibrillator. Again, critical components of the defibrillator may no longer be available because of potential product liability costs. Ms. Phillips urged Congress to move swiftly to enact legislation protecting raw materials and component part suppliers from product liability. The scope of this problem affects young and old alike. Take a pacemaker. Pacemakers are installed in patients whose hearts no longer generate enough of an electrical pulse to get the heart to beat. To keep the heart beating, a pacemaker is connected to the heart with wires. These wires have silicone rubber insulation. Unfortunately, the suppliers of the rubber have begun to withdraw from the market. With this pacemaker, thousands of Americans can live productive and healthy lives for decades. Take another example, a heart valve. Around the edge of a heart valve is a sleeve of polyester fabric. This fabric is what the surgeon sews through when he or she installs this valve. Without that sleeve, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to install the valve. Without that valve, patients die prematurely. In short, this developing product liability crisis will have widespread and serious effects. We cannot simply allow the over 7 million people who owe their health to medical devices to become casualties of an outmoded legal liability system. Because product liability litigation costs make the economics of supplying raw materials to the implantable medical device makers very unfavorable, it is imperative that we act now. We cannot rationally expect raw materials suppliers to continue to serve the medical device market out of the goodness of their hearts, notwithstanding the liability related costs. We need to reform our product liability laws, to give raw material suppliers some assurance that unless there is real evidence that they were responsible for putting a defective device on the market, they cannot be sued simply in the hope that their deep pockets will fund legal settlements. I have long believed that liability reform could be both proconsumer and probusiness. I believe the testimony we heard on this subject during the past two Congresses proved this once again. When fear of liability suits and litigation costs drives valuable, lifesaving products off the market because their makers cannot get raw materials, consumers are the ones to suffer. When companies divert money from developing new lifesaving products to replace old sources of raw materials supplies, consumers are again the ones to suffer. When one company must spend millions just to defend itself in lawsuits over a product it did not even design or make--for which it simply provided a raw material worth 5 cents--it is the consumer that suffers the most. Based on the testimony we heard in 1994, I, along with my distinguished colleague from Arizona, committed to forging a solution to remedy this immediate threat to our national public health. That year, and again in the 104th Congress, we introduced the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act, which we reintroduce again today. This bill will establish clear national rules to govern suits against suppliers of raw materials and component parts for permanently implantable medical devices. Under this bill, a supplier of raw materials or component parts could be sued only if the materials they supplied do not meet contractual specifications, or if they properly can be classified as a manufacturer or seller of the whole product. They could not, however, be sued for deficiencies in the design of the final device, the testing of that device, or for inadequate warnings with respect to that device. Our colleagues recognized the need for that bill last year, and so passed it as part of the 104th Congress' product liability reform bill. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that bill, but in his message to Congress, he made clear that he viewed the biomaterials provision portion of it as, in his words, ``a laudable attempt to ensure the supply of materials needed to make life-saving medical devices.'' We hope that he continues to see the provision in that light. I believe that enactment of this bill would help ensure that America's patients continue to have access to the best lifesaving medical devices in the world. We must act now, however. This piece of legislation is preventative medicine at its best and is just the cure the patients need. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Delaware, not, of course, simply for yielding, but for his continuing leadership on this vital question of whether or not NATO will be enlarged. Mr. President, this is one of those moments in history when we are presented with an extraordinary opportunity to do something that will shape the course of the coming decades. So often so much happens in our professional lives, our personal lives, that it is hard to distinguish between the important and the very important. This, in my opinion, is a very important resolution, beginning as it does the consideration by the 105th session of Congress of the critical question of whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will extend memberships beyond its current role. This resolution reaffirms the shared commitment expressed repeatedly by strong bipartisan majorities in the Congress to the continued viability of our transatlantic alliance and to its irreplaceable contribution to peace and stability in Europe, and therefore to the vital strategic and economic and moral interests of our own country. Mr. President, we are at a moment which, while the details may differ, is not unlike the time after the Second World War when enlightened leaders of both parties in this country, learning the lessons of their departure from the field of international relations after the First World War, came together and supported the reconstruction of post-World War II Europe, building not just the strength of those countries, the economic might that followed, but building therein great democracies that have become once again our best friends and allies. We are at such a moment after another war, the cold war, has ended. The question is whether we will see forward boldly and honorably to understand that whether or not we will accept the nations that lived under Soviet domination into the community now of free nations will have a substantial effect on our security and our economic strength and our moral vitality for decades to come. For unless we close our eyes to history, we must recognize that we are vitally interested in what goes on in Europe. We are connected. Our pasts and our futures are linked economically, politically, culturally, and militarily. Those ties did not break away with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Indeed, they will become more complex and more compelling and more productive over time. Over time, NATO has proved itself the most enduring guarantee that we and our allies in Europe are brought together in peace and freedom, not in tyranny and war. NATO remains today the world's single most effective partnership of like-minded countries, sharing the burdens of international security and preserving the conditions in which open societies and free markets flourish. Enlarging NATO means enlarging the transatlantic sphere of peace and stability, of peace and prosperity. It means honoring our promise made repeatedly throughout the cold war that we would be there when that cherished moment arrived to support the new independent nations of Central and Eastern Europe in their struggle for democracy and a better life. It means helping to ensure that those countries will continue their democratic development and take their place peacefully in the expanding community of freedom. And it means expanding the family of nations that will share with us Americans the burden of protecting the stability and peace of the world and expanding the family of free peoples of the world. Mr. President, this resolution expresses, in very strong and very clear language, our conviction across party lines that NATO enlargement is the best way to ensure a peaceful, stable, free future in Europe. It also makes clear that we must work with Russia, which is inherently and, of course, part of the European community and critical to the future stability of Europe. We must work with Russia to reach common ground on European security. Proceeding steadfastly with our plans to enlarge NATO, I think, will make that task easier. For where we leave doubt, there will be further doubts created. Where we are uncertain, there are those who will take advantage of our uncertainty. The fact is that NATO is today and has always been a defensive alliance. It poses no threat to its neighbors. Instead, it offers the confidence of secure borders and stable relationships. And by making it clear that the NATO enlargement process is ongoing and open to other countries as they qualify, it alleviates the threat of future conflict between competing blocs. NATO does not seek to target nations for exclusion. It seeks to engage nations on the high ground of democracy and free market economics and to become partners with them. Mr. President, this week there is a remarkable statement of opinion in Newsweek magazine, the February 10, 1997, issue, written by Andre Kozyrev, former Foreign Minister of Russia. The title is ``NATO Is Not Our Enemy.'' I will read briefly from the article. The Russian people [former foreign minister Kozyrev says] must be told the truth. And the truth is, NATO is not the enemy. Indeed, fighting the West's proposal to admit Central European countries to NATO is self-defeating [for Russia], because Russia has no means of stopping it. The vital Commonwealth of Independent States alliance would surely fall on hard times if it is burdened with opposition to NATO. What member-nation [of the CIS] would remain part of such a group, when the NATO seal of approval often brings investment, advancement and economic enhancement? As foreign minister, [Kozyrev writes] I found that every Eastern European leader who wanted NATO membership saw it primarily as an economic move, not a military one. Opposing that will weaken our [that is to say the Russian] economic position in Central Europe. The West must recognize this as a domestic-policy crisis, [which is to say a domestic policy crisis in Russia] resist capitulation to the old guard and deal with it in a balanced fashion. An entirely new generation of leaders in our country [Russia] is waiting for this policy shift. To accomplish it, NATO's member-nations must take very difficult and challenging steps. The practical way for Russia to transform NATO is to cooperate with the alliance--and vice versa. End of quote from Mr. Kozyrev's remarkable and, I think, very powerful statement. Mr. President, NATO enlargement is moving forward thanks to the leadership of President Clinton, the support of a strong bipartisan group here in Congress, the very effective advocacy of NATO Secretary Solana, and so many others around the world. We in Congress can play a very important part in this remarkable historical achievement. This resolution which Senator Roth has brought before the Senate today, and which I am proud to cosponsor with him, will provide the President with the support to work with our allies to create the mechanisms by which new members will be welcomed into the alliance and the broad-based bipartisan support with which to go forward to develop a strong NATO-Russia security relationship. As its 50th anniversary approaches, the Atlantic alliance remains at the core of America's global strength and at the core of global peace and security. The reach of this alliance should now be extended to those whose histories and policies justify it, just as America's own strategic interests and moral imperatives require it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join this distinguished group of Senators in introducing legislation to provide tax incentives for the cleanup of brownfields. This legislation will provide a powerful incentive to clean-up these sites. And that clean up will be followed by more jobs and more economic growth in areas that very much need both of those things. I am encouraged by the broad, bipartisan support both here in the Congress and in the administration and in the environmental community and in the business community, to provide tax incentives to get these sites cleaned up. Brownfield sites are abandoned commercial and industrial properties that are environmentally contaminated. Developers and lenders avoid these sites both for liability reasons and because the tax incentives for cleaning up these sites is so limited. The result is an urban landscape littered with vacant and abandoned properties--properties which invite crime, depress surrounding housing and commercial prices, and hinder economic growth in these areas. Additionally, by discouraging the clean-up of brownfields, we are encouraging the development of undeveloped areas known as greenfields. This bill is simple: it allows taxpayers who purchase contaminated properties to deduct the costs of cleaning up brownfields in the year that cleanup expenses occur. This tax incentive would apply to existing and future empowerment zones and enterprise communities, in areas with a poverty rate of 20 percent or more and in adjacent industrial and commercial areas and in existing brownfields pilot areas as designated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Currently, a taxpayer who buys a contaminated property and cleans it up must spread the costs of that cleanup over time. We expect the cost of this bill to be about $2 billion over 7 years. The administration has estimated that this proposal may bring as many as 30,000 brownfield sites back to productive use. In Connecticut, my home State, we know first hand about the problems these brownfield sites can pose for a community. In her soon to be released study of various brownfields sites, Edith M. Pepper of the Northeast-Midwest Institute included the Bryant Electric Plant in Bridgeport, CT, as one of her case studies. As she notes, the Bryant Electric Plant shut down in 1988 after 90 years of operating in Bridgeport's west end. It is no secret that Bridgeport is in difficult shape economically. Closing this 500,000 square foot facility did nothing to help that situation. However, as Ms. Pepper notes in her case study of this brownfields site, it appears that hope is on the way. A non-profit development group, the West End Community Development Corp. [CDC] is working to form a large business park on and around the Bryant site. Over $15 million has already been invested in the site, including a significant amount for cleanup. According to city officials, the developer plans to create 300-400 new jobs and invest $20-50 million in Bridgeport's west end. The brownfields bill we are introducing today could help in Bridgeport. Undoubtedly it could help in places like New Haven and Hartford as well. The bill we are introducing today expands upon a bill that Senator Abraham and I introduced in the last Congress, S. 1542. That bill limited these cleanup incentives to the 104 empowerment zones and enterprise communities that exist in 42 States across the country. I am delighted by today's effort to expand on the number of regions and sites that will be covered in the brownfields legislation and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join this distinguished group of Senators in introducing legislation to provide tax incentives for the cleanup of brownfields. This legislation will provide a powerful incentive to clean-up these sites. And that clean up will be followed by more jobs and more economic growth in areas that very much need both of those things. I am encouraged by the broad, bipartisan support both here in the Congress and in the administration and in the environmental community and in the business community, to provide tax incentives to get these sites cleaned up. Brownfield sites are abandoned commercial and industrial properties that are environmentally contaminated. Developers and lenders avoid these sites both for liability reasons and because the tax incentives for cleaning up these sites is so limited. The result is an urban landscape littered with vacant and abandoned properties--properties which invite crime, depress surrounding housing and commercial prices, and hinder economic growth in these areas. Additionally, by discouraging the clean-up of brownfields, we are encouraging the development of undeveloped areas known as greenfields. This bill is simple: it allows taxpayers who purchase contaminated properties to deduct the costs of cleaning up brownfields in the year that cleanup expenses occur. This tax incentive would apply to existing and future empowerment zones and enterprise communities, in areas with a poverty rate of 20 percent or more and in adjacent industrial and commercial areas and in existing brownfields pilot areas as designated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Currently, a taxpayer who buys a contaminated property and cleans it up must spread the costs of that cleanup over time. We expect the cost of this bill to be about $2 billion over 7 years. The administration has estimated that this proposal may bring as many as 30,000 brownfield sites back to productive use. In Connecticut, my home State, we know first hand about the problems these brownfield sites can pose for a community. In her soon to be released study of various brownfields sites, Edith M. Pepper of the Northeast-Midwest Institute included the Bryant Electric Plant in Bridgeport, CT, as one of her case studies. As she notes, the Bryant Electric Plant shut down in 1988 after 90 years of operating in Bridgeport's west end. It is no secret that Bridgeport is in difficult shape economically. Closing this 500,000 square foot facility did nothing to help that situation. However, as Ms. Pepper notes in her case study of this brownfields site, it appears that hope is on the way. A non-profit development group, the West End Community Development Corp. [CDC] is working to form a large business park on and around the Bryant site. Over $15 million has already been invested in the site, including a significant amount for cleanup. According to city officials, the developer plans to create 300-400 new jobs and invest $20-50 million in Bridgeport's west end. The brownfields bill we are introducing today could help in Bridgeport. Undoubtedly it could help in places like New Haven and Hartford as well. The bill we are introducing today expands upon a bill that Senator Abraham and I introduced in the last Congress, S. 1542. That bill limited these cleanup incentives to the 104 empowerment zones and enterprise communities that exist in 42 States across the country. I am delighted by today's effort to expand on the number of regions and sites that will be covered in the brownfields legislation and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I am honored to stand to support the nomination of our former colleague, Bill Cohen, to be the Secretary of Defense. Being a member of the Armed Services Committee, watching Senator Cohen testify before us this morning, you could not help but be impressed. It was a tour de force--no pun intended here--for our future Secretary of Defense. He was thoughtful, he was well informed, he was strong, and he was, I believe, ready to innovate. I think you could not help but conclude, though much has been made of Senator Cohen's party affiliation, that President Clinton chose Bill Cohen to be our next Secretary of Defense because he was the best person to be our next Secretary of Defense. And, incidentally, he happened to be a Republican. This, obviously, is serious business and a serious responsibility Secretary-designate Cohen now undertakes, the security of our country, the first responsibility of our Government; the power, along with the Commander in Chief, to put American soldiers in harm's way. I am confident, because all of us know Bill Cohen. In fact, we are in an unusual position, an advantage that we normally do not have when we consider nominees. We know this person. We know his values. We know his balance. We know his strength, and therefore we know how well prepared he is to be the Secretary of Defense. He comes in at a time when America is the unchallenged, strongest nation in the world. Yet, to remain that way, not just for today and tomorrow but for the decades ahead, we must continue to innovate and lead and make tough decisions. Just like America's strongest companies who, after they have completed years in which they have made record profits, their CEO's come back and look for ways to innovate to make sure they will stay successful. That is exactly what Secretary- designate Cohen must, and I am sure will, do as our next Secretary of Defense. This morning he strongly supported the quadrennial defense review and national defense panel as aids to him and us in carrying out that responsibility. Madam President, let me conclude simply by saying that this new assignment will test Senator Cohen's strength, his foresight, and his courage. I am absolutely convinced that he is ready to pass those tests and serve our Nation brilliantly. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Hatch is introducing this important capital gains legislation today. This bill is nearly identical to S. 959, legislation that I introduced with Senator Hatch in the last Congress. Ultimately that bill had over 40 cosponsors. A variation of that bill was included in the broader budget and tax bill which was approved by the Congress in 1995 but failed to become law. In addition, a version of S. 959 was included in the Centrist Coalition budget, a budget which was crafted by a group of 22 Senators evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. That package was offered on the floor of the Senate in May of 1996 and received a very respectable 46 votes. The capital gains bill we are introducing today contains a broad- based capital gains cut which would allow individuals to deduct 50 percent of their capital gains and a corporate rate of 25 percent. It also has a targeted provision which provides a ``sweetener'' for investments in qualified small businesses. In addition, it allows taxpayers to deduct losses on the sale of a principal residence, something which is very important in places like my home state of Connecticut as well as in California and Texas. This bill gives people at all income levels a reason to put their money in places where that money will help businesses start and grow and that means more jobs for Americans and more economic prosperity for our country. The benefits of this capital gains cut will not flow just to people of wealth. Anyone who has stock, who has money invested in a mutual fund, who owns a home, who has a stock option plan at work, has a stake in capital gains tax relief. This means millions and millions of middle-class American families stand to benefit from this legislation. I often cite data on employee stock options and stock purchase plans in talking about stakeholders in a capital gains cut. A recent count showed that over three hundred American companies with over seven million workers offered these plans. Each of those workers and their spouses and their children stand to gain from this legislation. This capital gains bill rewards those people who are willing to invest their money and not spend it. It rewards people who put their money in places where it will add to our national pool of savings. Businesses can draw on this pool of savings to meet their capital needs, expand their businesses and hire more workers. The 1995 Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Robert Lucas, had this to say about capital gains taxes in the fall of 1995: ``When I left graduate school in 1963, I believed that the single most desirable change in the U.S. tax structure would be the taxation of gains as ordinary income. I now believe that neither capital gains nor any of the income from capital should be taxed at all.'' Professor Lucas went on to say that his analysis shows that even under conservative assumptions, eliminating capital gains taxes would increase available capital in this country by about 35 percent. While we reduce not eliminate the tax on capital in this country, we hope you will consider joining us in cosponsoring this important legislation. I would also like to point out that this bill contains a targeted sweetener for investments in qualified small businesses. This is an attempt to promote investments in small businesses, the firms that are driving job creation in our economy. We expect these provisions to be very helpful to the kinds of small businesses we need for our future, the high technology companies that will be the source of new jobs in the next century. The bill provides a 75 percent exclusion of capital gains from sales of investment in qualified small business stock held more than three years. In addition, it allows a 100 percent deferral of capital gains, after the three year period, if proceeds from the sale of qualified small business stock are rolled over within 60 days into another qualified small business stock. If the taxpayer continues to roll into qualified stock, and holds that stock for at least a year, this deferral could continue indefinitely. Before I go any further, I must give credit where credit is due. The targeted provisions of this legislation build on the fine work of Senator Dale Bumpers, who has been a leader in providing incentives for start-up businesses to attract capital. He worked mightily to have a targeted incentive piece included in the 1993 reconciliation bill and he succeeded. The legislation we are introducing today builds on, and we hope, improves, on that targeted incentive. I would also like to note that I am also joining Minority Leader Daschle today as a cosponsor of his Targeted Investment Incentive and Economic Growth Act of 1997. That proposal contains a capital gains rollover provision which contains features of a targeted rollover piece I introduced in the last Congress, S. 1053, as well as features from the targeted section of the bill I am introducing with Senator Hatch today. Senator Daschle's legislation is also very helpful insofar as he improves upon the targeted capital gains bill we passed in 1993, much in the same way the broader capital gains bill being introduced today does. I am also delighted that Senator Daschle's bill incorporates a version of a bill I introduced in June of 1993, The Equity Expansion Act of 1993. That bill created a preferred type of stock options for companies willing to offer stock options to a wide cross section of their employees. Under current law, taxpayers are taxed on a stock option when they exercise their right to buy stock, not when they sell that stock. The perverse effect of taxing this paper gain is that many people feel compelled to sell their stock when they exercise their option to buy it in order to pay the tax. The Equity Expansion Act began with the premise that we ought to encourage people to hold their investment in their company. It changed the taxable event from the date of exercise to the date of sale for a new class of stock options known as performance-based stock options [PSOs]. Under my bill, as under the bill being introduced by the Minority Leader, in order to qualify for this new class of stock options, at least half of a company's stock options would have to go to non-highly compensated employees. In addition, 50 percent of any capital gain on these PSO's would be exempt from tax if they are held by the taxpayer for more than two years. I hope this will prove a powerful incentive for employees to buy and hold the investments they are making in their company. In closing, I applaud both Senator Hatch and Minority Leader Daschle, in their efforts to promote economic growth by changing the way we tax investment in this country. They have done yeoman's work on this issue and I hope that we will be able to move forward in a bipartisan way to make these incentives a reality in the very near future.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, since 1983, the United States Congress and the German Parliament, the Bundestag, have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and convey Members' views on issues of mutual concern. A staff delegation from the United States Congress will be chosen to visit Germany April 12 to April 26 of this year. During the 2-week exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag members, Bundestag party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academia, and media agencies. Cultural activities and a weekend visit in a Bundestag member's district will complete the schedule. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for 3 weeks this summer. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington and visit the districts of congressional Members. The Congress-Bundestag exchange is highly regarded in Germany, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff members who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag sends senior staff professionals to the United States. The United States endeavors to reciprocate. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite United States delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern in Germany and the United States such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, immigration, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag staff members when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two Bundestag staffers in their Member's district over the Fourth of July break, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district. Participants will be selected by a committee composed of U.S. Information Agency personnel and past participants of the exchange. Senators and Representatives who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state why they believe they are qualified, and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications may be sent to Kathie Scarrah, in my office at 316 Hart Senate Building, by Friday, February 14.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Burton P. Resnick on the occasion of his birthday. Mr. Resnick turned 60 on November 28, 1996. Mr. Resnick is the President of Jack Resnick & Sons, Inc. The company, founded by his father in 1928, has been a leader in real estate development, construction, ownership, and management of business in New York for many years. Today Jack Resnick & Sons, Inc., controls and operates over 5 million square feet of first-class real estate in prime locations in New York City. In recognition of his outstanding work in the field of real estate, Mr. Resnick was named chairman emeritus of the Board of Governors of the Real Estate Board of New York. Burton P. Resnick is also extremely involved with numerous philanthropic and charitable organizations. One of his highest honors was being appointed by President Clinton to the Holocaust Memorial Council. He is chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Yeshiva University and Chairman of the board of Overseers of Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale, NY, as well as Chairman of the Building Committee. Mr. Resnick assists the National United Jewish Appeal through his role as vice chairman of the organization. He also serves as national campaign vice chairman of the Anti-Defamation League. Burton P. Resnick's dedication to helping the community through his outstanding achievements and accomplishments is highly commendable and I take this time to wish him a very happy birthday.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 220th anniversary of the U.S. Cavalry. The anniversary occurred on December 16, 1996. It was in the town of Wethersfield, CT, under orders by the First Continental Congress, that Revolutionary troops organized the 1st Cavalry Regiment in the Continental Army. Today, the town of Wethersfield, located in my home State of Connecticut, is proud to be recognized as the birthplace of the U.S. Cavalry. Recognized by the U.S. Department of the Army's Center of Military History, the 2d Continental Light Dragoons--Sheldon's Horse--were organized in Wethersfield. This was the first dragoon regiment to become a part of the Continental Army. Training ground for this regiment had been created by a Wethersfield native, Capt. Benjamin Tallmadge. This regiment made numerous contributions in the Revolutionary War by participating in combat in northern New Jersey and the defense of Philadelphia. The town of Wethersfield played a vital role in America's independence. From the historic Webb House, where Gen. George Washington met with Comte de Rochambeau to discuss strategies for the Battle of Yorktown, to the modern development of the Silas Deane Highway, the quaintness of Wethersfield is intermingled with the heroic greatness of the U.S. Cavalry. With origins in Wethersfield, the U.S. Cavalry fought epic battles at Brandy Station during the Civil War and the Punity Expedition before World War I. The U.S. Cavalry now based in Fort Riley, KS, will be forever linked with Wethersfield and the State of Connecticut. I applaud the efforts of Deputy Mayor Richard Sparveri, Town Councilman Brendan T. Flynn, the Wethersfield Historical Society, Wethersfield Tourism Task Force, Mr. John Conway, Mr. Arthur Hutchinson, and so many others who have brought this significant part of American history into the spotlight it greatly deserves.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the Sons of the American Revolution, Gen. David Humphreys Branch, and the East Haven Historical Society. In a combined effort, these three groups have placed a marker on the northeast corner of the East Haven Town Green as a memorial to the Marquis de Lafayette, general in the Continental Army. General Lafayette and his troops camped on that site en route to support the American and French forces at Providence, RI, on July 26, 1778. The dedication took place on May 27, 1996, in observance of Memorial Day. The ceremony included planes from the Connecticut Air National Guard flying overhead. Mayor Henry Luzzi of East Haven introduced State Representative Michael P. Lawlor, 99th District, as the guest speaker. Representative Lawlor spoke of General Lafayette's concern for our newly formed Government and his firm dedication to the cause of freedom. General Lafayette served at his own expense as a volunteer using his personal funds to supply the troops under his command and soon reached virtual bankruptcy. Additionally, he forged a friendship between two nations which has lasted to the present time. When he died in 1834, soil from each of the individual United States was placed on his grave. I commend the Sons of the American Revolution, Gen. David Humphreys Branch, and the East Haven Historical Society for their efforts and dedication to preserving the history of the United States. Monitoring the new Line-Item Veto Authority

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge a recent piece of journalism that I believe has captured the true essence of political reporting. On August 1, 1996, an article was published in the Wall Street Journal by Trude B. Feldman in which she relayed excerpts from her exclusive one-on-one interview with President Bill Clinton a few days before his 50th birthday. In a time when civility and respect are often pushed aside by personal attacks and rumor and innuendo, Ms. Feldman has proven herself to be a journalist who has retained an exemplary style of reporting. Her article, entitled ``The President at 50'', sheds light on the President's personality in novel ways. Ms. Feldman presents an articulate and important account of the President, drawing from him new insights into the policies and politics of our day. In the end, Ms. Feldman produces a proud piece of journalistic work. Mr. President, I ask that the text of this article be printed in the Record. The article follows: the president at 50 (by Trude B. Feldman) This month marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of the president of the United States. And today is the 50th anniversary of the Fulbright Scholarship Program, initiated by William Jefferson Clinton's mentor, who inspired the president to make a genuine contribution to global understanding. Eighteen days after President Truman signed Sen. J. William Fulbright's legislation into law, the boy who would become the 42nd U.S. President was born, one month ahead of schedule, by Caesarean section. In an exclusive interview for his 50th birthday, President Clinton spoke of the two milestones, recalling what he had learned from his first political role model. ``Senator Fulbright had a profound impact on the way I now view the world,'' the President told me. ``He taught that education is the solution to most of the problems of mankind; and he also cautioned against the arrogance of power. ``It was two weeks after Hiroshima when he sponsored the international education program that has affected the direction of policy in country after country. He changed our world forever, and for the better. And my goal is to continue on the path that he envisioned.'' Sitting in the oval office for the one-on-one interview, the president was pensive as he expounded on the legacy of Fulbright's vision for the baby boomer generation. Mr. Clinton also spoke of his spiritual journey as well as his achievements, goals, and regrets. He addressed the character issue; explained his views on the economy; poignantly recalled the death of Vincent Foster; and reflected on what stirs within him as he reaches his half-century. Excerpts from the hour-long interview follow: Ms. Feldman: Is this milestone a turning point for you? President Clinton: Yes, in many ways. I feel grateful to reach my 50th anniversary on Earth, to have my health, my family and this job at the time when I feel most able-- mentally, physically, and emotionally--to do it. But I feel a sort of sea change. Being 50 gives me more yesterdays than tomorrows, and I'll now begin to think more about the long- term implications as well as the consequences of what I do. Since I've been president, I've become steadily more philosophical, but not less optimistic. Q. Is there anything about yourself that you'd like to change as you turn 50? A. Oh sure, lots of things. I'd like to develop more of what my wife calls the ``discipline of gratitude.'' I'd like to be able to roll with the punches more. I've become much calmer in the face of buffeting events in the last few years, and I hope this continues so the highs and lows of events don't throw me off course. Everybody has some regrets, but I've been so fortunate that I feel I've gotten a better deal in life than I deserved. Q. What is your most significant accomplishment in the past 50 years; and in the last four years? A. The most significant accomplishment in my life was convincing Hillary Rodham to marry me. It changed everything. There is no question about that. The most significant accomplishment in the last four years is that I have largely succeeded in changing the way we think about ourselves and our future. By doing this, I helped to make it possible to make substantive changes. That's more important than any specific bill I passed. Q. This is the third anniversary of Vincent Foster's death, so may I ask if you ever think about whether you could have helped avoid that tragedy by talking out his problems with him? A. Absolutely, I think about that. We knew each other since I was four years old. Vince worked daily with Hillary [in a law firm] in Little Rock. But he was always so quiet and unassuming . . . that months would go by when we wouldn't have any contact. So his persona made it more difficult to see that he was profoundly depressed. When he worked here [as White House deputy counsel] I knew he had been under a lot of stress. I called him the night before he killed himself and asked if he wanted to come back and watch a movie. He said he was already at home and didn't want to leave his wife and return to the White House. Then, he said, `` I want to talk to you about something.'' And I said, ``I want to talk to you about some things.'' That was Monday. I told him I was busy on Tuesday and asked to meet him on Wednesday. He said, ``Sure,'' and sounded very calm. I don't know whether, at that time, he had already decided to kill himself. And I don't know whether I could have helped. I hated that I was insufficiently aware that he was going through that kind of pain, and I feel very bad that I missed it. You know, at that time, [ July 1993] we were all getting beat up very badly. Everybody was sort of bruised and also amazed that the press coverage was the way it was. Still, I showed up everyday for work and I thought that's what Vince was doing. We thought we would work our way through it. I still remember the last time I saw Vince. He was standing with his hands folded, over there at the back, to the right [Mr. Clinton pointed to the Rose Garden] during the ceremony when I nominated Louis Freeh as FBI director. Vince was pleased about the selection. He thought it would be well- received in the country and in Congress. [That was on Tuesday morning, July 20. He was found dead that evening.] Q. Do you agree with Vince Foster's alleged suicide note, in which he scribbled that ruining people is considered sport in Washington, D.C. A. Well, Vince was a proud person. He was a successful lawyer and everyone who knew him respected him. He was a good and highly ethical person, whether or not you agreed with his politics. And to get the kind of licking from the editorial pages of one newspaper bewildered him. In retrospect, I didn't handle it well. I told him the attacks should not worry him so, but he must have been taking them more seriously than I knew. Apparently, this is what happened to Adm. [Jerry M.] Boorda. There are other victims of smear campaigns who would not go that far. But they are still left with lifetime scars because of mean-spirited attacks. It is particularly painful because they know many of these attacks register with the public even though the attackers often have no reason to attack. The smear campaigns have gotten too personal. You know, if I win re-election, I hope to find ways to minimize the destruction and the unfair, subtle personal attacks because our country needs more civility. Q. How concerned are you about the decline in civility in the nation today? A. Very much so and I'm constantly trying to do something about this loss of civility and the impact it has--dividing us one against the other. Too often the debate goes, ``If you disagree with me, you must be no good.'' Or,''If you can't prove yourself innocent of whatever I decide to charge you with today, you must be guilty.'' Q. Given the relentless attempts at character assassination, why do you want a second term here in the Oval Office? A. Because I can divorce those attempts from this job. They are called character assassination. There is nothing any person can say or do that can affect my character one bit. My character will be judged by what I do and will be judged ultimately by my God, not by any of these people who criticize me. They may assassinate my reputation, but they can't lay a hand on my character. Whether it's good or bad or somewhere in between, their ability to influence it or impact on it is nil. Q. How has your presidency influenced your spiritual life? A. It has tested my spiritual life. But at times the presidency has been good for my spiritual life because I realize I was not smart enough to make a lot of these decisions on my own. I realize that no matter how hard I work or what kind of brain God gave me, I cannot think my way through or calculate entirely some of these decisions. I have to feel what is the right thing to do and do it. And to do that, I have to be spiritually grounded. If I go through a week when I neglect my spiritual life, I can feel it. Little alarms go off and I try to get back in my groove. I also spend a lot of time thinking about the relationship of personal morality to public purpose and public life. When I was younger I read Reinhold Niebuhr's `` Moral Man and Immoral Society'' and Max Weber's ``Politics as a Vocation.'' They both had a profound impact on my feel for the moral, spiritual challenges to people involved in politics. Q. Turning to the economy, is the 2.5% growth of the GNP enough to satisfy the needs of the American people? A. We would be better off if we could grow a little faster. If we grow at 2.8% to 3%, for a period of three or four years, perhaps we could bring more private sector growth and job opportunities to isolated inner city areas and rural areas; and we could see genuine increases in incomes for all groups. Then we wouldn't have this continuing inequality of income that we've seen in the last few years. But the truth is, no one knows what the optimum rate of economic growth without inflation is. The only thing I tried to do in dealing with the Federal Reserve was to show that I would be responsible in getting the deficit down, but I didn't want them to get in the way of economic growth. What I hoped we could do is develop a relationship where I did not interfere with the Fed's decisions, that they would be governed by a philosophy that basically would move on the evidence, and not on some old theory about how the economy operates. With so much global competition and technological change, it's possible you can grow faster today without inflation than you could 30 years ago. We just do not know and we need to find out. Q. Can you explain why you were unable to keep you 1992 campaign commitment for a middle class tax cut? A. First, it's important to make the point that we made a serious down payment on it. We gave 15 million families a big tax cut through the Earned Income Tax Credit, which today is worth about $1,000 in lower taxes to a family of four with an income of $28,000 or less. We stopped there because, frankly, after I won the presidency it was obvious to me that the deficit was bigger than I thought it was going to be, that getting it down would be tougher and that we had to get a hold of it. I believed that if I could cut the deficit enough, we would get interest rates down and middle class people would be better off because more jobs would be created and they could then refinance their homes and get cheaper car payments and better interest rates on their credit card payments. In fact, that's true. Since I've been president, eight million Americans have refinanced their home mortgages at lower rates. So I think I made the right decision. But it was a difficult one because I wanted to do even more. Now, for the last year I've been pushing for a targeted middle class tax cut dedicated primarily to education--the $1,500 credit for people to go to community colleges for two years; a $10,000 deduction for the cost of college tuition; an IRA for people that would permit them to withdraw without penalty for the cost of a college education, a first-time home or a family medical emergency. I hope these middle class tax initiatives with be adopted by Congress, and I believe they will--either before or after the election. Then, we'll have a fairer tax system, but we'll also have a much more healthy economy than if I had sacrificed deficit reduction in 1993 to cut taxes more. Q. If you are re-elected, do you expect any tax cuts? A. Yes, the ones I just mentioned--unless we get them done before Election Day. If we get them done this term, in the context of the balanced budget, I would not expect significant tax cuts in the next term because we must continue until we balance the budget. But we already have enough savings identified to balance the budget and have a middle class tax cut targeted to education and child-rearing. Q. Your reply indicates you expect to be re-elected. Do you? A. I'm hopeful about winning the election, but I'm not overconfident by any means. As we do this interview the polls look good, but it is forever until the election. I am working hard as president, and also to be ready for the campaign, but I'm not overconfident. I believe we'll be successful because of our emphasis on the future. Q. Speaking of the campaign, how do you compare your style with Bob Dole's? A. Bob Dole is not like me; we're very different. Also, he has never lost an election in Kansas and I lost two [in Arkansas.] Q. In your estimation, what are his strengths and his weaknesses as a campaigner? A. I think Sen. Dole is a good campaigner, a very tough and effective one, and I expect him to do rather well. I'm also impressed with his patriotism. He was severely wounded in World War Two and could have become indifferent and bitter but he became a fine senator and public servant. You know, I think it's healthy to say positive things about competitors. I don't mind Senator Dole saying anything he wants to about how he thinks I was wrong on the budget or the Brady Bill or about any issue on which he disagrees with me. I look forward to a vigorous debate.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Department of Commerce technology programs that I believe were underfunded in the original Senate appropriations bill for Commerce State Justice as reported by committee, and are better funded in this Continuing Resolution. The programs that I am referring to are important to the future of the U.S. economy--to our economic security, global competitiveness and high-skilled jobs. Without these types of technology programs in place, I am concerned that America could lose the technological innovation race as it confronts our international competitors. These technology programs help America compete in the global marketplace and are helping to make our economy stronger. The irony is that by cutting technology programs we would be cutting programs that are already making our economy stronger. I am concerned that the cuts originally proposed in the Commerce Appropriations bill would have helped lead to an undermining of the foundation that links our support of scientific research to technologies which have the potential to continue to keep America at the forefront of global leadership. I am very pleased that many of these cuts have been corrected in the Continuing Resolution. The Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill as reported by Senate Committee provided inadequate funding to Commerce technology programs. If it had been left unchanged, this bill could have led to the unraveling of investments the Senate has long supported to advance our nation's civilian technological competitiveness. The late Secretary Ron Brown and other Administration leaders worked diligently with the ranking member on this Subcommittee, Senator Hollings, and others in Congress, to develop Federal programs that link up with the private sector to foster new ideas that may underpin the next generation of products. These provide some of the small number of information channels that assure that the ideas generated in our world class research institutions evolve in the marketplace. I commend the Commerce Department's hard work and foresight in recognizing that America has entered a new era, an era where economic battles are fought as fiercely as military actions. The Commerce technology programs that were initiated with bipartisan support arm us with the best equipment and strategies we have to surmount our international competitors' efforts. Our technology edge in the marketplace for the past half century has translated directly into high tech jobs for our workplace, new markets for American business, improvements in our balance of trade, and from this economic success, revenues for our treasury. The original Senate bill proposed to deplete resources from one of the basic long-term building blocks of our economic growth: applied research and development. Our global competitors must be chuckling at our muddled vision. Japan has announced plans to double its R&D spending by the year 2000; it will surpass the United States in nondefense R&D in total dollars spent; it is already passing us in R&D expenditures as a share of GDP. This is an historic reversal. Germany, Singapore, Taiwan, China, South Korea and India are also aggressively promoting R&D investment. Our lead in R&D has been our historic competitive advantage. While our competitors are increasing their R&D investments, both public and private R&D investment is being cut in the U.S. If these global trends in R&D spending continue, America will rue the day it lost its R&D lead and therefore its technology lead. The leading ecocomic studies show that technology innovation has contributed to half or more of our economic growth for the past half century. By allowing our R&D lead to erode, we are jeopardizing our future economic growth. The technology programs at Commerce are not a large part of our total R&D investment. Why should we be particularly concerned about them? A number of the Commerce programs are the connectors, the infrastructure, between the basic research establishment and the evolution of technologies into practical use. They are highly efficient investments, leveraging Federal dollars with matching private investment to ensure risk sharing and therefore prudent investment and improved liklihood of investment results. The cuts in the original Senate version of this appropriations bill took aim at the new and evolving infrastructure of technology development, which is why they were so serious. The Technology Administration at the Department of Commerce houses many of the critical components of technology development and we need to ensure that its key functions are maintained. The technology programs I am particularly concerned about are the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP), the completion of the Advanced Technology Laboratory construction and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Technology and Information Infrastructure Grants Program (TIIAP). In total, these programs ARE the tools I mentioned earlier that make up the comprehensive and efficient effort to retain our technology leadership. I will focus my attention on two programs that were hit hard by the original Senate Appropriations bill: ATP and the NIST Advanced Technology Laboratory construction. I will also note problems in cutting the NTIA grant program. I am pleased that the original Senate bill did recognize the importance of the Manufacturing Extension Program by providing it substantial funding, as does the Continuing Resolution, providing $95 million for FY 1997. The MEP program is in the process of reaching small and mid-sized businesses in nearly every state with new advanced technology options. Advanced Technology Program ATP was enacted during the Bush administration to address technical challenges facing U.S. industry. This program adeptly addresses the development of high-risk, long-term technologies by top-notch firms, including small-to-medium sized companies, in a way that respects the marketplace and avoids inappropriate government intrusion. In an independent study, Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI), an association comprised of 1,400 small companies that manufacture materials and equipment for semiconductor manufacturers, found that 100 per cent of the companies who participated in the ATP Program rated it very favorably. Likewise, nearly two-thirds of the modest sampling of ATP-award companies surveyed by the Industrial Research Institute, an association of over 260 research companies who account for 80 per cent of industrially-performed R&D, rated ATP with very high marks. The various reviews of ATP show that it has effectively acted as a catalyst to develop new technologies and to foster ongoing joint ventures within industrial R&D. In my view, we should continue to support this program and we should restore the President's fiscal year 1997 request of $345M. The original Senate bill proposed funding for the Advanced Technology Program at a level of only $60 million, slashing $285 million from the President's request. This bill provided inadequate funding to support current commitments and included language prohibiting new awards. Clearly, the ATP cuts in this bill would have severely handicapped and ultimately annihilated the ATP program. The Senate bill also disregarded the bipartisan agreement reached last year to stop the train wreck and to maintain funding for ATP. I am very pleased that the final Continuing Resolution restores significant authority to the ATP program, funding it at $225 million, including funding for new ATP awards as well as to continue existing awards. This is a major improvement and I thank the President's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, and his staff; Senator Hollings and Scott Gudes and Pat Windham of his staff; Appropriations Chairman Hatfield, and the others involved who were able to negotiate this change. It's not full funding, and this is an investment program that should be expanding, but it is an important step back on track. The restrictions in the original bill that would have prohibited funding for awards to be made resulting from the ATP competition announced in May 1996, have been removed in the Continuing Resolution. I note that ATP has some carryover funds set aside for this purpose and, as noted, there is additional funding for new proposals in the final CR funding level. If this restrictive language had not been removed and we had cancelled the 1996 ATP competition, we would have had to face many justifiably upset entrepreneurs and medium-sized businesses who have invested major resources in forming consortia and in preparing grant proposals. The worst losers would have been the public which would miss out on some very promising technologies. I am very pleased we did not have to face that problem. NIST Advanced Technology Laboratory Construction U.S. industry's ability to produce high quality products ranging from semiconductor to CAT scanners depends on the accuracy of primary measurements conducted at NIST. Universities and industries depend on new NIST measurement methods to overcome experimental obstacles with regards to the study of a plethora of scientific research such as materials science, advanced manufacturing, enzyme structures, to name a few. NIST's laboratories in Gaithersburg are now 30 years old and must be updated to improve and automate controls for temperature, dust levels, vibrations, and humidity. The factors are critical to accurate measurement required for precision national measurement standards. Standard-setting, which reaches across a vast range of affected industries, and is conducted in close cooperation with those industries, is clearly an appropriate governmental role, and has been so for over a century. Extremely precise standard-setting is crucial for industrial efficiencies and advances in a host of interdependent industries. The administration requested $105 million for the construction of the NIST Advanced Technology Laboratory [ATL], which has been undergoing five years of extensive planning, research, design, and review. The Senate Appropriations Committee eliminated funding for building the urgently needed NIST ATL. Unfortunately, the Continuing Resolution did not correct this problem. I am concerned that unless this action is corrected next year, and this project moved ahead, there will be severe consequences for the future ability of NIST's laboratories to serve U.S. industry and science, halting in mid-stream a multi-year project that has garnered strong bipartisan and industrial support. If we allow this construction delay to prevail, the American taxpayer will ultimately pay a higher dollar, on the order of tens of millions of dollars, due to contract termination or suspension costs, costs for restarting the expert team, and inflation. These improvements cannot be delayed much longer and the price of delay is on the taxpayer.

Mr LIEBERMAN

Mr LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Frank M. Grazioso, who has been selected by the Connecticut Grand Lodge Order Sons of Italy of America to be the recipient of the ``Good Citizen of the Year Award.'' Mr. Grazioso will be honored at a ceremony on Sunday, October 20, 1996, in North Haven, CT. I would like to take this time to briefly acknowledge a few of Mr. Grazioso's contributions to the community throughout his career. Mr. Grazioso has served the community in a number of public offices. He has been a New Haven city alderman, a corporation counsel, and member of the Civil Service Commission, as well as a member of the original board of the Shubert Performing Arts Commission and a member of the Board of Harbor Commissioners. Mr. Grazioso has also chaired many activities in my home State of Connecticut including the Columbus Day celebration and the State of Connecticut Columbus 500th Anniversary. He currently serves as vice-president of the Italian- American Historical Society and has recently been elected general counsel and national officer of the national Italian American Foundation. Through his work with the Order Sons of Italy in America, Mr. Grazioso has participated in national and international charitable donations and has helped in raising over $500,000 dollars for academic scholarships annually. Mr. Grazioso has worked closely with the Italian Government on wide range of educational and philanthropic activities. In 1991, Mr. Grazioso was honored by the Italian Government for his relief efforts on behalf of Italian earthquake victims. His work has been consistently outstanding and his commitment to helping his fellow citizens is much appreciated. I salute Mr. Frank M. Grazioso for his continued dedication to serving his community and I congratulate him on his being named the ``Good Citizen of the Year.'' It is an award obviously well deserved.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Innovative Compliance Act of 1996. Title I of this legislation authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to approve a demonstration program allowing companies who show superior environmental performance to use flexible methods of achieving environmental goals. Title II of the legislation requires the EPA, when developing a new program to control a pollutant to consider, where appropriate, basing the regulatory scheme on market-based trading programs. The legislation builds on President Clinton's project XL which stands for excellence and leadership, and on the successful market-based program for controlling acid rain established under the Clean Air Act Amendments of l990. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill at the end of this session in the hope that it will lead to a continued dialog among interested parties on the best way to implement these two programs. I view this bill as an initial draft, discussion draft and welcome all proposals and suggestions on how to alter and improve it. I hope to resubmit the bill reflecting suggestions made over the next few months early next session. This Congress has been marked by debate about the future of Government's role in environmental protection. At times, it appeared that the bipartisan support of environmental laws and regulation that has evolved over the past three decades was at serious risk. Efforts to undermine our environmental laws initially had support from some in this Congress, despite the absence of any public demand for retrenchment on the environmental front. Those efforts have been stemmed. In fact, our laws and regulations have performed remarkably well in improving the quality of America's environment. As Gregg Easterbrook has pointed out, environmental protection is probably the single greatest success story of American Government in the period since World War II. In many cases, however, we need to do more to provide the level of environmental protection most Americans expect from Government. For example, 62 million Americans still live in neighborhoods where the air does not meet Federal health-based standards. Forty percent of our rivers and lakes still do not fully meet water quality standards. The number of people suffering from asthma has increased 40 percent in the past decade. In some communities, it has reached epidemic proportions, especially among children. Health advisories for eating fish increased by 14 percent between l994 and l995. In light of these serious problems, there is clearly a need to improve protection of our environment. But there is just as clearly a need to review our methods of environmental protection in order to find better, more efficient, more innovative and fairer ways to achieve greater progress toward meeting our environmental goals. In some cases, the traditional approaches to environmental protection have hindered companies from developing more innovative approaches, such as pollution prevention, that can result in larger benefits for the environment. While combining these two goals may appear illusive, a significant consensus has emerged that alternative compliance and market-based trading programs can form the basis for a new approach to environmental protection that will achieve superior results at less cost while encouraging innovation. This consensus can be seen, for example, in the work of the President's Council on Sustainable Development which brought together leaders from government, business, environmental, civil rights, labor and Native American organizations in an effort to achieve consensus national environmental, economic and social goals. The Council's report supports both these approaches. The Aspen Institute also undertook a 3-year effort to reach consensus among a wide group of divergent interests on an alternative path to achieving a cleaner, cheaper way to protect and enhance the environment. This legislation seeks to adopt many of the principles agreed to by the participants in the Aspen process. Title I of this bill establishes an alternative compliance program at EPA. The Administrator of EPA is authorized to consider up to 50 petitions from companies seeking modifications or waivers from environmental rules and to grant petitions if certain criteria are met. The basic premise of this title is that superior environmental performance can be achieved by allowing environmental managers at companies, in partnership with an active group of community stakeholders, to devise their own means of reaching environmental goals. This approach recognizes that the regulated industry is now in an excellent position to experiment and decide what approaches will yield better environmental results than can be achieved under existing or reasonably foreseeable regulation. Allowing flexibility can substantially reduce compliance costs and make industries more competitive, provide for much greater community involvement in the decisions of their neighboring industrial plants, foster more cooperative partnerships, and encourage greater innovation in meeting environmental goals. Let me discuss a few important provisions of the bill. First, the Administrator may only grant flexibility if a company demonstrates that it will achieve better overall environmental results under the alternative compliance strategy than would be achieved under existing or reasonably anticipated rules. The bill establishes benchmarks from which to determine whether better environmental results will be achieved under the alternative compliance strategies. For example, for existing facilities, the benchmark generally will be either the level of releases into the environment actually being achieved by the facility or the level of releases allowed under the applicable regulatory requirements and reasonably foreseeable future requirements, whichever is lower. The bill also sets forth benchmarks for existing facilities being modified to significantly expand production and for new facilities, section 105(b). In addition to determining if the benchmark is met, the Administrator must find, based on a well-accepted, documented methodology, that the alternative compliance strategy will not result in a significant increase in the risk of adverse effects or shift any significant risks of adverse effects, to the health of an individual, population, or natural resource affected by the strategy. There are a number of different types of alternative compliance strategies. For example, in some cases, a facility may demonstrate better overall environmental results by showing a reduction in releases of all pollutants and, in exchange, seek a modification of reporting or other paperwork requirements. In other cases, a facility may demonstrate better overall environmental results by showing a reduction in releases of all pollutants, but seek modification of a rule to allow for flexibility with respect to emission levels at different sources within the facility. There may be some cases where the alternative compliance strategy would result in very large decreases in one pollutant while resulting in a very small increase in another pollutant. But it is particularly important that the Administrator only approve such a strategy upon a finding, based on a well-accepted, documented methodology, that there will be no significant increase in the risk of adverse effects resulting from the strategy. As I've described, before granting a petition, the Administrator must find that certain quantitative requirements for measuring better environmental performance have been met by the petitioner. After making this determination, the Administrator may also consider other significant environmental, economic and social benefits that the petitioner offers in the petition, section l05(b)(2). Under the bill, the alternative compliance strategy must provide accountability, monitoring, enforceability and public access to information at least equal to that provided by the rule that is being modified or waived. A related and very important requirement is that adequate information must be made accessible so that any member of the public can determine if a company is complying with an alternative compliance agreement, sections 105(b) (4), (5). Other requirements that must be met by the petitioner are set forth in section 105. Another critical provision of the bill, section 104 establishes that any company submitting a petition must undertake a stakeholder participation process and work to ensure that adequate resources exist to make the process effective. Involving citizens, particularly members of the local community, in the development of an alternative compliance strategy is absolutely critical. Companies that have formulated successful alternative compliance strategies have told me that without the support of the local community these strategies simply will not work. Empowerment of the local community through stakeholder processes will help build trust and make implementation of the agreement easier. It is also important that State and local regulators be part of the stakeholder process. Under the bill, a more structured stakeholder process is set out for more complex agreements--those involving more than one pollutant or one medium. The stakeholders have a greater decisional role in more complex agreements. Nevertheless, in all cases, stakeholder acceptance will be critical to success of the alternative compliance strategy. Title II of the legislation seeks to build on the successful acid rain program established under the Clean Air Act Amendments of l990. It requires that prior to promulgating a new program for controlling emissions or discharges of a pollutant, EPA consider, where appropriate, the adoption of a market-based trading program. The program would include a cap on total emissions or discharges of the pollutant. Each source of a pollutant would be required to meet an emission or discharge limit based on a share of the total limit on emissions or discharges allowed from all sources. Sources could meet their performance objective though a variety of methods, including by acquiring excess emission or discharge reductions from other sources that have achieved levels of performance beyond that required to meet their discharge or emission limits. The bill recognizes that trading programs are not appropriate in every case. Trading programs should only be implemented where they would result in levels of emissions or discharges greater than those that would be achieved under alternative programs. Additionally, there are circumstances where a trading program is not appropriate because the environmental or human health reasons for which the pollutant is regulated can only be addressed through source-specific emission controls. As I have mentioned, this title is intended to build on the success of the acid rain program of the Clean Air Act. That program set a cap on the total amount of emissions of sulfur dioxide that electric utilities can emit and allows flexibility for individual units to select their own method of compliance. The mechanism for allocating reductions is a comprehensive permit and emission allowance system. An allowance is a limited authorization to emit a ton of sulfur dioxide. Facilities receive allowance based on a specific formula contained in the law. Allowances may be traded or banked for future use or sale. Thirty days after the end of the year, each utility must have a number of allowances equal to the tonnage actually emitted during the previous year. Allowances may be purchased to cover each unit's emissions for the year. The system rewards utilities that go beyond the law's requirement by enabling them to earn profits from the sale of their extra allowances. The program is being implemented in two phases: Phase I began in l995 and will last until 1999. It covers 445 utility units. In July, EPA issued a report on the compliance results of phase I. The results are extremely impressive and far exceed the expectations of those of us involved in the drafting of the legislation--both in terms of emission reductions achieved and cost of those reductions. First, EPA reports that the compliance level for all the units under Phase I was l00 percent. Second, EPA reports that the emissions for these units was 39 percent below what the law allowed for l995. Third, EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey report environmental success-- reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions have resulted in rainfall being less acidic in l995 as a result of the first year of the acid rain program. The U.S. Geological Survey study reports a 10-25 percent drop in rainfall acidity, particularly at some sites located in the mid- west, northeast and mid-Atlantic regions. Fourth, the cost of reducing a ton of sulfur dioxide continues to decline. In just two years, allowance prices have dropped from $150 a ton to less than $80 a ton. At the time of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments, it was estimated that the cost of an allowance would be $500 to $600 a ton. The General Accounting Office has estimated that $2 to $3 billion will be saved with the implementation of the acid rain program through its allowance trading program. In other words, the acid rain program has achieved greater reductions than anticipated at far lower costs than anticipated. This is a win- win--for the environment and the regulated community. The legislation I am introducing today would require EPA, where appropriate, to consider basing future environmental programs on the same type of successful program established for acid rain. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the provisions in this bill designed to strengthen our oil spill prevention laws. This bill incorporates key provisions of S. 1730, legislation introduced by Senator Chafee which I was proud to cosponsor. I congratulate Senator Chafee for his outstanding work in this area and I was delighted to be able to work closely with him on these provisions. Last February in Rhode Island, Senator Chafee and I had the unfortunate responsibility to review the tragic economic and environmental impacts of the oil spill resulting from the grounding of the barge North Cape off the coast of Rhode Island. At that hearing and in subsequent hearings in Washington, we also examined the implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of l990. We learned during those hearings that one of the goals of the l990 Act--improving the response time for an oil spill--was largely fulfilled. Unfortunately, we also learned that the pollution prevention provisions of the Act were not working as well as the response provisions. We also heard about concerns with implementation of some of the provisions designed to ensure expeditious compensation for the victims of oil spills, such as the fishermen in Rhode Island. We learned at our hearings that the regulatory system for tows and barges is woefully inadequate, even though they travel through some of the most environmentally sensitive areas and stormy waters. For example, barges are not required to have an operable anchor on board. Such an anchor would have slowed, if not stopped, the barge North Cape from drifting toward the Rhode Island shore, according to an expert witness at one of our hearings. There are no requirements for adequate firefighting equipment on towing vessels. The grounding of the barge North Cape was triggered by a fire on board the tug Scandia and the crew of the Scandia apparently was unable to gain access to the area where the fire suppression system was located. I am pleased that this legislation addresses many of the problems we learned about in the aftermath of the Rhode Island spill. Let me review just a few of the highlights. The bill takes strong steps to reduce the risks of oil spills from single hull tank barges. By October 1, l997, the Secretary of Transportation must issue a rule requiring single hull tank barges to have at least one of the following: a crewmember and an operable anchor on board the barge that can stop the barge without additional assistance; an emergency system on the barge or towing vessel that will allow the barge to be retrieved by the towing vessel if the towline ruptures; or other measures that the Secretary determines will provide comparable protection against barge grounding. The legislation also requires that by October 1, l997, the Secretary require the installation of fire suppression systems or other measures to provide assurance that a fire on board a towing vessel towing a tank vessel can be suppressed. Another important provision of the bill reaffirms that the Oil Pollution Act of l990 allows those who have suffered economic loss from an oil spill to receive payment for interim, short- term damages without losing their right to recover all damages down the road. In Rhode Island, some fishermen who needed money immediately for their daily existence were reluctant to pursue partial claims because of fear that they might waive their rights to long-term damages. They suffered significant hardship, and we want to assure that such a situation will not happen again. The bill also strengthens the current law's requirement for compliance with a response plan in the event of a spill. It provides that such plans must be followed unless deviation would provide for a more expeditious or effective response to an oil spill or mitigation of its effects. The bill also includes an important study that the Secretary, in coordination with the Marine Board, must conduct on the risk of oil spills from lightering operations, including recommendations on measures that would likely further reduce the risks of oil spills from lightering operations. These recommendations should help to protect our local marine environment from the threats posed by such spills. Oil spills are an unfortunate fact of modern life, but their effect on our world, the economy, and people can be minimized if we write and enforce good laws that make spills rarer, allow quicker cleanup and provide adequate compensation to victims. The Oil Pollution Act of l990 helped make the Rhode Island spill of l996 less severe than it might otherwise have been. But the spill might have been avoided altogether, and that must remain our goal for the future. Enactment of the legislation we are considering today will help move us toward that goal.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Innovative Compliance Act of 1996. Title I of this legislation authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to approve a demonstration program allowing companies who show superior environmental performance to use flexible methods of achieving environmental goals. Title II of the legislation requires the EPA, when developing a new program to control a pollutant to consider, where appropriate, basing the regulatory scheme on market-based trading programs. The legislation builds on President Clinton's project XL which stands for excellence and leadership, and on the successful market-based program for controlling acid rain established under the Clean Air Act Amendments of l990. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill at the end of this session in the hope that it will lead to a continued dialog among interested parties on the best way to implement these two programs. I view this bill as an initial draft, discussion draft and welcome all proposals and suggestions on how to alter and improve it. I hope to resubmit the bill reflecting suggestions made over the next few months early next session. This Congress has been marked by debate about the future of Government's role in environmental protection. At times, it appeared that the bipartisan support of environmental laws and regulation that has evolved over the past three decades was at serious risk. Efforts to undermine our environmental laws initially had support from some in this Congress, despite the absence of any public demand for retrenchment on the environmental front. Those efforts have been stemmed. In fact, our laws and regulations have performed remarkably well in improving the quality of America's environment. As Gregg Easterbrook has pointed out, environmental protection is probably the single greatest success story of American Government in the period since World War II. In many cases, however, we need to do more to provide the level of environmental protection most Americans expect from Government. For example, 62 million Americans still live in neighborhoods where the air does not meet Federal health-based standards. Forty percent of our rivers and lakes still do not fully meet water quality standards. The number of people suffering from asthma has increased 40 percent in the past decade. In some communities, it has reached epidemic proportions, especially among children. Health advisories for eating fish increased by 14 percent between l994 and l995. In light of these serious problems, there is clearly a need to improve protection of our environment. But there is just as clearly a need to review our methods of environmental protection in order to find better, more efficient, more innovative and fairer ways to achieve greater progress toward meeting our environmental goals. In some cases, the traditional approaches to environmental protection have hindered companies from developing more innovative approaches, such as pollution prevention, that can result in larger benefits for the environment. While combining these two goals may appear illusive, a significant consensus has emerged that alternative compliance and market-based trading programs can form the basis for a new approach to environmental protection that will achieve superior results at less cost while encouraging innovation. This consensus can be seen, for example, in the work of the President's Council on Sustainable Development which brought together leaders from government, business, environmental, civil rights, labor and Native American organizations in an effort to achieve consensus national environmental, economic and social goals. The Council's report supports both these approaches. The Aspen Institute also undertook a 3-year effort to reach consensus among a wide group of divergent interests on an alternative path to achieving a cleaner, cheaper way to protect and enhance the environment. This legislation seeks to adopt many of the principles agreed to by the participants in the Aspen process. Title I of this bill establishes an alternative compliance program at EPA. The Administrator of EPA is authorized to consider up to 50 petitions from companies seeking modifications or waivers from environmental rules and to grant petitions if certain criteria are met. The basic premise of this title is that superior environmental performance can be achieved by allowing environmental managers at companies, in partnership with an active group of community stakeholders, to devise their own means of reaching environmental goals. This approach recognizes that the regulated industry is now in an excellent position to experiment and decide what approaches will yield better environmental results than can be achieved under existing or reasonably foreseeable regulation. Allowing flexibility can substantially reduce compliance costs and make industries more competitive, provide for much greater community involvement in the decisions of their neighboring industrial plants, foster more cooperative partnerships, and encourage greater innovation in meeting environmental goals. Let me discuss a few important provisions of the bill. First, the Administrator may only grant flexibility if a company demonstrates that it will achieve better overall environmental results under the alternative compliance strategy than would be achieved under existing or reasonably anticipated rules. The bill establishes benchmarks from which to determine whether better environmental results will be achieved under the alternative compliance strategies. For example, for existing facilities, the benchmark generally will be either the level of releases into the environment actually being achieved by the facility or the level of releases allowed under the applicable regulatory requirements and reasonably foreseeable future requirements, whichever is lower. The bill also sets forth benchmarks for existing facilities being modified to significantly expand production and for new facilities, section 105(b). In addition to determining if the benchmark is met, the Administrator must find, based on a well-accepted, documented methodology, that the alternative compliance strategy will not result in a significant increase in the risk of adverse effects or shift any significant risks of adverse effects, to the health of an individual, population, or natural resource affected by the strategy. There are a number of different types of alternative compliance strategies. For example, in some cases, a facility may demonstrate better overall environmental results by showing a reduction in releases of all pollutants and, in exchange, seek a modification of reporting or other paperwork requirements. In other cases, a facility may demonstrate better overall environmental results by showing a reduction in releases of all pollutants, but seek modification of a rule to allow for flexibility with respect to emission levels at different sources within the facility. There may be some cases where the alternative compliance strategy would result in very large decreases in one pollutant while resulting in a very small increase in another pollutant. But it is particularly important that the Administrator only approve such a strategy upon a finding, based on a well-accepted, documented methodology, that there will be no significant increase in the risk of adverse effects resulting from the strategy. As I've described, before granting a petition, the Administrator must find that certain quantitative requirements for measuring better environmental performance have been met by the petitioner. After making this determination, the Administrator may also consider other significant environmental, economic and social benefits that the petitioner offers in the petition, section l05(b)(2). Under the bill, the alternative compliance strategy must provide accountability, monitoring, enforceability and public access to information at least equal to that provided by the rule that is being modified or waived. A related and very important requirement is that adequate information must be made accessible so that any member of the public can determine if a company is complying with an alternative compliance agreement, sections 105(b) (4), (5). Other requirements that must be met by the petitioner are set forth in section 105. Another critical provision of the bill, section 104 establishes that any company submitting a petition must undertake a stakeholder participation process and work to ensure that adequate resources exist to make the process effective. Involving citizens, particularly members of the local community, in the development of an alternative compliance strategy is absolutely critical. Companies that have formulated successful alternative compliance strategies have told me that without the support of the local community these strategies simply will not work. Empowerment of the local community through stakeholder processes will help build trust and make implementation of the agreement easier. It is also important that State and local regulators be part of the stakeholder process. Under the bill, a more structured stakeholder process is set out for more complex agreements--those involving more than one pollutant or one medium. The stakeholders have a greater decisional role in more complex agreements. Nevertheless, in all cases, stakeholder acceptance will be critical to success of the alternative compliance strategy. Title II of the legislation seeks to build on the successful acid rain program established under the Clean Air Act Amendments of l990. It requires that prior to promulgating a new program for controlling emissions or discharges of a pollutant, EPA consider, where appropriate, the adoption of a market-based trading program. The program would include a cap on total emissions or discharges of the pollutant. Each source of a pollutant would be required to meet an emission or discharge limit based on a share of the total limit on emissions or discharges allowed from all sources. Sources could meet their performance objective though a variety of methods, including by acquiring excess emission or discharge reductions from other sources that have achieved levels of performance beyond that required to meet their discharge or emission limits. The bill recognizes that trading programs are not appropriate in every case. Trading programs should only be implemented where they would result in levels of emissions or discharges greater than those that would be achieved under alternative programs. Additionally, there are circumstances where a trading program is not appropriate because the environmental or human health reasons for which the pollutant is regulated can only be addressed through source-specific emission controls. As I have mentioned, this title is intended to build on the success of the acid rain program of the Clean Air Act. That program set a cap on the total amount of emissions of sulfur dioxide that electric utilities can emit and allows flexibility for individual units to select their own method of compliance. The mechanism for allocating reductions is a comprehensive permit and emission allowance system. An allowance is a limited authorization to emit a ton of sulfur dioxide. Facilities receive allowance based on a specific formula contained in the law. Allowances may be traded or banked for future use or sale. Thirty days after the end of the year, each utility must have a number of allowances equal to the tonnage actually emitted during the previous year. Allowances may be purchased to cover each unit's emissions for the year. The system rewards utilities that go beyond the law's requirement by enabling them to earn profits from the sale of their extra allowances. The program is being implemented in two phases: Phase I began in l995 and will last until 1999. It covers 445 utility units. In July, EPA issued a report on the compliance results of phase I. The results are extremely impressive and far exceed the expectations of those of us involved in the drafting of the legislation--both in terms of emission reductions achieved and cost of those reductions. First, EPA reports that the compliance level for all the units under Phase I was l00 percent. Second, EPA reports that the emissions for these units was 39 percent below what the law allowed for l995. Third, EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey report environmental success-- reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions have resulted in rainfall being less acidic in l995 as a result of the first year of the acid rain program. The U.S. Geological Survey study reports a 10-25 percent drop in rainfall acidity, particularly at some sites located in the mid- west, northeast and mid-Atlantic regions. Fourth, the cost of reducing a ton of sulfur dioxide continues to decline. In just two years, allowance prices have dropped from $150 a ton to less than $80 a ton. At the time of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments, it was estimated that the cost of an allowance would be $500 to $600 a ton. The General Accounting Office has estimated that $2 to $3 billion will be saved with the implementation of the acid rain program through its allowance trading program. In other words, the acid rain program has achieved greater reductions than anticipated at far lower costs than anticipated. This is a win- win--for the environment and the regulated community. The legislation I am introducing today would require EPA, where appropriate, to consider basing future environmental programs on the same type of successful program established for acid rain. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to note the critical importance of this legislation, the Water Resources Development Act, to the future of Connecticut's most valuable natural resource, Long Island Sound. Included in the bill is a provision reauthorizing the EPA's Long Island Sound Office [LISO], which was established by legislation I was proud to sponsor 6 years ago, and which is now responsible for coordinating the massive clean-up effort ongoing in the Sound. Quite simply, the LISO is the glue holding this project together, and I want to express my deep appreciation to the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee--Senators Chafee and Baucus--for their help in making sure this office stays open for business. Mr. President, the Long Island Sound Office has been given a daunting task--orchestrating a multibillion dollar, decade-long initiative that requires the cooperation of nearly 150 different Federal, State and municipal agents and offices. Despite the odds, and the limited resources it has had to work with, the LISO is succeeding. Over the last few years, the EPA office has developed strong working relationships with the State environmental protection agencies in Connecticut and New York, local government officials along the Sound coastline and a number of proactive citizen groups. Together, these many partners have made tremendous progress toward meeting the six key goals we identified in the Sound's long-term conservation and management plan. The plan's top priority is fighting hypoxia, which is caused by the release of nutrients into the Sound's 1,300 square miles of water. Thanks in part to the LISO's efforts, nitrogen loads have dropped 5,000 pounds per day from the baseline levels of 1990, exceeding all expectations. In addition, all sewage treatment plants in Connecticut and in New York's Westchester, Suffolk, and Nassau counties are now in compliance with the no net increase agreement brokered by the LISO, while the four New York City plants that discharge into the East River are expected to be in compliance by the end of this year. And the LISO is coordinating 15 different projects to retrofit treatment plants with new equipment that will help them reduce the amount of nitrogen reaching the Sound. The LISO and its many partners have made great strides in other areas, such as cracking down on the pathogens, toxic substances, and litter that have been finding their way into the Sound watershed and onto area beaches. A major source of toxic substances are industrial plants, and over the last few years the LISO has helped arrange more than 30 pollution prevention assessments at manufacturing facilities in Connecticut that enable companies to reduce emissions and cut their costs. Also, New York City has recently reduced the amount of floatable debris it produces by 70 percent, thanks to the use of booms on many tributaries and efforts to improve the capture of combined sewer overflows. With Congress' help, the LISO will soon be able to build on that progress and significantly broaden its efforts to bring the Sound back to life. This week the House and Senate approved an appropriation of the $700,000 for the Long Island Sound Office, doubling our commitment from the current fiscal year. These additional funds will be used in part to launch an ambitious habitat restoration project. The States of New York and Connecticut have been working with the LISO and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a long-term strategy in this area, and they have already identified 150 key sites. The next step is to provide grants to local partnerships with local towns and private groups such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and The Nature Conservancy, which would focus on restoring tidal and freshwater wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and areas supporting anadromous fish populations. The funding will also be used for site-specific surveys to identify and correct local sources of non-point source pollution. This effort will focus on malfunctioning septic systems, stormwater management, and illegal stormwater connections, improper vessel waste disposal, and riparian protection. All of these sources contribute in some way to the release of pathogens and toxic compounds into the Sound, a problem that is restricting the use of area beaches and shellfish beds and hurting our regional economy. Finally, the LISO will continue to build on the successful public education and outreach campaign it initiated last year. In New York, the LISO has already been in contact with public leaders in 50 local communities, held follow-up meetings with officials in 15 key areas, and scheduled on-the-water workshops for this fall. The LISO is planning to conduct a similar effort to reach out to Connecticut communities in 1997. All of this could have been put in jeopardy, however, if we had not acted to extend the LISO's authorization, which is set to expire next week. The clean-up project is a team effort, with many important contributors, but it would be extremely difficult for those many partners to work in concert and keep moving forward without the leadership and coordination that the LISO has supplied. So I want to thank my colleagues, especially my friends from Rhode Island and from Montana, for passing this provision before the LISO's authorization lapsed. The people of Connecticut care deeply about the fate of the Sound, not only because of its environmental importance but also because of its importance as one of our region's most valuable economic assets. With the steps we've taken this week, we have reassured them that we remained committed to preserving this great natural resource, and that we are not about to sell Long Island Sound short.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to note the critical importance of this legislation, the Water Resources Development Act, to the future of Connecticut's most valuable natural resource, Long Island Sound. Included in the bill is a provision reauthorizing the EPA's Long Island Sound Office [LISO], which was established by legislation I was proud to sponsor 6 years ago, and which is now responsible for coordinating the massive clean-up effort ongoing in the Sound. Quite simply, the LISO is the glue holding this project together, and I want to express my deep appreciation to the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee--Senators Chafee and Baucus--for their help in making sure this Office stays open for business. Mr. President, the Long Island Sound Office has been given a daunting task--orchestrating a multibillion dollar, decade-long initiative that requires the cooperation of nearly 150 different Federal, State, and municipal agents and offices. Despite the odds, and the limited resources it has had to work with, the LISO is succeeding. Over the last few years, the EPA office has developed strong working relationships with the State environmental protection agencies in Connecticut and New York, local government officials along the Sound coastline and a number of proactive citizen groups. Together, these many partners have made tremendous progress toward meeting the six key goals we identified in the Sound's long-term conservation and management plan. The plan's top priority is fighting hypoxia, which is caused by the release of nutrients into the Sound's 1,300 square miles of water. Thanks in part to the LISO's efforts, nitrogen loads have dropped 5,000 pounds per day from the baseline levels of 1990, exceeding all expectations. In addition, all sewage treatment plants in Connecticut and in New York's Westchester, Suffolk and Nassau counties are now in compliance with the ``no net increase'' agreement brokered by the LISO, while the four New York City plants that discharge into the East River are expected to be in compliance by the end of this year. And the LISO is coordinating 15 different projects to retrofit treatment plants with new equipment that will help them reduce the amount of nitrogen reaching the Sound. The LISO and its many partners have made great strides in other areas, such as cracking down on the pathogens, toxic substances, and litter that have been finding their way into the Sound watershed and onto area beaches. A major source of toxic substances are industrial plants, and over the last few years the LISO has helped arrange more than 30 ``pollution prevention'' assessments at manufacturing facilities in Connecticut that enable companies to reduce emissions and cut their costs. Also, New York City has recently reduced the amount of floatable debris it produces by 70%, thanks to the use of booms on many tributaries and efforts to improve the capture of combined sewer overflows. With Congress's help, the LISO will soon be able to build on that progress and significantly broaden its efforts to bring the Sound back to life. This week the House and Senate approved an appropriation of the $700,000 for the Long Island Sound Office, doubling our commitment from the current fiscal year. These additional funds will be used in part to launch an ambitious habitat restoration project. The States of New York and Connecticut have been working with the LISO and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a long-term strategy in this area, and they have already identified 150 key sites. The next step is to provide grants to local partnerships with local towns and private groups such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and The Nature Conservancy, which would focus on restoring tidal and freshwater wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and areas supporting anadromous fish populations. The funding will also be used for site-specific surveys to identify and correct local sources of non-point source pollution. This effort will focus on malfunctioning septic systems, stormwater management and illegal stormwater connections, improper vessel waste disposal, and riparian protection. All of these sources contribute in some way to the release of pathogens and toxic compounds into the Sound, a problem that is restricting the use of area beaches and shellfish beds and hurting our regional economy. Finally, the LISO will continue to build on the successful public education and outreach campaign it initiated last year. In New York, the LISO has already been in contact with public leaders in 50 local communities, held follow-up meetings with officials in 15 key areas, and scheduled on-the-water workshops for this fall. The LISO is planning to conduct a similar effort to reach out to Connecticut communities in 1997. All of this could have been put in jeopardy, however, if we had not acted to extend the LISO's authorization, which is set to expire next week. The clean-up project is a team effort, with many important contributors, but it would be extremely difficult for those many partners to work in concert and keep moving forward without the leadership and coordination that the LISO has supplied. So I want to thank my colleagues, especially my friends from Rhode Island and from Montana, for passing this provision before the LISO's authorization lapsed. The people of Connecticut care deeply about the fate of the Sound, not only because of its environmental importance but also because of its importance as one of our region's most valuable economic assets. With the steps we've taken this week, we have reassured them that we remained committed to preserving this great natural resource, and that we are not about to sell Long Island Sound short. Mr. President, I ask that my statement be included in the Record along with the conference report on the Water Resources Development Act.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend and colleague from California. Madam President, the bill which is the subject of the Presidential veto that is before the Senate is limited to a particular medical procedure, but for me, and I guess for many other Members of the Senate, it raises once again the most difficult issues in the debate over abortion. The opponents of this medical procedure have raised facts that all of us, whether generally pro-life or generally pro-choice, must acknowledge as relevant and troubling. In protecting a woman's right to choose, a constitutionally protected woman's right to choose, we are for the most part presenting the right to have an abortion early in pregnancy. The fact is that over 90 percent of abortions are performed by the end of the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. A small portion of abortions, estimated by at least one authority as less than one-half of 1 percent, occur after 26 weeks of gestation. This debate on this veto of this bill, H.R. 1833, involves an abortion procedure that is used later in pregnancies. Questions that are settled for the bulk of early-performed abortions, to me, are less clear for this small minority of later abortions. In particular, I must say since the Senate adopted this legislation earlier, I have been reading a number of commentaries, studies, and articles, particularly one very long and thoughtful article by David Brown, of the Washington Post, who, I gather, is a doctor. Together, they call into question such basic facts as the number, timing, and motivations for abortions performed using this procedure. The controversy over this matter has, of course, not been confined to the press. Like most of my colleagues in the Chamber, I have heard from many--including many constituents--who have said to me that partial- birth abortions are only performed in very rare situations where a woman's life is in danger. Others have said literally thousands of late-term partial-birth abortions are performed on a purely elective basis without medical necessity. The medical community itself has expressed conflicting opinions about the quantity, safety, and efficacy of this particular abortion procedure. Madam President, these conflicting opinions and questions are crucial to our determination of whether and how we should legislate regarding late-term abortions. I, for one, believe, the record before the Senate raises sufficient concerns to compel not only further study but another attempt to legislate. I know that this effort will not be easy because it raises the various difficult questions of whether there are any limitations that we believe should be put on late-term abortions. In Doe versus Bolton, which was decided together with Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court acknowledged the right of the States to ``readjust its views and emphases in the light of the advanced knowledge and techniques of the day.'' These two historic Supreme Court decisions, Doe versus Bolton and Roe versus Wade, together, effectively prevented the States from limiting a woman's right to choose before fetal viability, but as I read them, permitted State intervention after viability. The question, then, is whether and how we as lawmakers and our colleagues in State legislatures choose to intervene. Procedures that involve abortions, late into pregnancy, put our concern with the health and freedom of choice of the mother in conflict with the viability of the fetus which advances in medical science continue to move earlier in pregnancy. Madam President, the evidence that some partial-birth abortions are being performed not only late in pregnancy but electively--which is to say, without medical necessity, let alone without life-threatening circumstances to the mother--make a hard case ultimately and profoundly unacceptable. In the context of these very difficult questions that demand careful balancing and the most thoughtful and well-defined legislating, I continue to find the wording of the bill before the Senate much too broad, particularly since it imposes criminal penalties. It would subject doctors to jail for medical decisions they make. It would criminalize abortions performed using this medical procedure at any time in a pregnancy under all circumstances except, ``When a partial-birth abortion * * * is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.'' Madam President, I repeat, I find that language too broad and too absolute to justify criminal penalties in the very difficult and complicated circumstances that reality provides in this case. I will therefore vote to sustain the President's veto of H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1995. However, I will do so with a growing personal anxiety that I know I share with Members of the Senate that something very wrong is happening in our country, that there are abortions being performed later in pregnancies that are not medically necessary, and that we all have an interest in working together, through the law, to stop this. Whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, on this one I think we have to all reach for a common ground in the weeks and months ahead where we will lower our voices, find our common values and raise our sights so that we can find a way to better protect fetal life in the latter stages of pregnancy without unfairly denying the constitutional rights of pregnant women to choose. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to remember Joseph Gerber, the founder and chairman of Gerber Scientific, Inc. and a Connecticut resident, who died in early August when Congress was out of session. I will sorely miss this great Connecticut businessman and innovator and send his family my sincere sympathy for their loss. Mr. Gerber was nicknamed ``Thomas Edison'' in the apparel industry for his countless inventions--he was awarded over 650 U.S. and foreign patents for his technological innovations. His contributions to advanced manufacturing transformed many sectors including signmaking, graphic arts, printed circuit boards, optics, and automotive and aerospace technologies. He generously donated some of his inventions to the Smithsonian Institution--they can be found in the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History as part of its permanent collection. Mr. Gerber was a champion of invention from very early on. As a junior at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, he invented a revoluntionary graphical numerical computer. This product--the Gerber Variable Scale--was rolled out to launch the Gerber Scientific Instrument Co. In a matter of five decades, Gerber Scientific grew from an initial investment of $3,000 to a major supplier of automated manufacturing systems. Today, Gerber Scientific, head- quartered in South Windsor, CT, boasts worldwide sales exceeding $350 million. Mr. Gerber's creativity, motivation and business savvy propelled this corporation into success. H. Joseph Gerber received many honors, awards and honorary doctorates. In 1953, he was chosen as one of The Ten Outstanding Young Men of the United States for contributions to his community, State, and Nation by the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce. He accepted the Connecticut Medal of Technology awarded by the Governor in 1994, was a member of the National Academy of Engineers and the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering and served as a trustee of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. In 1994, President Clinton awarded Mr. Gerber the National Medal of Technology. H. Joseph Gerber was equally inspirational in his personal achievements. He was born in Vienna, Austria in 1924, but his family's life was shattered by Nazi occupation. He was imprisoned in a Nazi labor camp when he was 15, but he and his mother were able to flee Austria to the United States in 1940. He quickly learned to speak English, and, while working to support his mother, graduated from Weaver High School in Hartford in 2 years and then from Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute in less than 3 years with an aeronautical engineering degree. I salute H. Joseph Gerber and pause for a moment of reflection in memory of this very accomplished and generous man.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to continue a dialog on an issue that many Americans, especially millions of parents, care deeply about: the profound and often harmful influence that television is having on our children and our country. As my colleagues know, the public's increasing anger about the pervasive presence of sex, violence, and vulgarity on the small screen has resulted in widespread criticism of the television industry. I believe that much of that criticism has been warranted. Just about a year ago this week I came to the floor to take the major networks to task for sponsoring what was widely reviled as the most lewd, crude, and rude prime-time lineup in television history, and for helping to drag our societal standards down yet another notch. So today, with the debut of the 1996 fall season upon us, I think it is only fair and right to focus on what I see as some truly positive developments on this front, and to give praise to the television industry where praise is due. Over the last 18 months, we have seen industry leaders embrace the V- chip, which I was proud to cosponsor along with my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and accept our challenge to create a self- enforced ratings system that will give parents more information about the programs coming into their homes. We have seen the nation's broadcasters acknowledge their obligation to promote more educational shows for children, and commit to airing every week at least 3 hours of programming that will enrich young minds and promote positive values. And perhaps most encouraging of all, we have seen--quite literally seen--some modest yet significant changes in the quality of the product flowing over the airwaves. The deluge of perversity and degradation coming out of the trash talk TV shows has receded, and Rosie O'Donnell has shown with her quick wit and engaging personality that clean talk can clean up in the ratings. Also, in response to the deep concern the American people have expressed about the damage done by televised violence, the major broadcast networks have made a real effort to reduce the number of graphic killings, assaults and rapes depicted during prime time, and it has made a noticeable difference. And, in terms of the new fall season, the reviews I've read indicate that many of the shows premiering in the next few days turn away from the smuttiness that characterized so many of the sitcoms that debuted last year and offended and disgusted so many viewers. Even more promising, the networks seem more willing to take a chance on family- oriented shows that seek to uplift as they entertain and to reinforce rather than tear down our common values. Programs such as ``Second Noah,'' which ABC chose to bring back this fall, and ``Touched By an Angel,'' which CBS stuck by when it struggled to gain an audience and is now one of the networks prized assets. I think it's worth noting to my colleagues that the producer of ``Touched by An Angel,'' Martha Williamson, will be honored at reception in the Capitol tonight for her commitment to creating entertainment that elevates us and appeals to our better rather than our baser natures. I am proud to be co-hosting this reception, at which Ms. Williamson will premiere her new series, ``Promised Land,'' also on CBS this fall, and I would encourage Members to attend. Mr. President, by calling attention to these positive signs I do not mean to suggest that television's problems have disappeared practically overnight, or that the viewing public is suddenly satisfied. The reality is that there is still too much gratuitous and gruesome violence not only available to but targeted at our children; there are still too many shows that seek to shock and titillate, that add to the degradation of our culture and fuel the ``anything-goes'' mentality that I believe is at the root of the moral decline America is experiencing today. A survey released by the American Medical Association this week left little doubt that the public remains highly concerned, showing that 75 percent of parents are ``disgusted with media violence.'' In response, the AMA took the significant step of sending out guidelines to 60,000 doctors nationwide to help educate them and the parents they serve about the negative effects of media violence on children. But I firmly believe that television is making progress. I also believe that many of the people who run the television industry want us to know that they're not walking away from the responsibility that goes along with their enormous power and influence. So as we continue to give voice to the public's discontent, it is also important to encourage the responsiveness industry leaders have already shown, albeit sometimes grudgingly, and to encourage them to keep moving forward. That is why I am joining with 10 of my colleagues today to submit what we see as a very positive sense-of-the-Senate resolution, one that expresses our support for the direction the television industry seems to be moving in. Quite simply, this resolution asks the major broadcast networks to help parents do their jobs by bringing back what was once known as the ``Family Hour''. It urges the networks to once again set aside the first hour of prime-time for programs that I can watch together with my wife and our 8-year-old daughter without fearing that I will be embarrassed or my values will be assaulted. In recent years, that is something that most parents have been legitimately fearful of. One of the most common complaints we hear about television concerns the proliferation of lewd jokes and gratuitous sex scenes in the early hours of prime-time, when many young children are watching. Many parents feel that this kind of content goes far beyond being inappropriate and offensive. They believe, as do we, that these messages are harmful to their children's development and undercut the fundamental values that parents are trying to instill in their families. Our resolution asks the networks to recognize the difficulties parents face in shielding their children from this kind of content, and to help meet them halfway. In effect, it asks them to do no more than to return to a practice they once adhered to willingly. This is a case where the networks for long time acted quite responsibly and did a public service by creating a safe haven for parents with young children. That is one rerun that most American families want desperately to see again. We do not want to pass any law or dictate what programs can or can't be shown during the 8 o'clock hour. We just want to reiterate to the people who run the networks that this an issue of grave concern to American families, and that the family hour is a reasonable, commonsense concept that has overwhelming support. A companion resolution in the House has attracted 97 cosponsors, and 20 Senators have already endorsed the family hour movement, having signed a petition we sent to the network presidents in April. Mr. President, the resonance of this issue was confirmed to me by a conversation I had with a leading network executive last year. He confided in me that he regrets not being able to sit down with his children and watch television together as a family, much as he did with his parents years ago, much as I did with my parents when I was young. This is one of the great joys of the medium, and it is disappointing to many parents today that they cannot share in it with their children. It doesn't have to be that way, as CBS Entertainment has made clear this fall, when its president pledged publicly that CBS would only air programs at 8 o'clock that the whole family could watch together. Congress can help by adopting this resolution and encouraging-- encouraging, not forcing--the television industry to follow CBS's lead and help restore the peace of mind that so many families are seeking. Along with my original cosponsors, Senators Hutchison, Nunn, and DeWine, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it, to make a strong statement on behalf of America's families, and I look forward to its adoption.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the bill. This bill offers us an opportunity to take, not only a fundamental principle of American life and history, but in my opinion the driving impulse of the American experience, which is equal opportunity, and apply it to a specific circumstance. The basic question here is whether a person who works hard, plays by the rules, does the job, is entitled to be protected from discrimination in hiring, in promotion, in salary, based on a very private and personal decision which is that person's sexual orientation. You do not have to decide the question of whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong. You do not have to decide the question of whether domestic partnership is right or wrong. You do not have to decide the question of whether one's sexual orientation is a matter of choice or whether you are born with it, to vote for this bill. All of that is irrelevant. The question here is whether we are going to protect a category of our fellow Americans, fellow citizens, fellow human beings--children of God--from being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation; a private matter. I say the answer has to be ``yes.'' In 1996, it is time to offer that protection to keep the promise of the American Constitution and the American dream. This is a narrowly circumscribed bill. By God, this bill even says to an employer you can regulate the clothing of someone working for you if that is an issue. I support the bill and ask all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in section 121 of the conference report I read that funds in this bill are: * * *available for contracts with Electric Boat Division and Newport News Shipbuilding to carry out the provisions of the ``Memorandum of Agreement among the Department of the Navy, Electric Boat Corporation (EB) and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company (NNS) concerning the New Attack Submarine'' dated April 5, 1996, relating to design data transfer, design improvements, integrated process teams, and update design base. Further, in the bill, under subsection (g) Design Responsibility, I read, The Secretary shall ensure that both shipbuilders have full and open access to all design data concerning the design of the submarine previously designated by the Navy as the New Attack Submarine. Mr. President, reading a portion of the aforementioned memorandum of agreement, a copy of which I am submitting for the record, NNS is to ``be provided design deliverable information in a manner and scope that is generally consistent with that provided in the latest submarine program (SeaWolf). Design data transfer will be conducted in the most cost effective manner to support construction of follow-on ships at NNS.'' My interpretation of subsection (g)(1) of section 121 is that this subsection does not require the transfer of any design data between the shipyards which are not required by the memorandum of agreement. Am I correct in my interpretation of the intent of the conferees?