Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, thank you for providing me the opportunity to clarify this most important section of the conference report. Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of the Lawyers for Children, an organization whose roots are in my home State. Lawyers for Children is a nonprofit organization founded to address the critical issues of youth and violence. Highly trained, talented, and compassionate private sector lawyers volunteer their time to serve as advocates through Lawyers for Children for abused and neglected children. Lawyers for Children also works in our schools to teach our kids that there are alternatives to violence--that the power of the spoken word can get you much further than joining a gang or carrying a gun. Lawyers for Children began in Hartford 2 years ago. Since then, offices were added in Washington, DC and Miami, FL. I am confident that I speak for all the citizens of Connecticut when I express my pride and sincere gratitude for this organization. Lawyers for Children American recognizes that lawyers are in a unique position by virtue of their training to help kids deal with the perils of violence, drug abuse, and, in many cases, the lack of a sufficient education. I sincerely thank Lawyers for Children for all their hard work and dedication to future of America--our children. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Massachusetts. Mr. President, If I might begin with what may seem like an elevated, but I think is an accurate, vision of what our work here is as lawmakers, I was trained to believe the law is the expression of our values. It is the way we take our values as a society and put them into a code. It is, in some sense, an expression of our aspirations, our hopes for ourselves and our society. Because we are imperfect beings and we are an imperfect society, we do not always live up to our best aspirations as expressed in the law for ourselves. In that same sense, the fundamental principles of our country, of our democracy, expressed in the Constitution, were a series of values that over our history we have realized. We were far from perfect from the beginning, we are far from perfect today, we will be far from perfect even if we pass the nondiscrimination act, which I rise to support, but in each case we have tried to make real, according to current circumstances, the values expressed in our Constitution. Here, today, I think we are taking--if we can bring together the support for this measure--a next logical step in extending the guarantee of nondiscrimination in employment to people, based on their sexual orientation. I go back to the source of all our rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. We did not base these rights on any political philosopher's thinking. We did not base them on the report of some committee constituted for the formulation of basic rights. We did not base them, certainly, on any piece of legislation. It says right there at the outset that all of us are given these rights--are endowed with these rights by our Creator: The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Over the 220 years of our history we have come to extend that further and further, appropriately, to groups that were not included at the outset: People of color, women, et cetera, et cetera. What I want to suggest today is that those who are homosexual are also God's children. I say to my colleagues who may have strong personal feelings about this, one does not have to accept homosexuality, one does not even have to accept its morality, if I can speak in very direct terms, to support this legislation. Going back to the source of all our rights in this country, one simply has to acknowledge that those who are homosexual are also God's children and deserve to be protected from unfairness in our society, particularly from unfairness and discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Because what is the driving impulse of this country, that brought my grandparents here, brought so many here? Yes, it was religious freedom, but it was the basic promise that, in America, if you play by the rules and work hard, there is no limit to what you can achieve. That is what title VII is all about. That is what the antidiscrimination in employment laws are all about. What this measure says is very simple but very profound, and in my opinion goes to the heart of what America is about. If you are homosexual and you work hard and play by the rules, you cannot be discriminated against in hiring, in the status of your employment, in the level of your compensation, in promotion. To me, that seems like a statement of a basic American mainstream value of fairness. This is now a separate measure before us, a freestanding bill. Originally, though I cosponsored it as a freestanding bill, we were going to introduce it as an amendment to the Defense of Marriage Act. I intend to support the Defense of Marriage Act because I think that affirms another basic American mainstream value, which is marriage as an institution. The traditional, time-tested vision, occasionally battered but now being restored, hopefully, of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, the best institution to raise children in our society. But I worry, even though I view the Defense of Marriage Act as an affirmative statement, that we may send the wrong message in adopting it, that it is motivated by antihomosexual bigotry. I think that perception is wrong, certainly among the great majority of my colleagues that I have talked to who are supporting DOMA. The best way to make that clear is with another affirmative statement, and that is to adopt the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and say: Let us be fair. Let us say to everybody in our country that if you play by the rules, if you work hard, if you contribute to this society, you cannot be punished because of a private decision you have made about your sexual orientation. I think this is a moment that is historic. Not just in that we are debating this measure on the floor. It is historic in that it embraces the best values that are part of American history. I urge my colleagues to take a fresh look at this, to look at how limited it is, how much it excludes quotas, disparate impact, religious organizations. And in the fullness of their heart and in the fullness of their belief in the American dream, vote for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Junior Achievement of Western Connecticut as it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. For the past 50 years, Junior Achievement has been dedicated to serving over 5,000 children in my home State of Connecticut. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the accomplishments of an organization that recognizes the needs of today's youth. I am especially proud of the Junior Achievement Program's ability to motivate over 2,000 volunteers to participate in this year's event. We share the sentiment that by educating our children now, they will be better prepared to enter the workplace in the future. Again, Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Junior Achievement of Western Connecticut on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Junior Achievement has served the people of Connecticut through organized events such as their annual Bowl-A-Thon, which will celebrate its 11th anniversary on November 2. I thank Chairman Ronald J. Martin, his staff, and the thousands of Junior Achievement volunteers for their service, dedication, and contribution to the Connecticut community.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senator from Missouri, in a colloquy to discuss funding for the EPA's Long Island Sound Office. Senators D'Amato, Dodd, and Moynihan have asked to join in this colloquy as well. Mr. President, as the Chairman knows, the Long Island Sound Office [LISO] is responsible for coordinating the implementation of the sound's comprehensive conservation management plan [CCMP]. This office is faced with the daunting task of orchestrating a multibillion dollar, decade-long initiative that requires the cooperation of nearly 150 different Federal, State, municipal, and private institutions and agents. Despite the odds, and the limited resources it has had to work with, the LISO is succeeding. Over the last 2 years, it has made tremendous progress in getting the cleanup started and beginning work toward the key goals outlined in the CCMP--limiting nitrogen loads, restoring damaged habitats, cracking down on nonpoint source pollution and the release of pathogens, and educating area residents about the importance of these conservation efforts and ways they can help. We are deeply concerned, however, that this progress may be in jeopardy. In contrast to past years, the subcommittee has chosen not to provide any funding for the grant program the LISO is authorized to administer. In addition, it is our understanding that the National Estuary Program [NEP], which supplied $300,000 to the LISO in the current fiscal year to fund the office's operating budget, is planning to phase out its support of the LISO in fiscal year 1977. In fact, because of the increasing budgetary strain on the NEP, it is possible the LISO may be zeroed out completely.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. In closing, I think it is important to point out that unlike other NEP participants, the LISO was chartered for the express purpose of carrying the sound's management plan beyond the development stage and to actually oversee and contribute to the implementation of this plan. It was for this reason that the office is authorized at $3 million annually to provide grants to State agencies, municipalities, and local partnerships. While we understand that the NEP may no longer be the appropriate source of funding for the LISO, we feel strongly that in no way should justify stripping this project of all its Federal support. I also want to point out that the State of Connecticut reaffirmed its commitment to cleaning up the sound just last week when it approved a $52 million bond issue to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities in the cities of Norwalk and Waterbury. That investment is just the latest show of support from Connecticut and New York, and we strongly urge the Congress not to let those dollars go to waste.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the conference report and welfare reform. The Congress and the administration have worked now for over 3 years to reform the shameful situation in which millions of Americans on welfare find themselves. Parents seeking work are discouraged from doing so by the current system. Teenage mothers languish alone in households without the support of their children's fathers and often without proper adult supervision. Welfare as we know it has allowed these societal ills to fester and drain increasingly large amounts of public assistance funds. The current system has made it too easy for young men to father children without assuming either the financial or emotional responsibilities of parenthood. For too long, society has assumed the responsibility of caring for poor children with welfare checks, while not placing expectations of accountability upon the young parents. Too many families face the daily burden of survival, unemployment, and society's suspicion of their unwillingness to change their situation. The provisions of this conference agreement can ensure that our welfare system will finally reflect a respect for two of the most fundamental values of our society--an adherence to the American work ethic balanced with a compassion for those truly unable to care for themselves. This bill redirects hard-earned tax dollars toward achieving employment opportunities for adults and improvements in the quality of life of children. First and foremost, it eliminates the possibility of receiving public assistance without any intention of making some kind of a contribution to society in return. Beneficiaries will be aware that from the day they receive their first check, the clock will be ticking. Society is fulfilling an obligations to help them get back on their feet, and they in turn are obligated to make every effort to receive job training or education and to find employment. The employment of parents will enrich their children not only financially, but morally as well. In watching their parents benefit from educational opportunities and engage in gainful employment, children may embrace a valuable work ethic and eventually be better able to free themselves from the cycle of poverty and welfare dependence in which they are currently entrapped. States will also have an incentive to help beneficiaries find work. Welfare offices should become employment offices as States strive to move recipients into the work force in order to earn a performance bonus from the Federal Government. The conference bill also holds the hope of protecting children and reducing welfare spending by attacking the problem of unmarried teen parenthood. Welfare will no longer encourage the proliferation of single and uneducated parents by automatically and unconditionally underwriting the mothers who bear children out of wedlock. Children born out of wedlock are shown by studies to be three times more likely to be on welfare as adults than their peers. By implementing this bill, however, the Federal Government will require States to combat this problem and hopefully prevent it in a number of ways. First, paternity must be established for all children born out of wedlock at birth as a condition for receiving assistance, and fathers will be required to pay child support and set a good example for their children by engaging in either private sector or community service jobs. Mothers must live with an adult parent or relative or in an adult-supervised, strictly run Second Chance Home where they can learn skills necessary to the proper management and care of a child and household. A further condition of receiving assistance is a commitment to educational advancement. Young mothers must stay in a school or training program as a condition of continuing to receive welfare checks. This welfare reform bill will additionally work to prevent a new generation from entering into the cycle of early parenthood and welfare dependence by making it a national goal to lower teen pregnancy rates. It establishes a national campaign that will assure the creation of teen pregnancy prevention programs in at least 25 percent of American communities by 1997. It includes two amendments which I authored with the intent of combating this problem. One will require the Justice Department as well as the States to crack down on what studies show is a class of older men--many of them predatory--who father the children of young girls in the majority of teen pregnancy cases. The second amendment requires States to reserve a portion of their social service block grant funds for programs and services that educate young people about the consequences of premarital pregnancy. As we reduce the number of teens who become pregnant, we will be increasing the number of children who are able to enjoy a childhood without deprevation. There are other aspects of this legislation which have been framed with the protection of children in mind. For example, minor children continue to receive Medicaid even if their parents lose coverage as a penalty for not getting off of welfare into job training and work. Families can also be eligible for transitional Medicaid coverage as they move from welfare to work. These provisions are vital as many parents currently refrain from finding jobs and moving off welfare for fear of losing the medical coverage for their children that welfare provides. Mr. President, this bill provides a significant improvement over the Senate-passed bill in allowing States to provide needy children of parents who go off of welfare with vouchers through the title XXblock grant. The legislation also answers the all-important question of who will care for the children as their mothers and fathers move into the world of education and work. We have designated $13.8 billion--a substantial increase--to be spent just on child care over the next 6 years, and we have retained child care health and safety standards. Moveover, we will not penalize mothers with children under the next 6 years, and we have retained child care health and safety standards. Moreover, we will not penalize mothers with children under the age of 6 who do not accept employment because they cannot find or afford child care. I would have preferred the retention of the Senate provision in this regard which allowed the mothers of children age 6 to 11 who cannot find adequate, affordable child care to stay home with them without penalty. Mr. President, this is a good bill--a giant step forward from the welfare status quo--but it is no more perfect than any other bill that has passed the Senate on a big, complicated problem. I am especially concerned by the food stamp provision which is a real break with what was agreed to in the Senate-passed bill. It limits the receipt of food stamps by jobless individuals who do not have children to 3 months out of a 3-year period and allows no hardship exemptions. This is far harsher than the Senate provision which allowed jobless individuals to receive food stamps for 6 months out of each year as well as a 20- percent hardship exemption. Food stamps are also now cut for households receiving energy assistance, a proposal not included in the Senate bill. The conference report also cuts the cap on the shelter deduction by $42 and takes away food stamps for more families with children who pay over half their income for housing. And I remain very concerned about the ban on food stamps, Medicaid, and other assistance for legal immigrants; it has no good place in a welfare-to-work bill. As the President has urged, we must keep these issues in mind for repair in the future even as we recognize that this legislation is definitely an improvement in the current welfare program. In voting for this bill, we will realize an historic opportunity to meet President Clinton's call to ``end welfare as we know it.'' We will have also proven to the American people that the Federal Government is capable of bringing about change through bipartisan cooperation. This is not the end of welfare reform but it is the largest step forward we have taken to improve the way America cares for its poor, and tries to make real for them the dreams of equal opportunity, which is the driving impulse of our history. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise as in morning business, and thank the Chair very much, to say just a few words about an amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill that was adopted earlier today, an amendment which I was privileged to offer with a distinguished list of colleagues. It was accepted by agreement last night without debate, although I did put a statement in the Record at that time. It is, I think, an important amendment and statement, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, because it deals with the necessity to bring to justice those who have been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal from the former Yugoslavia, which is meeting now in The Hague, to bring them to justice because they, as the tribunal has said, are perpetrators of gross violations of international law. Mr. President, I was stimulated in my desire to say just a few words to my colleagues here before we leave for the weekend about this by an interview that was in the New York Times this morning with Antonio Cassese, an Italian law professor who is the president of the International Criminal Tribunal. The article begins: The Italian law professor who is president of the War Crimes Tribunal here is known for his cheerful nature, his expertise in international law and his even temper. So his public outburst in a quiet hall here the other day was all the more shocking. ``Go ahead! Kill, torture, maim! Commit acts of genocide!'' said Antonio Cassese, president of the tribunal, his voice rising, ``You may enjoy impunity!'' This, he said, was the message that would go ``to military leaders and all dictators'' if the Bosnian Serb leaders indicted for atrocities in the Bosnian war were not brought before the tribunal. Mr. President, thanks to my colleagues, the Senate has now spoken clearly on this issue. I was honored to be joined by Senators Lugar, Biden, Specter, Feinstein, Moynihan, Hatch, Levin, and D'Amato, a wonderfully bipartisan group, as cosponsors of this amendment. The point is this, as we state in the findings of this resolution: The United Nations did create this International Tribunal. A Security Council resolution was adopted on May 25, 1993, early in this horrific episode, which requires states to cooperate fully with the tribunal. The signatories to the Dayton peace accord, signed December 14, 1995, have accepted, in article IX of that accord, the obligation ``to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and other violations of internationally humanitarian law.'' This means all the signatories of the accord, including Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and the Republika Srpska. In fact, the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was accepted as annex 4 to the Dayton peace accord, provides in article IX that-- No person who is serving a sentence imposed by the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and no person who is under indictment by the tribunal and who has failed to comply with an order to appear before the tribunal, may stand as a candidate or hold any appointive, elective, or other public office in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The tribunal has now issued 57 indictments against individuals. It continues to investigate gross violations of international laws. Specifically, on July 25, 1995, almost 1 year ago to the day, the tribunal issued an indictment of Radovan Karadzic, President of the Bosnian Serb administration of Pale and Ratko Mladic, commander of the Bosnian Serb administration, and charged them with genocide, with crimes against humanity. This was no opposition politician standing up and making a charge. This was an international tribunal which, having heard evidence, charged them with genocide, crimes against humanity, violations of the law or customs of war and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. All of these charges arise from atrocities perpetrated, not against soldiers, but against the civilian population throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, as we remember from those painful, frustrating and infuriating pictures, and including the taking of U.N. peacekeepers as hostages for their use as human shields. On November 16, 1995, Karadzic and Mladic were indicted a second time by the International Tribunal, this time charged with genocide for the killing of up to 6,000 Moslems in Srebrenica, Bosnia, in July 1995. The U.N. Security Council, in adopting its own resolution 1022 in November of last year, decided that economic sanctions on Yugoslavia and Srpska would be reimposed if at any time the High Representative, Carl Bildt, or the IFOR commander, soon to be, perhaps already, Admiral Lopez, informs the Security Council that either of these two Governments, Serbia or the Bosnian Serb Republika Srpska, have failed to meet their obligations under the peace agreement. The fact is that these two entities have failed to arrest and turn over for prosecution indicted war criminals, including Karadzic and Mladic. We know where they are, particularly Karadzic. A while ago one of these two went to Belgrade for a funeral. Authorities in Serbia knew that he was there. Nothing was done to apprehend this indicted war criminal. Last week, again, in an extraordinary act of public service and diplomatic skill, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke convinced Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Serbia--for fear of having the reimposition of economic sanctions against his country--to use his power to take Karadzic out of power, to take him out of the leadership of the Serbian Democratic Party, and to remove any chance that he would be a candidate for office in the elections. It is startling, when you think about it. It is as if at the end of the Second World War some leaders of the countries that we fought in the Second World War remained in their countries and ran in the first postwar elections. It would have so infuriated the public here, understandably, that we probably would have done what we are asking here, which is to arrest them and bring them to justice. But Ambassador Holbrooke did take a step forward. Unfortunately, though, these two war criminals remain at large. Just a few weeks ago, on July 11, 1996, the International Criminal Tribunal actually issued international arrest warrants for Karadzic and Mladic. The fact is--and we have heard this from all parties there in Bosnia; and it is just common sense as we move forward to the elections there on September 14 of this year, which we hope will be the next step in rebuilding this country in going back to some form of cooperation among the various peoples there--these elections could not go on with any credibility were these war criminals at large and, in Karadzic's case, actually running a political party, perhaps even at one point thinking about running for office himself. So now, thanks to Ambassador Holbrooke, we have Karadzic out of political office and out of political leadership. But the truth is, he should be out of that country. He should be taken to The Hague for trial, to be brought to justice. That is exactly the intention of the resolution that the Senate has now adopted, accepting the principle that the human, but also the practical, principle of the apprehension and prosecution of indicted war criminals--these two and all others--is essential for peace and reconciliation to be achieved and for democracy to be established throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. President, we have sent 20,000 American soldiers to be part of the implementation force, the IFOR, that has performed magnificently in separating the warring parties and creating a sense of stability. We have spent a lot of money in doing that and put some of our finest men and women in uniform on the line as part of that process. But unless we remove these indicted war criminals, the prospects of redeeming the investment of courage and bounty that we have made in avoiding broader conflict and ethnic partition in Bosnia will be for naught, because the end result, when our troops pull out, will be that we will have divided camps again, with no trust, not even the minimal elements of trust. So long as these indicted criminals are walking around flaunting their freedom, that trust will not be possible, that trust that is necessary to rebuild a civil society within Bosnia. So this resolution said very clearly, and I am very grateful to my colleagues for supporting it, that it is the sense of the Senate that the International Criminal Tribunal merits the continued and increased U.S. support for its efforts to investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators of these gross violations of international law. Second, it is the sense of the Senate that the signatories of the peace agreement and those nations and organizations participating in the Dayton peace agreement and the relevant mandates of the United Nations and Security Council must continue to make it an urgent priority to bring to justice persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal. Third, it is the sense of the Senate that the President of the United States should support the request of the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to reimpose full economic sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro and the Republika Srpska in accordance with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolution, if Serbia and Montenegro and the Bosnian Serb authorities have not complied with their obligations under the relevant agreements and resolutions to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal. Finally, it is the sense of the Senate that all the States in the former Yugoslavia should not be admitted to international organizations until and unless they have complied with their obligations under the Dayton peace agreement and the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Senate has said clearly in this resolution now adopted as part of the foreign operations appropriations bill that while we take some comfort and we have some appreciation for Ambassador Holbrooke for the statement that Karadzic has made that he is removing himself from politics, this is a small step toward what should be done. We are not leaving the field here. We have stated here quite clearly that we will not redeem our investment in the end of this war and the reconstruction of Bosnia until we settle the moral accounts here, and bring those who have been indicted by this very legitimate International Criminal Tribunal to justice. Until that happens, we cannot rest. Until that happens, there will not be a genuine hope of reconnecting and rebuilding this war-torn country.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Washington very much for the very gracious words that mean all the more to me because they come from him who I first met in our shared service as attorneys general of our respective States. The rule of law is the rule of law. It is what separates civilized from uncivilized people. It is true not just here for us but in countries around the world, and insofar as we fail to bring to justice indicted criminals in an international situation like this, it is no better than if we failed to bring to justice murderers and rapists here in our own communities in the United States. But I mostly just thank my friend from Washington for his kind words and also for his consistent and very important support of this effort to make sure that there is both peace and justice in Bosnia, since without justice there will ultimately never be peace. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. international military education and training [imet]--indonesia

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this amendment, now amended in the second degree by Senators Murkowski and McCain, would enable the President to fulfill the promise made as part of the agreed framework signed in October 1994 to avoid the escalating probability of the North Koreans attaining nuclear capability and perhaps entering into a conflict with South Korea. A conflict, a major regional conflict on the Korean Peninsula, as Secretary Perry would say, would put countless lives in jeopardy and would cost billions of dollars. For $25 million, we have the opportunity to continue an agreement which, thus far, the North Koreans, at least as to the nuclear component, have kept. I yield 15 seconds to Senator Murkowski, and then the remainder of the time to Senator Levin.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from New Mexico. I appreciate his kindness and courtesy and wish him a good weekend.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, briefly, let me thank my friend and colleague from Alaska for his excellent statement and, of course, for the spirit of partnership with which we have gone forward on this. If I read this right, the foreign operations bill that is before us would appropriate over $12,217,000,000. This amendment concerns $25 million of that--a speck. For anybody individually, $25 million is a lot of money. As part of this bill, it is a very, very small percentage. I can tell you personally, I don't believe that there is any part of this bill that is a better investment, in terms of preserving international security, saving American soldiers from having to go into battle--which would truly cost us a lot of money--than this $25 million. I know that the administration right up to the President feels that very, very strongly. I believe that we have achieved two very significant accomplishments with the addition of the Murkowski-McCain second-degree amendment. This is all about keeping promises. The Agreed Framework of October 1994 was a very significant agreement between the United States, South Korea, Japan, and North Korea, the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea. We are saying, by overriding the committee's recommendation to cut the funding down to $13 million, that we promise $25 million a year to fund this agreement. The Congress says we are going to keep that agreement. We are going to fund up to the $25 million. But we expect the North Koreans to keep their end of the bargain as well. We are counting on the administration to effectively monitor the agreement and report to Congress if there is any indication that the North Koreans are not keeping their end of the bargain. So far, I say, so good. I think the second-degree amendment greatly improves my underlying amendment. I am grateful, again, to my two colleagues, Senators Murkowski and McCain, for the way in which we have gone at this. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise very briefly to thank the Senator from Colorado, the distinguished occupant of the chair, for the extraordinary leadership he has shown in conceiving this proposal and shepherding it now to the point where it can be adopted by the Senate. It has been my honor to work with him on this as a cosponsor. History is a term that is used probably too often around the Capitol, but to my way of thinking, this is a historic enactment that we are about to make because, in enacting this amendment, we are essentially saying more strongly than we ever have that the Congress of the United States is prepared to welcome into NATO, but more broadly into the community of democracies of market economies, those nations that suffered under the yoke of Communist tyranny for so long during the cold war and are now free and working their way toward being eligible for membership in NATO. This measure, in concrete terms, not only expresses that policy, but puts some money behind that policy in offering to those nations that are most ready to enter NATO some wherewithal to help make that happen. To my way of thinking, what we are doing here tonight is, in some measure, ratifying and hoping to make permanent the victory that freedom won in the cold war. For all that time in the cold war, we spoke often of those people who were suffering in the ``captive nations.'' The people of those nations, including, may I say, the people of Russia, fought and dreamed and worked and finally achieved their freedom. Now these countries of central and Eastern Europe who want to get into NATO are really saying to us they want to cast their lot for the future, not just with the West but with what the West means, which is freedom, the values of democracy. They are also accepting an obligation therein, which is the great task that NATO has achieved. NATO has not just been a defensive alliance; it has been an institution in which the countries of Europe could work to reconcile their own conflicts, work to avoid the old balance-of-power relationships that too often led to war. As we reach out and embrace these new countries that have attained their freedom and want to enter NATO, I do not think we are doing anything here that should or would threaten Russia. What we are doing is creating stability among the nations of Europe, Western, Central, and Eastern, and guaranteeing as best we can for those millions of people who live within those countries the basic human and economic rights with which we in our own formative documents have said each person is endowed with by our Creator. So it is a great step forward, and I thank all our colleagues who have helped to make it happen. I thank the Chair particularly, and I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I call up amendment number 5078 at the desk.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I intend to support the second-degree amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, speaking about the underlying amendment and the second-degree amendment, this deals with the underlying bill, the foreign operations appropriations bill, which proposed a relatively small contribution that the United States has agreed to make which is part of a very large agreement that holds great promise of stabilizing relations between North Korea and South Korea, North Korea and its other neighbors in Asia, The so-called agreed framework which was agreed to in October of 1994 has had extraordinary effect on what was beginning to be--sometimes our memories are short--a very threatening situation in which we had conclusive evidence that the North Koreans were building reactors that were capable of being used to build atomic weapons which, together with their massive ground forces, would threaten security in that region of the world. Mr. President, let us remember as we begin this discussion that in 1993 the Defense Department issued the Bottom-Up Review, which set a standard for the American military that we had to be strong enough to deal with two major regional conflicts in the world at the same time. One potential MRC was clearly in the gulf region, the Middle East, and the other, in most people's contemplation, was on the Korean peninsula. When we think about the fact that we sent a half million of our soldiers to the gulf region to deal with that conflict--and carry out so brilliantly Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm--and that the potential for conflict on the Korean peninsula is in most people's minds of an equivalent size, we are talking about a very serious exposure for the United States in terms of our military personnel and also in costs to our Treasury. After rising international concern about the potential diversion of North Korea's nuclear power to develop atomic weapons, a series of negotiations ensued which ended in the so-called agreed framework in October of 1994. The North Koreans took on certain obligations in return for which the United States and neighbors in that region, particularly South Korea and Japan, took on other obligations, which thus far all parties have proceeded in what would have to be called good faith to the great benefit of that region and the world, resulting in a de-escalation of tension and the potential for armed conflict there. This agreement required, for instance, North Korea to freeze operation of its 5-megawatt reactor and halt construction at its 50- megawatt and 200-megawatt reactors. If the agreement were not in place, within a few short years these facilities would have been able to produce enough plutonium for the North Koreans to build dozens of weapons each year. The agreed framework also required North Korea to cease operations at its reprocessing facility and laboratory which reprocesses plutonium out of spent nuclear fuel, and to seal that facility. I am pleased to say, Mr. President, that the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that North Korea has taken all these steps to freeze their program. The IAEA is now working with North Korea to settle on specific measures needed to continue to monitor that freeze. The fact is that IAEA inspectors are maintaining a continuous presence--this is not just somebody's word and our best hopes, it is the continuing presence of international inspectors at the Yongbyon nuclear facility in North Korea. The framework was deliberately structured so the North Koreans would take the first steps, and we were able to verify compliance every step of the way. Mr. President, over time, all of the facilities that are frozen will be dismantled. In addition, 8,000 spent fuel rods that now sit in a cooling pond at the Yongbyon nuclear facility will eventually be shipped out of North Korea. These rods alone contain enough plutonium to make five to six bombs. This is truly a remarkable agreement. No one says that North Korea has become a Jeffersonian democracy. Far from it. It is a country which faces all sorts of instability, particularly the terrible condition of its economy, the inability actually to feed all its people. But in the midst of all that instability which could have caused literally conflagration on the Korean peninsula, this agreement has been concluded. What is their return for this? The return for this is that we have agreed to provide a certain amount of money every year for the North Koreans to purchase heavy fuel oil to help to operate other power plants within their country, and we have agreed to assist them in building light water reactors which are much more nuclear-proliferation resistant, much less likely to be used to develop nuclear weapons than the other reactors that the North Koreans have. The cost of the light water reactors will amount to more than $4 billion. The Republic of Korea, that is, South Korea, and Japan have accepted the lion's share of the financial burden for those light water reactors. The United States direct funding to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, known as KEDO, which was set up under the agreed framework to provide heavy fuel oil for the North Koreans and for other projects, is really a matter of us just assuming a fair share of our burden. We pledged to commit $25 million, which is less than half the total amount required for the heavy fuel oil purchases annually and which represents a very modest commitment when one considers the $4 billion cost for light water reactors that will be assumed primarily by the Republic of Korea and Japan. Nonetheless, the foreign ops bill that is before us now cuts that amount of money down to $13 million, threatening the stability of the overall agreed framework, and leading to concern in Japan and South Korea about the steadfastness of the United States in fulfilling its obligations under this agreement--leading to some concern in those countries about whether they would fulfill their much larger responsibilities under these agreements, and holding the potential to again destabilize the Korean peninsula with great risk to those who live there and those of us who have a security interest there. Mr. President, I want to simply quote here from a letter Secretary Perry wrote to Senator Robert C. Byrd on this question dated July 15, 1995. The Secretary says that without the full amount of U.S. support, $25 million--a lot of money as you look at it separately but a very small amount of money when you think of the amount of money we would have to spend if the Koreas become destabilized and a conflict ensued. Secretary Perry said: Without U.S. support for KEDO, the organization will face a significant funding shortfall for HFO. Should KEDO be unable to fulfill its obligation to deliver oil, the risk of the North breaking the nuclear freeze would rise significantly. Such a scenario greatly increases the risk of a direct confrontation with North Korea, with costs measured in lives and billions of dollars. Mr. President, my underlying amendment would restore the amount of money in the bill from the $13 million up to $25 million, which is the amount the United States pledged to give annually to fund these purchases of heavy fuel oil and other expenses. It also makes clear-- and Senator Levin, had he been here was going to ask this question-- that the $25 million can be used not just for the heavy fuel oil and administrative expenses, but other expenses pursuant to the agreed framework between the parties in this matter. The second-degree amendment which was worked on this evening by the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] and myself, sets some standards for the distribution of that $25 million. I will yield to the Senator from Alaska in a minute to describe that. It basically requires a certification procedure by the President and grants the President a waiver if he feels it is in the national security interest to do so before the $25 million is expended to KEDO. I am pleased we have made such progress on this. I am honored that I have a distinguished group of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle for this amendment. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object on two points. The first, like the Senator from Nevada, I rise in part to thank the managers of the bill for accepting earlier in the day an amendment I offered with several colleagues to draw attention to the continuing freedom of indicted war criminals in Bosnia, and to urge we continue to make their apprehension and movement to the Hague a priority for all signatories. I appreciate if at some point, either before final passage or as the Senator from Nevada has indicated, on a date certain tomorrow, to be able to speak at greater length on that matter. Reserving the right to object, if I may ask the Senator from Kentucky, through the Chair, along with several colleagues I filed an amendment to reallocate funds for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. These two colleagues I believe were considering a second-degree amendment, and I wanted to state to the Senator from Kentucky with respect to that, I intend and hope to raise that matter before final passage.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise on a matter of some urgency. Several colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, and I, have introduced an amendment which we hope will advance the twin causes of peace and justice in the former Yugoslavia. I thank my co-sponsors, Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, Senator Specter, Senator Feinstein, Senator Moynihan, Senator Hatch, Senator Levin and Senator D'Amato, for joining in what is, and must be, a bi-partisan effort to bring indicted war criminals to justice. It should now be apparent that we cannot divorce peace from justice in this traumatized region. To fail to address fundamental issues of justice in the former Yugoslavia, and Bosnia in particular, will mean the certain failure of the current international efforts to secure a lasting peace in the region. I will explain why the problem is one requiring urgent attention in a moment. Let me first summarize the problem and the solutions required. The problem is that progress in the rebuilding of Bosnia has been slow at best. This slowness is, in part, due to the slowness in overcoming the antagonisms engendered throughout a tragic war and the effect of the creation of ethnic areas. Nevertheless, the majority of Bosnian peoples of all ethnic affiliations, desperately seek peace and accommodation. Bosnia had been a relatively unified, multiethnic state, with extraordinarily high percentages of interethnic marriages, prior to the manipulative actions of power hungry nationalist leaders during the late 1980's. It can again become a multiethnic state, if those seeking to build civil institutions and a civil society are allowed to do so by those initially responsible for these antagonisms and divisions. The problem, then, is simply stated: those attempting to build a civil society with functioning democratic institutions, are being prevented from accomplishing their mission. The prerequisites for such a development include fundamental protections of human and minority group rights, and the rule of law. But how can these conditions be achieved while war criminals are roaming freely in and out of the Bosnian Federation? Gross violations of law, such as the support and direction of snipings and massacres of innocents, have made Karadzic and Mladic war criminals. The underlying philosophies which guided those actions continue to drive these men today. Institution-building, a task that many Bosnians are working diligently towards, is imperiled by the very xenophobic, ultra- nationalist criminals that contributed to the dismantlement of Bosnia in the first place. Mr. President, I applaud the recent efforts of Ambassador Holbrooke to reduce the deleterious effects of war criminals that are allowed to freely impact on Bosnian politics. This is a substantial accomplishment that will do much to help us reach our ultimate goal. However, the signed statement in which Radovan Karadzic has agreed to remove himself from the political life of the country, is not the final end we must seek. Let's not forget the reasons we call for the apprehension of these war criminals. Support and direction of indiscriminate snipings of men, women and children during the long, agonizing, siege of Sarajevo, as well as, the unspeakable and calculated acts of genocide at Srebenica, in which men were exterminated and buried in mass graves, underline the reasons for the necessity of this resolution. Recent discoveries of the mass graves in Srebenica, with the grueling sight of twisted bodies, a sight not scene in Europe since the liberation of Dachau and Auschwitz, will ensure that antagonisms will remain alive so long as justice is hindered by timidity. No peace can survive in this torn land as long as justice is not achieved. The freedom of these criminals is an insult, a wound to those hundreds of thousands of people who lost relatives or who were forcibly removed from their homes during the war. That the future peace of the region should depend on the word of war criminals with a track record for breaking promises, seems an absurdity; surely fellow Bosnians will view the situation that way when elections arrive in September. Now, let me be clear, Mr. President, that the Bosnian people bear the brunt of the responsibility for putting their house in order. Yet, they need help in this process. We have provided that help, both with a military component, the NATO-led Implementation Force, or IFOR, and the civilian reconstruction effort, led by the High Representative, Carl Bildt. Let us remember that the peace agreement forged at Dayton, that led to this peace mission, was done for two reasons: One, because it is an important U.S. interest that we control the conflagration that could, and still can, spread to our allies in Europe; and Two, because the costs of our intervention are reasonable, given the benefits, and the intervention is politically and militarily feasible. But, as I said, the intent of our mission in Bosnia, the intent shared by many peace-seeking Bosnians, is being contravened by war criminals who are continuing to poison the politics of the region. Our purpose in Bosnia remains a national interest that can and should be pursued. However, we are failing to implement the peace plan hammered out at Dayton. We are failing to execute a plan that provides for feasible solutions. By so doing, we are guaranteeing a failure for institution-building in Bosnia. By allowing the virtual free reign of war criminals, we are not adhering to agreements we made which were designed to achieve success. This leaves Bosnians at the mercy of criminals and undermines confidence in the law. The results, to date, are obvious: refugees are unable to return to their homes, freedom of movement is severely limited due to a continuing solidification of ethnic camps within the country, and the conditions for free and fair elections are non-existent. Mr. Cotti, the OSCE Chairman, confirmed recently that conditions for a free and fair vote do not exist. Mr. President, here then is my first reason for pressing the urgency of this issue. With elections scheduled for September 14, we have little time to reverse this situation. The first task to reversing this situation must be the apprehension of war criminals, most notably the former President of the Bosnian Serb Republic, Radovan Karadzic, and the Bosnian Serb General, Ratko Mladic. The tools for effecting their apprehension are available to us at minimal cost. We are not asking for house-to-house searches by IFOR troops to apprehend these war criminals. All that we are demanding is that IFOR has as one of its primary missions, the apprehension of indicted war criminals in the conduct of its many routine patrols. Despite administration claims to the contrary, troops on the ground continue to confirm that apprehending war criminals is not a priority actively sought by military members on the ground. Apprehension of these war criminals is not only a prerequisite for success of peacekeeping in the country, it is a requirement of the signatories of the peace accord. Apprehension of the war criminals is, then, our first task because none of the other conditions required for peace in Bosnia, that I have discussed, can be addressed while the criminals remain influential. Despite their two indictments for genocide and crimes against humanity, by the International Criminal Tribunal, as well as, the issuance of international arrest warrants by the Tribunal, Karadzic and Mladic have continued to control or influence the organs of government, the media, as well as, party politics and party competition. They do not need to hold formal positions of power to exercise this influence. In this situation, moderates seeking peace continue to place their lives at risk. Certainly, the politics of a free people, with freely organized and competing parties, is impossible under these circumstances. Mr. President, we have the capabilities for shaping the peace in Bosnia. The need to shape conditions for the upcoming elections is an urgent one. This urgency has been proclaimed by a recent letter of President Clinton written by Human Rights Watch. This excellent letter states quite eloquently the necessity for immediate apprehension of the war criminals. More importantly, this letter has 72 signatories. The groups that have signed on to this letter are diverse, including, Amnesty International, B'nai B'rith, and Doctors of the World. My second reason for pressing the urgency of pursuing war criminals lies in the threat to U.S. and NATO credibility as our threats are made and then ignored. These recent occurrences are very reminiscent of the failure of previous peace efforts that spoke loudly but carried a little stick. The costs of failed prestige, however, are significantly higher. Now, it is the resolve of the U.S. and NATO that is on the line. It is essential both to NATO's long term future, as well as, the success of the Bosnian mission, that the NATO-led IFOR not become a paper tiger as did its predecessor, UNPROFOR. U.S. leadership and credibility are also directly impacted by the actions and reactions in Bosnia. The United States threatened to reimpose sanctions on Belgrade unless Karadzic and Mladic were removed from power by the end of June. Another deadline has come and gone, and we are again failing to follow through on our threats. What might have emerged from the recent G-7 summit as a powerful statement with respect to apprehending war criminals in Bosnia, instead became a replay of U.S. credibility being snubbed by thugs in Bosnia. We hope that another snubbing is not soon to follow Ambassador Holbrooke's efforts, although I am not hopeful. The final reason that I am pressing this issue as one requiring urgent attention is that apprehension of the war criminals is the strategic action required, at this time, which can determine whether peace in Bosnia will be fleeting or long-lived. Mr. President, I fear that if we do not act now on the issue of apprehension, our forces will have been sent to Bosnia for naught. Elections, with the current mix of ethnic-based politics, will only solidify opposing camps bent on ethnic exclusion. Further conflict over ethnic enclaves will certainly ensue. Tragically, any uncertainties on this issue will almost certainly embolden the ultra-nationalists to set up their terror campaigns against dissenting, moderate voices. The greatest irony of all could be that we intervened for peace only to ensure that ethnic based divisions became not only more solid, but also legitimated by the very elections that we insisted upon. A Washington Post editorial stated the problem well. Referring to the recent disregard of IFOR and the High Representative by Karadzic, the Post has this to say: Recall that peace was not meant simply to consolidate and extend ``ethnic cleansing,'' a process that carries with it the confirmation of massive injustice and the prospect of further war. It was meant to open a path back to a multi- ethnic federal Bosnia. The Karadzic taunt is taking Bosnia exactly the wrong way. It is making the would-be peacemakers in and out of NATO, not least Clinton, bit players in a Karadzic-led charade. Mr. President, we can assist in the creation of conditions for free and fair elections. Eliminating the taunts from the ``Karadzics'' and the ``Mladics'' of Bosnia is the first step. And, no new initiatives need be diplomatically crafted. We must insist upon enforcement of our agreements made at Dayton. Security Council Resolution 1031 charged IFOR with ensuring compliance with the Dayton agreement, which includes a requirement that all parties cooperate with the Tribunal. Article 29 of the Tribunals' statute sets forth the various forms of cooperation that are due, including ``the identification and location of persons,'' ``the arrest or detention of persons,'' and ``the surrender of the transfer of the accused to the International Tribunal.'' That said, the resolution that my colleagues and I have put forward is designed to see that our international agreements are enforced. It calls for four actions, each of which has already been agreed upon in other international fora. First, it calls for the increased and continued U.S. support for the efforts of the International Criminal Tribunal to investigate and bring to justice war criminals. Second, it calls for support by the United States for economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the so-called Republika Srpska unless those regimes comply with their obligations to apprehend the war criminals. Third, it calls on the signatories to Dayton and those guided by the relevant U.N. resolutions, to exercise their authority to bring the war criminals to justice. Finally, it calls for the prohibition of the offending parties, specifically the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the so-called Republika Srpska, from admission to international organizations and fora, until these parties comply with their obligations under the Dayton Peace accord.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senator Mack as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act of 1996 [DCERA]. The District of Columbia belongs to each and every one of us. As citizens of the United States, we have a stake in the successes, and a stake in the failures, of Washington, DC. It is America's city. For a variety of reasons, not all of them easily explained, Washington is in desperate financial straits. The here and now financial prospects are grim for the city and the future gets grimmer. This is largely because middle-class families, the backbone of any successful community, are fleeing the District in alarming numbers. The legislation we are introducing today would instantly transform our Nation's capital, making it a more appealing place to live, to invest, to build, to buy, and to work. This bill is designed to reverse the flow of middle-class residents and businesses, who are currently fleeing the city for the suburbs. Those still in the District would have new incentives to stay. And many others now living elsewhere would have a very strong incentive to move into the District with their families and with their businesses. We cannot make the schools better in the District overnight. We cannot promise crime-free streets overnight. What we can do is provide middle-class tax relief in the District, as a way to lure these middle- class taxpayers to the District as a way to reestablish a tax base in the District. And once we bring these people back, safer streets and better schools can follow. Surely we can wait. We can wait until the situation in the district is so dire, when nearly all of the tax base in the District has fled and we will be asked to take over the city altogether. Waiting strikes me as penny wise and pound foolish. Instead of waiting, we should consider the merits of the DCERA which we are introducing today. This legislation is modeled on legislation which has been introduced in the House with broad, bipartisan support, by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. Both the House and the Senate version of the DCERA establish a maximum Federal tax rate of 15 percent. Both bills double the personal exemption which would eliminate Federal income taxes for single residents who make up to $15,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who make up to $30,000 a year. At the same time, the bill retains the mortgage and charitable deductions and would allow a taxpayer to file under the old system, if preferred. In contrast to Representative Norton's bill, our legislation establishes a zero capital gains rate for D.C. investments held by D.C. or non-D.C. residents for 3 years. Representative Norton's bill restricts this capital gains treatment to investments held by D.C. residents only. In crafting our version of this legislation, we were concerned this would limit potential investment in the District. For this reason, the Senate treatment is broader. Also in contrast to the House DCERA, our bill includes a $5,000 credit for first time District home purchases and includes a provision to clean-up abandoned brownfields within the District. Members of Congress not representing the District could not take advantage of the tax incentives in the bill and we are working toward an explicit understanding that the District would not take advantage of the Federal tax incentives in this bill by raising local taxes. I very much see this bill as a first step. Some of the urban problems Washington faces are unique to Washington because Washington has no State, no broader tax base, to draw on. At the same time, many of Washington's problems are problems that are faced by cities all across this country. If this approach works in Washington, I hope we can try it in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford as well. I should note that, unlike some proponents of this legislation, I am at best an agnostic on a flat tax. I believe progressivity in our tax rates is inherently fair and am pleased that the legislation we are introducing today has elements of that progressivity by providing such a generous personal exemption. At the same time, a good number of our cities are facing the loss of their middle-class population and the only way to rebuild that base may be through bold measures like a flat tax which has clear and compelling benefits for the middle class. The people we are really anxious to bring back to our cities are the 28 percenters. Under the current Tax Code a typical family in the 28- percent bracket would be a couple with two children who make roughly between $39,000 and $95,000 after deductions. Our bill would create a very favorable tax incentive for these people to stay in, or move to, the District. Mr. President, the most important thing there is to say about urban policy in this country is that we really do not have an urban policy. We know what has not worked; today we are introducing legislation that we believe will work and there is no better place to start than in Washington, DC, a city that belongs to all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senator Mack as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act of 1996 [DCERA]. The District of Columbia belongs to each and every one of us. As citizens of the United States, we have a stake in the successes, and a stake in the failures, of Washington, DC. It is America's city. For a variety of reasons, not all of them easily explained, Washington is in desperate financial straits. The here and now financial prospects are grim for the city and the future gets grimmer. This is largely because middle-class families, the backbone of any successful community, are fleeing the District in alarming numbers. The legislation we are introducing today would instantly transform our Nation's capital, making it a more appealing place to live, to invest, to build, to buy, and to work. This bill is designed to reverse the flow of middle-class residents and businesses, who are currently fleeing the city for the suburbs. Those still in the District would have new incentives to stay. And many others now living elsewhere would have a very strong incentive to move into the District with their families and with their businesses. We cannot make the schools better in the District overnight. We cannot promise crime-free streets overnight. What we can do is provide middle-class tax relief in the District, as a way to lure these middle- class taxpayers to the District as a way to reestablish a tax base in the District. And once we bring these people back, safer streets and better schools can follow. Surely we can wait. We can wait until the situation in the district is so dire, when nearly all of the tax base in the District has fled and we will be asked to take over the city altogether. Waiting strikes me as penny wise and pound foolish. Instead of waiting, we should consider the merits of the DCERA which we are introducing today. This legislation is modeled on legislation which has been introduced in the House with broad, bipartisan support, by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. Both the House and the Senate version of the DCERA establish a maximum Federal tax rate of 15 percent. Both bills double the personal exemption which would eliminate Federal income taxes for single residents who make up to $15,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who make up to $30,000 a year. At the same time, the bill retains the mortgage and charitable deductions and would allow a taxpayer to file under the old system, if preferred. In contrast to Representative Norton's bill, our legislation establishes a zero capital gains rate for D.C. investments held by D.C. or non-D.C. residents for 3 years. Representative Norton's bill restricts this capital gains treatment to investments held by D.C. residents only. In crafting our version of this legislation, we were concerned this would limit potential investment in the District. For this reason, the Senate treatment is broader. Also in contrast to the House DCERA, our bill includes a $5,000 credit for first time District home purchases and includes a provision to clean-up abandoned brownfields within the District. Members of Congress not representing the District could not take advantage of the tax incentives in the bill and we are working toward an explicit understanding that the District would not take advantage of the Federal tax incentives in this bill by raising local taxes. I very much see this bill as a first step. Some of the urban problems Washington faces are unique to Washington because Washington has no State, no broader tax base, to draw on. At the same time, many of Washington's problems are problems that are faced by cities all across this country. If this approach works in Washington, I hope we can try it in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford as well. I should note that, unlike some proponents of this legislation, I am at best an agnostic on a flat tax. I believe progressivity in our tax rates is inherently fair and am pleased that the legislation we are introducing today has elements of that progressivity by providing such a generous personal exemption. At the same time, a good number of our cities are facing the loss of their middle-class population and the only way to rebuild that base may be through bold measures like a flat tax which has clear and compelling benefits for the middle class. The people we are really anxious to bring back to our cities are the 28 percenters. Under the current Tax Code a typical family in the 28- percent bracket would be a couple with two children who make roughly between $39,000 and $95,000 after deductions. Our bill would create a very favorable tax incentive for these people to stay in, or move to, the District. Mr. President, the most important thing there is to say about urban policy in this country is that we really do not have an urban policy. We know what has not worked; today we are introducing legislation that we believe will work and there is no better place to start than in Washington, DC, a city that belongs to all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has made progress in two areas critical to reforming welfare--teen pregnancy and statutory rape. Both sides of the aisle have worked together to bring about this progress, and I am left hopeful that we can infuse future negotiations on other welfare issues with this bipartisan spirit of cooperation. Mindful of the American public's demand for legislative progress this year, I joined other colleagues in sponsoring initiatives that would not only benefit children, but also reduce welfare spending. Budget specialists and community leaders emphasized the necessity of dealing with two underlying welfare problems--teen pregnancy and statutory rape. In examining these problems, we answered two necessary questions: First, who is on welfare? and Second, how did they get there? Teenage out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a primary cause of long-term welfare dependency. Currently, 53 percent of AFDC funds go to households begun by teenage births. Senator Conrad and I proposed an amendment to last year's Senate bill which requires teen mothers to live at home or in adult-supervised settings, establishes national goals regarding education strategies and reduction of pregnancy rates, and rewards States who meet these goals with a cash bonus. The Senate included these provisions in the bill in front of us and strengthened the Federal role in combating this problem. However, teen pregnancy prevention is a battle that must be fought at the local level, as troubled teens demand direct individual attention and investment. By accepting my amendment which compels States to devote 1 percent of their Social Security block grant--$23.8 million--to prevention services, the Senate has spurred them to assume this responsibility. We are succeeding in aiding President Clinton as he endeavors, in his own words, ``to get all the leaders of all sectors of our society involved in this fight.'' The Federal Government, too, recently assumed more responsibility in accepting my amendment which targets the crime of statutory rape, a direct and indirect cause of teen pregnancy. The great majority of babies born to teen mothers are fathered by adult men, and the partners of the youngest mothers under the age of 14 are on average 10 to 15 years older than them. This Senate is sending sexual predators an unequivocally stern message--that we choose abstinence for children, and that we will not tolerate those who take advantage of a child's inability to form and articulate a decision about her body. Previously, we concurred that it is the Sense of the Senate that States should aggressively enforce statutory rape laws. Now, we are taking additional steps. The amendment requires the Justice Department to pay strict attention to this crime. They are to research the link between statutory rape and teen pregnancy, as well as those predatory men who commit these crimes repeatedly. They will also educate State and local law enforcement officials to effectively prevent and prosecute statutory rape. Again, we include the States in this fight. This amendment compels the States to create and expand criminal law enforcement, public education, and counseling initiatives and to restructure teen pregnancy prevention programs to include men. Finally, States must certify to the Federal Government that they are engaged in such activities to stop statutory rape. By focusing on the problems of teen pregnancy and statutory rape through these amendments, we are economizing our future welfare expenditures and improving the lives of poor children. The reality of mothers sacrificing educational opportunities to give birth to fatherless babies and live in poverty is not a choice. It is partly a result of the greater problems these amendments address. I appreciate, and the American public will appreciate our bipartisan unity in demanding responsibility from fathers. They must own up to their paternity, pay child support, and set a good example for their children by working in private sector or community service jobs. A certain group of men must refrain from sexually preying upon young girls and dispossessing them of their fundamental right to make sexual, educational, and career choices. Problems remain in this bill. I appeal to my colleagues to work together so that we can present not just a few amendments, not just one improvement, but an entire bill to the American citizenry that truly reforms the current system.