Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Thomas Russell Romano, executive director of the adult day center in Branford, CT. Through his efforts over the past 15 years, the East Shore Regional Adult Day Center has become a model organization for the care of the elderly, as well as for physically and mentally challenged adults. The adult day center has organized many activities to foster community growth. Many activities involve children from area schools as part of the center's intergenerational program which has been organized. An event such as this one provides an invaluable experience for not only the adults, but the children as well. In addition, the adult day center has started the expansion of its therapeutic recreation outdoors program. Various community groups--churches, service organizations, businesses, and others--have received this project very well, showing their enthusiasm with financial support. Mr. Romano and the staff at the center has provided respite from 24 hour care for over 600 families in the Greater New Haven area. The programs that they have organized not only foster the growth of these individuals, but it also prevents the premature institutionalization of these individuals as well. The adult day center has been an innovator in meeting the social and health care needs of this special population by providing services such as medical monitoring and recreational therapies, among others. Thomas Russell Romano, in his position as president and C.E.O. of this organization, has twice been distinguished with Certificate of Award by the Connecticut Department on Aging for his dedication and work with the facility. In the future, I hope that the work of Mr. Romano shall continue to flourish and expand in scope to reach a more expansive area. On the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the East Shore Regional Adult Day Center, Mr. Romano and the entire staff should be commended on the tireless work and dedication which they have shown in furthering the development of not only the individuals who participate in the program, but the development of the community as well.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the country's primary welfare program-- aid to families with dependent children [AFDC]--is a failure, both for those participating in it and for those paying for it. What started as a well-intentioned program in the 1930's to help widows today has become an enormous program that takes basic American values--work, reward for work, family, and personal responsibility--and turns them on their head. The incentives in the current welfare system contradict our shared values and motivates harmful behavior by welfare recipients. Today's welfare program financially rewards parents who don't work, don't marry, and have children out-of-wedlock. The program is failing to move welfare recipients off dependency and into the work force. It is a factor in the breakdown of two-parent families and the buildup of teen pregnancy. AFDC started as a program to assist families in poverty but now is seen as a program that perpetuates poverty. Mr. President, there is bipartisan agreement that our welfare system must be changed so welfare incentives reward our society's shared values of work, marriage, and personal responsibility. Both parties have included work requirements as integral parts of their welfare proposals. I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike wish to use our Nation's welfare programs to combat social ills--particularly the growth in out-of- wedlock pregnancies among teenagers. I am convinced that members of both parties are concerned with the impact of any type of welfare reform on children--who comprise 9 of the 14 million recipients of Federal AFDC dollars. The first priority for welfare reform is to put welfare recipients to work. The public demands that we stop giving cash to adults on welfare, and start giving them jobs, and they're right. Virtually all welfare experts, both liberal and conservative, agree that work and its rewards are the solution to the welfare crisis. We have considerable experience with work programs. The Job Opportunities Basic Skills Program, which has come to be known as JOBS, was passed in 1988 under the leadership of Senator Moynihan. Evaluations of the JOBS Program that have been conducted have shown that the programs have had some success; they have begun to make a difference. Our experience with that program has taught us several important lessons. First, programs that emphasize placing welfare recipients in jobs as quickly as possible are the most successful and cost-effective. Inevitably, setting placement as a priority creates a degree of conflict with other program goals such as assisting in training and education. Yet, long delays in job placement can occur while welfare recipients are routed through a succession of training programs. Second, assessing recipients' individual needs and addressing those needs is critical to placing them successfully. Do they have appropriate child care? Do they need supplementary education or training? Do they have the skills and ability necessary for the proposed job? Little purpose is served in placing a welfare recipient in a job if their child care needs can not be addressed, transportation to and from the job is unworkable, or special skills are needed. Third, successful programs form strong links with local employers and work hard to maintain those links with the local employers, who are the source of the jobs. The work requirements in the bill before us will apply to over 1.5 million adults. By comparison, approximately 4 million individuals currently work at or below the minimum wage. Finding jobs for an additional 1.5 million adults, without simply displacing current workers, is going to be a massive challenge. I am pleased that the current legislation includes funds for a performance bonus to States that move people into real jobs and off of welfare. In the current welfare system, income maintenance is the focus--processing applications and mailing checks to people. The welfare proposals that I voted against last fall, equated reform with savings rather than returning recipients to work. We must change that focus, and put a premium on getting people into the work force, where their lives can be sounder on a sounder foundation. States that embrace the ``work first'' philosophy and turn their welfare systems into effective employment offices ought to be rewarded. Otherwise, a welfare maintenance system will be perpetuated. The performance bonus requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop and publish a formula that allocates the bonus fund to States based on the number of welfare recipients who become ineligible for cash assistance because of employment in an unsubsidized job. The incentive payments provided by this amendment will be distributed based on the State's success in getting long-term recipients off welfare and into lasting jobs and on the unemployment conditions of a State. I am also pleased to introduce amendments to reduce teen pregnancy and help young mothers and their children avoid the cycle of long-term welfare dependency. As part of last year's welfare debate, I joined with Senator Conrad to introduce an amendment that proposed numerous provisions to prevent teen pregnancy. Most of the provisions in that amendment are included in the bill before us, and I appreciate that very much. The legislation requires teen mothers to live at home or in safe, adult-supervised living arrangements--so-called second chance homes. It establishes national goals regarding education strategies and reduction of pregnancy rates. It includes a sense of the Senate provision attacking pregnancies that result from statutory rape. However, there is more that can be done. The birth rate for single teenage parents has tripled since 1960, signaling that the battle against teenage pregnancy is ever more critical. The power to change any community must involve an internal structure at the grassroots level. The battle against teenage pregnancy must begin at the local level, because changing the attitudes and behavior of teens requires an intimate, hands-on involvement. My amendment requires States to dedicate 3 percent of their share of the title XX social service block grant--an amount equal to $71.4 million--to programs and services that stress to minors the difficulty of being a teenage parent. By teaching minors to delay parenthood, these programs will infuse our children with a clear understanding of the consequences of teenage childbearing. I will also offer an amendment to reduce the incidence of statutory rape in the Nation which many studies link to teenage pregnancies in the Nation. Shockingly, the majority of the men who father the families of teenage mothers are adults. The National Center for Health and Statistics reported in 1991 that almost 70 percent of births to teenage girls were fathered by men age 20 or older. Moreover, the younger the mother, the greater the age gap between her and the father. There are men who are impregnating girls age 14 and younger, and they are on average 10 to 15 years older, according to a 1990 study by the California Vital Statistics Section. Similar studies bear out this result. These adult men are impregnating an increasing number of girls age 11-14. Despite a slight drop in the overall teen birth rate in the last few years, the birth rate for girls age 14 and under increased 26 percent in the late 1980's. These girls are not just young mothers-- they are children. And sexual predators are taking advantage of their inability to form and articulate a decision about their bodies. In order to choose abstinence for young girls and to make this choice clear to adult men, the Federal Government must focus some resources on predatory adult men in order to both stop and hopefully dissuade them from their illegal behavior. Kathleen Sylvester of the Progressive Policy Institute says that the most recent research indicates that in those States where awareness of this problem has been raised, prosecutors have organized themselves to be aggressive and obtained adequate sentences for convicted offenders. California, Connecticut, and New York have all established special units in their district attorneys' offices to target sexual predators and counsel their victims. Florida is getting tough as well. Pending legislation would charge a man over the age of 18 who has intercourse with a girl under the age of 15 with second-degree statutory rape, a felony. To spur the other States to follow their example and stop these criminals, the Federal Government must send them unequivocal proof that we are serious in this intent. To this end, I applaud the inclusion in the present bill that it is the sense of the Senate that States should aggressively enforce statutory rape laws. I propose an amendment which would add three additional steps for us to take. First, it appropriates $6 million to the Attorney General of the United States to fight statutory rape, particularly by predatory older men who commit repeat offenses. The appropriation will enable the Justice Department to pay strict attention to the crime of statutory rape, as part of its violence against women initiative. The money should be used to research both the linkage between statutory rape and teen pregnancy, as well as those predatory older men who are repeat offenders. It should also provide for the education of State and local law enforcement officials on the prevention and prosecution of statutory rape. Second, my amendment requires the States to work to reduce the incidence of statutory rape. Activities would include the expansion of criminal law enforcement, public education, and counseling services, as well as the restructuring of teen pregnancy prevention programs to include men. Third, it requires States to certify to the Federal Government that they are engaged in such activities to stop statutory rape. A 1992 sampling of 500 teen mothers revealed that two-thirds had histories of sexual abuse with adult men averaging age 27. Another study conducted in Washington State studied 535 teen mothers and discovered that 62 percent of them experienced rape or molestation before their first pregnancy, and the mean age of the offenders was 27. Clearly, the reality of mothers sacrificing educational opportunities to give birth to fatherless babies and live in poverty is not a choice but a symptom and a result of a greater problem. Large numbers of older men are crossing legal and social boundaries to engage in sexual activity with girls below the age of consent, and thereby emotionally rob them of their power to say ``no'' in later years. This bill makes strides in demanding the responsibility of fathers. It stipulates and enforces their duty to own up to their paternity, to pay child support, and to set a good example for their children by working in private sector or community service jobs. It should further impress upon a certain group of men their duty to refrain from sexually preying on young girls and dispossessing them of their fundamental right to make sexual, educational, and career choices. Although the American public supports tough welfare measures, they are reluctant to cut people off and leave defenseless children without some means of basic support. Welfare reform, therefore, must balance cutbacks with programs that create training and employment opportunities. The reform movement must include a component that provides those on public assistance with the necessary skills and training required to genuinely compete in the work force. Welfare reform demands accountability not just from the poor, but from government as well. The Senate bill is better than the House bill in many ways. Welfare must change to focus on work and on personal responsibility--but it need not be unfair to children. The Senate bill contains more funding for child care, it maintains existing child protection programs such as adoption assistance, foster care, and child abuse and neglect. It does not require, but gives States the option to employ a family cap and to deny payments to minor, single mothers, and it does not allow States to penalize mothers who can't work because they can't find or afford child care. There are still serious problems with the Senate bill most of which have to do with the prospects for children who parents are not acting responsibly. Under the proposed bill, States can opt out of the Federal Food Stamp Program and receive a State block grant. This provision will put many poor children and elderly at risk. Under a flat block grant, States will be unable to meet the needs of poor families during periods of recession or high unemployment. The Food Research and Action Center estimates that S. 1795 will reduce food and nutrition assistance to 14 million children and 2 million elderly persons due to the overall cuts in the Federal Food Stamp Program. The bill repeals the Mickey Leland Child Hunger Relief Act which removed the cap on the food stamp shelter deduction for low income families. Food stamp shelter deduction provides families who are not receiving housing aid additional food stamp benefits. The Senate Finance-passed bill will reduce cash assistance for families who qualify for this deduction--forcing them to choose between providing food for their children or paying the rent. The new legislation will also have a very unfair and potentially very harmful impact on nearly a million legal immigrants. The bill bans legal immigrants, many of whom have been here over 10 years, from the Supplemental Security Income [SSI] assistance program, Medicaid and food stamps. Recipients of SSI, most of who are poor elderly or disabled immigrants will remain impoverished. The rapid phase-in-period will leave many who are currently receiving assistance without any basic means of support. The bill also does little to maintain a contingency fund and serious maintenance of effort requirements for the States. And it fails to provide sufficient bonuses to States that are successful in moving welfare recipients into unsubsidized jobs. This bill is far from perfect, but it can bring some measure of consistency back to our values and the incentives in our welfare system. It can lead a national effort to cut down on the number of people on the welfare rolls and add to the number in to jobs. It can attack the intertwined problems of teenage pregnancy and welfare dependency. There is a tragic link between welfare and a host of other problems facing our society today, including crime, illegitimacy, drug abuse, poverty, and illiteracy. This legislation attempts to severe that link. In effect, we're trying to destroy the welfare cycle and return welfare to its original purpose--a temporary form of assistance for the very poor as they seek to work their way out of hard times. If the promise of the legislation is realized, millions of American families will move off welfare into real jobs, and we will see a resulting decrease in poverty, crime, illegitimacy, and an increase in economic development and family stability. I hope that my amendments will be adopted so that we can obtain improvements in the conference committee with the House of Representatives.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Nebraska for yielding. I rise to support the work first amendment, which I think is balanced and valuable in the sense of expressing the values of the American people's statement on the problem of welfare. It is genuine reform. It targets and puts the pressure on those who should feel the pressure. That is the parents who are on welfare. It does what I think the American people, in the best expression of our values, want us to do, and that is to protect the children and not punish the children who are the innocent victims of the current status quo. As I look at the various proposals before the Senate, the underlying bill, the amendment we have put together, it seems to me there is so much in common that we ought to be able in the interest of those on welfare and the interest to the Federal Treasury and the interest of creating a welfare program in this country that truly expresses the values of the American people, to get together and make this happen. I still think there is time to send the President a good bill that he will feel in the fullness of his conscience that he can sign. Mr. President, if we talk about welfare reform, I think we have to focus at its heart on the question of babies born out of wedlock. Particularly, of teenage pregnancy. Because so many of those on welfare--and the numbers are in the Record--are children and mothers of children who were born when the mothers were teenagers and unwed--an extraordinarily damaging epidemic that has swept this country, damaging to the young women whose future is hobbled and severely limited by the fact they have given birth to babies as teenagers, unmarried, and bringing into the world these children who are subjected to some of the worst imaginable conditions, with very little hope, born to a 12, 13, 14, 15, 16-year-old girl without a man in the house and living in poverty--what chance does that child have, on the average to make something of his or her life? All the proposals here, including the work first proposal, contain a basic principle, which is that unmarried, minor moms are required to live at home or under adult supervision, and must stay in school or training in order to continue to receive welfare benefits. A great idea which I fully support. Mr. President, I intend to offer two amendments which I think strengthen this battle against teen pregnancy. I saw a study last week that said that we spend $29 billion every year because of babies born to unwed mothers, a startling number. Think what we could do if we could prevent this from happening. I have two amendments. The first one would require States to dedicate 3 percent of their share of title 20 social service block grants, which is an amount equal to $71.4 million, to programs and services that stress to minors the difficulties of becoming a teenage parent. Hopefully, these programs will infuse our children with a clear understanding of the consequences, let alone the immorality of bearing a child as a teenager who is unmarried. The second amendment gets at a problem we have recently uncovered in our country, which is that a startling number of the babies born to teenage mothers are fathered by older men. This used to be something when I was growing up that we called statutory rape. It sort of went out of fashion to think of that in the age of widespread consensual sex, and none of the norms that used to exist. Very often in these cases it is not consensual. It is an older man forcing himself on a younger woman with drastic consequences for that woman and the baby. My second amendment would appropriate $6 million, a small sum, to the Attorney General to direct a national program of training State and local prosecutors to revive and enforce statutory rape laws. It will also--and I think this may be the most significant part, as part of the certification procedure that is in the underlying bill, in which the Governor of a State has to certify that programs in his or her State to qualify for aid under the program--it requires the State to certify that there is within the State a program to reduce the incidence of statutory rape of minors by expanding criminal law enforcement, public education, and counseling services, as well as restructuring teen pregnancy prevention programs to include the education of men. Mr. President, I hope one or both of these might be accepted as the day goes on, by the majority, because they are not presented in a spirit of partisanship. Obviously, this is a problem that is not partisan and is very human. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Nebraska. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. If it is possible to speak for up to 5 minutes, I would be grateful.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and colleague from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, for allowing me to go forward for just a few minutes. I want to follow, very briefly, on what the Senator from New Mexico has said and basically to say that I associate myself with his remarks, as sad as that conclusion is here. This is a case of the TEAM Act where, it seems to me, both sides, as it were, labor and management, had some merit to their arguments. There should have been a way to put this together and bring about some change in the law that recognizes, respects, and facilitates the extraordinary changes--in some ways the revolution--that have gone on in labor- management circles in this country that the team proposals and programs are part of, and thousands of employers throughout America, and yet to have done that in a way that does not threaten the organized labor movement and does not inadvertently, one hopes, open the door to some of the practices of the past, as Senator Bingaman has referred to, such as sham unions or employer dominated unions. This was a case where reasonable people should have been able to sit down and reach a reasonable conclusion that would have brought about change. I really thank the Senator from New Mexico for the leadership he showed in this in trying to make this happen. He is a consummately reasonable person and has tried to pursue in a rational way that course in this matter. I followed his actions and tried to support them, in terms of the work that he was doing as they were going along. I regret that in the end he concluded that the amendment that he had prepared really could not be introduced because it was not going to facilitate the kind of movement that is needed here to create change. So the result, unfortunately, in this polarized environment is-- polarized for exactly the reasons that the Senator from New Mexico states; one, because the debate over this bill has in some sense continued a kind of labor-management negotiation with mistrust on both sides; and, also, it is obviously an election year. The result of all this, I presume, is that Congress will pass this bill, but the President will veto it. Then we will be at the status quo, which is not, in this case, terrible because as some I talked to in this debate have said, well, maybe a lot of businesses are running good employer-employee teams in their workplaces who are technically violating the law, but the NLRB is not taking action against them unless, in those relatively few cases, there is a complaint associated with an organization driven by a union, and then the penalty is to order them to stop doing what they are doing. I wish we could have come to a better result. The truth is that these employer-employee teams--I have seen some of them in Connecticut. When they work well, they work very well. They not only are great for the workers; they are great for the management and great for American competitiveness and great for job creation and the sustaining of existing jobs. However, like everything else, they can be misused. They can be misused in a way that runs right into some of the original goals of section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act. Again, there ought to have been a way we could bring this together. I regret the Senator from New Mexico reached the conclusion he did. I regret that there will not be a proposal here on the floor that I feel I can support. I am very, very sad that we as a body and I as one Senator reach that conclusion. I can only say that I hope that all of us can come back, both sides, outside of the Chamber and all of us inside the Chamber, next year and work with the executive branch at that time to fashion a bill that will acknowledge the extraordinary steps forward in labor-management relations, and yet the continuing need to protect workers, both in their right to organize and in their right to be members of employee management associations that are not employer dominated. I thank the Chair. Again, I thank Senator Faircloth. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I know all of my colleagues in the Senate are saddened to hear of the passing last night of Mollie Beattie who, until her very recent resignation for medical reasons, was Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She has been a good friend, a devoted citizen and public servant, and a champion for God's creatures when others did not always have the courage and grace to step forward. It is my sincere hope that her vision of a brighter and more abundant future for our Nation's wildlife heritage will become a reality for us, and for the many generations of Americans that follow. I would like her family and her husband, Rick, to know that our thoughts and prayers are with him, and Mollie, always. I am reminded of the quote by Admiral Rickover that: ``the more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.'' I think Mollie's professional life is a testament to this great truth. She toiled as a public servant not just in Federal Government, but in State government and academia, to ensure that democracy represented our deep concern for our wildlife heritage, and that we avoided senseless losses that might otherwise occur in the heat of conflict. She worked to ensure that our scientific knowledge, education, and public awareness recognize the values and complexities of our relationship with fish and wildlife, and with our broader natural heritage. It is the real human sacrifice of people like Mollie, working day in and day out with honesty, integrity, intelligence, and sensitivity, that spares us the crisis of mismanagement and neglect that all too often has avoidable, irreversible consequences. Much of the peace and abundant life we enjoy as Americans is founded on such devotion. On Monday of this week my good friend, Senator Stevens, honored a last request of Mollie's by introducing a bill to name 8 million acres of the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area. Senator Stevens is to be commended for such a decent and honorable act, and I am pleased to offer my support. I understand Mollie had a special connection with this part of the Brooks Range after visiting it a few years ago, and that she wished to have her ashes spread there. Of all the many special natural areas in this Nation Mollie visited, this pristine landscape on the North Slope of Alaska must have made the greatest impression on her. It is no secret that other parts of this refuge have been the source of discord in the Senate. But I think it is entirely fitting that we might join hands to bless one special part of it in Mollie's name. By doing so, we can remember that this land was saved in peace and remembrance, and not in conflict. Mollie will be missed, but not forgotten.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am offering my support to and cosponsorship of Senator Cohen's amendment to the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization bill which authorizes additional disposals of material from the national defense stockpile. The revenues generated by these sales are needed to offset the revenues lost as a result of waiving certain surcharges on sales of U.S. defense equipment to foreign countries aimed at recouping some of the original costs of developing those products. Last year, this Congress correctly saw fit to expand the President's authority to waive these surcharges when, and only when doing so would improve the prospects of winning contracts from foreign countries or lowering the cost of acquiring similar equipment by the Department of Defense. With the downsizing of our military force structure and the concomitant reduction in demand for equipment, it has become increasingly important for us to ensure that we can maintain a minimum industrial base and the skilled workforce necessary to preserve our production capabilities so as to provide for an adequate defense of our Nation. These sales will help us maintain these manufacturing and manpower capabilities. In addition, the requirement for the stockpiles that would be reduced by this amendment was established in case they would be needed in a protracted war with the Soviet Union. Clearly, this threat has significantly abated, and the stockpiles in question are in excess of any near term requirement. Mr. President, for these reasons it is important that these stockpile sales be authorized. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise, I might say with regret, to oppose the amendment introduced by the Senator from Georgia, now temporarily laid aside. I rise with regret because I have such respect for the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Nunn. But on this issue I respectfully disagree. I associate myself with the eloquent remarks of the Senator from Colorado. The questions raised by the amendment introduced by the Senator from Georgia and others are important questions. They go to the heart of this great opportunity, challenge, and debate that is coming on the question of NATO enlargement. I certainly agree this body has to consider all these questions. But I feel very strongly that this is not the right time nor is it the right bill on which to carry out this debate. Let me state clearly from the outset where I stand. I believe a strong transatlantic partnership serves America's interests. For reasons of history and economy, war or instability in Europe inevitably harms American interests. In this century alone, the United States has fought two world wars and the cold war, all of which had their origins in Europe. Today, we are involved in a conflict in the former Yugoslavia, keeping the peace, helping to provide the ground on which a country can regain its feet after the slaughter and aggression it suffered, in Europe. There, as part of an international implementation force, we are again expressing what is a basic fact of American history, which is that what happens in Europe matters to us. That is part of what NATO is all about. We are now developing a consensus, slowly, methodically--too slowly, frankly, for some, including this Senator--but a consensus moving forward, nonetheless, in the United States and with our allies and like-minded countries of Europe, on the future of the North Atlantic alliance, this extraordinarily successful alliance often referred to as the most successful defensive alliance in the history of the world. In fact, NATO did deter Soviet aggression, the prospect of Soviet aggression westward into Europe throughout the course of the cold war. I hope, over the coming months, we will be able to work together, Democrats and Republicans, the President and Congress, to advance the adaptation as well as the enlargement of NATO to meet the challenges of the post-cold-war world. The amendment before us raises questions. But I do think it also expresses the underlying skepticism of its sponsors about either the idea of enlarging NATO or the pace of NATO enlargement. The amendment, however, does not express the views of many of us in this body who have thought through the same issues and come, respectfully, to a different conclusion. That is why I rise in opposition to the amendment. In my view, we must look to the future and expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in two significant ways. I think we need to deepen this great partnership to develop a reliable coalition of like-minded countries to share the burdens of maintaining international security and we need to enlarge NATO by admitting new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe to full membership. I believe we should enlarge NATO for two basic reasons. The first I will call moral. Senator Brown referred to this. Throughout the cold war, we promised these nations our support to achieve freedom and democracy. The millions of people who come together to form these nations were forced to live under the yoke of Soviet dictatorship. And we reached out to them and tried to give them encouragement during those years. We referred to them as ``captive nations.'' That is a term that seems so wonderfully dated today. Today they are no longer captive. They are free and independent. They are working their way to strengthen democracy, market economies, freedom, full expression, better lives for their citizens. The question is whether we will remember this promise we made to them, that if only they would persist through the dark years of Soviet domination, Communist domination, we would greet them, we would embrace them, we would stand with them. So I think we owe these people the opportunity to join with us in this alliance of free nations. The second reason I believe NATO should be expanded is strategic. By enlarging NATO to include the free and democratic states in Central and Eastern Europe, we can help to ensure the stability and security of Europe. NATO is often viewed as a defensive alliance, because of the cold war history, an alliance to defend its members against the threat, that then existed, of Soviet movement across Western Europe. The fact is, NATO from the beginning, and particularly today in the post-cold- war world, has a second and I would say today much more important purpose, which is to serve as a body in which the potential conflicts among its members are moderated and defused. That is the role it has played and that is the role it will continue to play, once these fledgling democracies and market economies of Central and Eastern Europe reach the plateau which will be established, at which they can join NATO. That is the role NATO will play for them as well. Secretary General Solana, the Secretary General of NATO, was here earlier this week and he made a very important point, which is that one of the standards for membership in NATO will be not only the extent to which human rights are recognized in the potential NATO member, not only the extent its market economy is flourishing, not only its military capacity to participate in the NATO alliance, et cetera, but also the extent to which it has eliminated conflicts with its neighbors. That is a precondition of joining NATO. Conflicts between, for instance, Hungary and Romania over the rights of ethnic minorities--it seems to me one of the preconditions of membership in NATO will be for those countries, if they are to be considered, to resolve those conflicts. And that is a perfect indication of the way in which NATO has had an internal purpose, to preserve stability in Europe. It is important to remember that the members of NATO have, in a very profound sense, given up the use or threat of force in relationship to each other. That is clearly at the heart of our hopes for continued stability in Europe in the post-cold-war world. While some Russians view NATO enlargement as a threat, NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO, as an organization to maintain the peace among its own members, does not pose any risk to Russian security. We are going to have to work hard to make this point to some of those among our friends in Russia. We have to work hard, but we can do it, to make it clear that NATO already has established and wants to build on a friendly and peaceful relationship with the new post-cold-war Russia. The NATO enlargement process is moving forward, thanks to leadership from President Clinton, Secretary General Solana, and a host of leaders in both parties in this country. Senator Dole is, obviously, a strong supporter of NATO enlargement, and others in Europe are strong supporters as well. The study agreed to by the NATO defense ministers last December provides, I think, a generally sound basis for the admission of new members. This is not moving precipitously, it is moving very methodically--in fact too slowly for some of us. The individualized dialogues with interested countries, an important stage in the process, are now underway. Mr. President, I am concerned that the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia to mandate yet another study would have the effect of delaying the NATO enlargement process already underway. The requirements of the study in the amendment before us seem to emphasize only the costs and commitments that the United States would undertake and the anticipated impact on Russia. These questions, if I may say so with respect, seem to be the questions of an attorney in a courtroom leading the witness. In another sense, Senator Brown has referred to this as a literacy test, as a pre-civil-rights-era literacy test that used to be applied to respective African-American voters in the South with the intention of denying them the opportunity to vote. I am afraid the effect of these questions will lead to a conclusion that there are not going to be any countries joining NATO in the near future, and that is a result that I am opposed to. It is possible, as has been suggested by the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Georgia, that discussions can be carried on that would alter or at least broaden the nature of the questions. Some of these questions ought to ask about the positive effects, of which there are many, in expanding NATO: standing true to American principles of human rights that we expressed so often during the cold war, creating a kind of burdensharing for ourselves that NATO has represented. NATO for us, more and more, means that we are not going to be called on to be the sole policeman of the world. Remember what happened in the gulf war. We did not have to fight that conflict alone; our allies from NATO were with us. They are with us in Bosnia today. Years into the future, as we worry about continued security and stability in the Middle East and in Asia, I think our allies in NATO will provide an opportunity to share the burdens and cost of world leadership that the United States would otherwise be called upon to expend. The point is this: The process is underway under which Ministers of the member nations of NATO will meet in December to make some key decisions about how to enlarge the alliance. We cannot forego that opportunity while we await the results of another study. I will say two things. Perhaps it is worth trying to alter these questions to make them more balanced. My preference, frankly, is that this amendment be defeated, because I think it confuses an ongoing process. In some ways, it begins to tie the hands of the President and the executive branch. These are all questions that, should there be a decision in NATO to enlarge, will come back to this floor for a great debate, because no one can automatically be added to NATO without the Senate of the United States--this body--being asked to ratify an amendment to the North Atlantic Treaty alliance by a two-thirds vote. So I say these questions are preliminary. The first choice would be we defeat the amendment. Second, perhaps we could work on some questions and withdraw others to make it a more balanced series of questions. Third, I hope we make it clear, and I hope within the text of the amendment that these questions are not intended to delay in any way the process that is now going on in NATO, meeting in December, a presumed summit to occur sometime in the first 6 months of 1997, to formally continue the process of NATO enlargement. If we are going to go forward in the spirit of compromise, let us make it clear it is not intended to inhibit the President or his designees in any way in what they will do between now and when the study will come forward. I see other colleagues on the floor. I have spoken at length. It is an important issue. It is an issue we are going to debate and we ought to debate in the interest of our national security. Respectfully, I do not think this is the right time to have this debate or adopt this resolution, and I will vote against it, certainly, as it is before us at the current time. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to propose an amendment to S. 1745 in order to correct an issue with important national security implications. Development of the corps-level surface to air theater missile defense system, called the Medium Extended Air Defense System [MEADS] is adversely affected by the current legislation. Unless the corrections, which I will describe in a moment, are made, the current provisions will likely halt the development of this important program. First, let me address the necessity for MEADS. There are currently under development a number of theater missile defense systems. However, no system, except for MEADS, protects front-line troops in the corps' maneuver area. Hence, MEADS will fulfill an existing, urgent U.S. operational requirement for a rapidly deployable, highly mobile, robust air defense system designed to protect maneuver forces and expeditionary forces of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Both services are in strong agreement on the need for protection against short- to medium-range ballistic missiles and the full spectrum of air-breathing threats--aircraft, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. The urgency of the need for MEADS is testified to by the support of the Commanders-in Chief of Central Command, Atlantic Command, Korean Command and of course, the European Command/NATO. These operational commanders, as well as, the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Staff of the Army are all on the record documenting the urgency of the requirement for this system. It should be noted that this operational need will only become greater with time. Estimates of future threats include the increasing ability of both major and lesser powers, as well as, substate actors, to acquire and utilize the rapidly accessible and increasingly affordable ballistic and cruise missile technologies against our forward deployed units. The operational need for MEADS has been made clear by our allies. In addition to our partnership with Germany and Italy, in developing a theater missile defense system, for forward deployed, mobile forces, other nations have expressed a strong interest in purchasing such a system to meet their own security requirements. I must repeat this most essential point: no other planned theater missile defense system can satisfy operational requirements with respect to defending soldiers and marines deployed in the forward area of the theater. The MEADS system has additional advantages other than this most important operational requirement. It is the most cost-effective approach to meeting the operational requirements for forward coverage in the theater. Two U.S. industry teams, Hughes/Raytheon and Lockheed/ Martin/Loral, have been awarded contracts to participate in the first phase of the program, largely because their proposals effectively leverage technology used in current surface to air and air to air missile systems. Both of the U.S. industrial teams propose a system architecture based on proven components and technology. The program is further leveraged by participation of two key Allies, Italy and Germany. Both countries require a modern system to replace their aging HAWK systems. As a footnote, there are 22 additional nations currently employing HAWK. Those other users will require a replacement system during the next decade. Both partner countries provide technical capabilities that significantly enhance the MEADS Program's access to the world's best technology. As a result of the leveraging of technology and the significant contributions of Italy and Germany, the United States funding requirement for system development has been reduced from the original $3.1 Billion baseline estimate to about $1.7 Billion. This accounting of costs does not include the revenue and employment benefits that will accrue due to the expected high demand for the purchase of this system. Given all of these benefits, the current bill does two disruptive things to the MEADS development program. It reduces the program authorization by $10.8 millions and it prohibits the United States from contributing above 50 percent of the funding among her allies. On the face of it, these bill items do not seem very damaging. However, the international nature of the program makes these problems quite damaging. The difficulties in the current bill are due, I believe, to costing assumptions that are no longer valid. The biggest change from last year's authorization bill is the withdrawal of France from the international agreement. However, the bill appears to have inadvertently placed cost constraints on the MEADS project as if France were still in the agreement. Let me now lay out some of the adverse consequences of the current bill's language. First, the proposed $10.8 million reduction in authorizations for fiscal year 1997 will mean greater overall costs to the U.S. for developing MEADS in the project definition-validation phase of the project. This is due to the obvious stretching out of the development time period. Second, and more importantly, Germany and Italy are committed to the MEADS Program at the highest levels of government. Neither country views any other system as a viable alternative to meeting its national requirements. As of May 28, 1996, Germany, Italy and the United States have formally agreed upon terms for the program and have signed an international agreement governing the initial program definition and validation phase of the program. Incidently, this satisfies the Armed Services Committee Report's requirement for a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] among the Allies before funds are obligated. Of course the memorandum of agreement just described is much different than the one envisioned a year ago. The withdrawal of France from the partnership on MEADS means that the United States cannot meet the 50 percent ceiling on funding, required in the committee report, given the previously agreed upon percentages among the Allies on burden sharing. The restructuring--resulting from the withdrawal of France-- results in cost shares, now, of 60 percent for the United States, 25 percent for Germany, and 15 percent for Italy. Previously planned on percentages were: 50 percent for United States, 20 percent for Germany, 10 percent for Italy, and 20 percent for France. All countries in the international agreement have picked up some of the burden that was once assigned to France. At this point, I must make clear that the requirement for the Corps SAM capability is a unilateral one. The United States needs this capability now, and would need to fund now, with or without Allied participation. The benefits of the partnership are clear. Also, the higher percentage of costs now assumed by the United States also means an accompanying higher percentage of revenues gained from the sale of the weapon system to U.S. Allies. Paradoxically, restructuring of the program will actually reduce the U.S. cost for the PD/V phase of the program by $4 million, despite the percentage change that I just described. With the pull-out of France, the participating nations have adjusted the scope of the program so that the costs for the development phase are reduced. The reasons are reduced duplication and redundancies, and the elimination of French- unique program requirements which are not demanded by the other participating countries. Because MEADS is the first major system new start the United States has attempted as a cooperative program in some time, it has received a great deal of attention around the world. Our friends and allies see MEADS as the litmus test of U.S. resolve to carry through on our promise to improve our record in armaments cooperation. MEADS demonstrates that our defense industry can work in concert with the defense industries of other nations. The committee's report sends a negative signal concerning MEADS. Difficulties in resolving this partnership will invariably impact on other future, international armament partnerships; our credibility will be damaged. Partnerships such as JSTARS for NATO are put at risk by the proposed actions with respect to MEADS. The Senate Armed Services Committee recommended the program be reduced by $10.8 million, a reduction that makes the program outlined in the recently completed international agreement unexecutable. Given such a reduction, our Allied partners will almost certainly consider the MOU null and void. This, in combination with the 50 percent ceiling, is very debilitating for the success of further cooperative efforts. In sum, the legislative provisions in the current bill, unless corrected, will likely halt the international agreement on MEADS, halt MEADS development, and cause other international cooperative defense efforts to become suspect. I believe the amendment that I am proposing will address these issues while also addressing the Armed Services Committee's very valid concerns that cost overruns not emerge from the program. Instead of limitations on percentages with respect to burden sharing among the allies, I propose a spending cap, as outlined in the amendment. This spending cap meets the rightful concerns of the SASC that costs be controlled in the development of MEADS. The $10.8 million put back into the program in this amendment is offset by reducing funding in a catch- all program entitled ``Other Theater Missile Defense programs, projects, and activities.'' The amendment ensures that the United States complies with her obligations under the international agreement between the United States, Germany, and Italy. By doing so, we bolster our credibility among our allies, while maintaining the existence and effectiveness of an important defense development program for our front-line troops.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, at many times during the past 14 years the Congress has condemned the Government of Iran for its repressive policies and actions toward its Baha'i community. Today, I am honored to be celebrating the passage of a resolution which calls on Iran to change its repressive anti-Baha'i policies and to protect the rights of all its people including religious minority groups such as the Baha'is. The concurrent resolution we are adopting today is similar to the one which Senator Kassebaum, Senator McCain, Senator Dodd, and I submitted in this body in February. Congress has adopted six previous resolutions on this important issue. The record of their success is certainly a mixed one, at best. Since their enactment, many Baha'is have been penalized by the government, and some even sentenced to death, just because of their religious beliefs. On the contrary, previous resolutions have shown some success as well, particularly in the case of one man who had been sentenced to death for his religious convictions. This man's life was saved as the apostasy case was later overturned by the courts in Iran. Although the relationship between the Baha'is and the Iranian Government has improved since the first resolution was passed, not enough action has been taken. This open policy of repression is in clear violation of the obligation of sovereign states to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the past, President Clinton and former Presidents Reagan and Bush have all shown support of the Baha'is. The United Nations and many of its member states have also adopted numerous resolutions supporting religious freedom in Iran. Today, in adopting this concurrent resolution, we have succeeded in maintaining vigilance on the actions of Iranian Government. Only through continued support for change in the Iranian regime can over 300,000 Baha'is experience true religious freedom.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, after consultation with the chairman of the committee, I ask unanimous consent that, when the vote occurs on this amendment, it occur by rollcall and the rollcall be held at 5 this afternoon, with no second-degree amendments in order.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from New York, for joining me as a cosponsor and for his characteristic informed comments. He goes right to the heart of it. The fact is that it was the experience of the commission with regard to the Nation's intelligence structure that worked in the 1970's that is the inspiration for that concept being included in this amendment. The work he is doing now in this area with this commission, I hope, will be considered by the panel convened under the amendment. As the Senator indicates, changes that have occurred are extraordinary. Former Deputy Chief of Staff, Admiral Owens, who was very comfortable with the new technologies and very far-sighted, said we are now at a point where our commanders can, for the most part now or on the verge in the very near future, can see the whole battlefield for miles ahead, around them, and in front of then. That has never been the case for people who have gone to war. This is because of these extraordinary not only satellites but helicopters, the unmanned aerial vehicles. The fact is at a given moment in real time today the commanders on the field--in fact, the heads of our military structure back at the Pentagon--can see exactly what is happening on the battlefield and be involved. As the Senator indicated, the dependence we have on communication and information, the potential threats to current methods of encryption of our messages is exactly what I hope this commission will go at. The fact is that part of what we are asking it to do is look at the United States not as the world's great superpower, but from the perspective of one who would want to do us harm, and to begin to determine what are the points of vulnerability. It may be, as Senator Coats indicated before, we are tremendously well defended to fight the last war, but some relatively weaker power than we may have the capacity to either break our communication systems or to shake up or incapacitate our information systems in a way that renders us as weak, as if we had suffered a major conventional military defeat. I want to thank the Senator for his support and for his right-on- target comments and the thought-provoking words that he spoke. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I note there is a minute or two remaining. I add this word to everything that has been said. In one sense, Senator Coats said this is an attempt to liberate the process from the inevitable instinct that institutions have to continue down the road they have been down before and to make sure that the roads that we are heading down are the right roads. I am talking not just about the Defense Department, but our institution, as well. In one sense, what I hope will come out of this, both from within the Quadrennial Review and the National Defense Panel, is the continuing effort that certainly has been going forward under Secretary Perry with the various reforms to our procurement, the examination of ways in which to essentially outsource, to bring in, to privatize, to gain the economic benefits of these creative actions, to make sure that we have maximum dollars available to actually provide for our national defense. In one sense, what we are asking for here--and it is a big order--is to do what in the private sector we call re-engineering the corporation, to go back and ask, if a piece of paper of the organizational structure and system in front of us was blank, what would we write on the paper to make sure we were fulfilling the goals that we have? I understand that is a big order in a system as historically successful and complicated as ours. Essentially, what we are asking here in our national interest is that, together, we go back to first questions and say, what are the threats we are going to face to our security in the next century? If we could begin it all over again, how would we most effectively and efficiently meet those threats, and then to try, in the reality of the process, to get as close to that as we possibly can. Again, I thank all of those who have spoken. I think it has been a very thoughtful and constructive debate. I cannot thank enough the broad group of bipartisan sponsors of this proposal, including, particularly, the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking Democrat, who I have occasionally burdened by referring to him as my mentor, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Nunn. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to give very special thanks to several individuals who worked very hard on the amendment providing for the study of alternative force structures for the Armed Forces. They spent many long hours amidst their very heavy workloads assisting their Senators and me in developing the concept of a bipartisan approach toward pointing our Armed Forces in the right direction for the 21st century. In particular, I would like to thank Ann Sauer of Senator McCain's office, Rick Debobes of Senator Nunn's staff, Sharon Dunbar, a Brookings Institution Fellow working in Senator Coats' office, Bill Owens of Senator Robb's office, and Stan Kaufman, a Brookings Fellow who works for me. Their dedication, expertise, professionalism and public service made me very proud to be associated with them. It has been a real pleasure being involved in such a successful bipartisan effort. In addition, I would also like to call out the exceptional responsiveness and quality advice we received from Charlie Armstrong of the Senate's Legislative Counsel's Office. When the staffers worked late into the evenings and over the weekends on this amendment, Charlie was right there for us. But I would like to convey particular thanks to John Lilley, a former staffer of mine who recently left my employ to move on to a situation which could provide him more time to spend with his young family. When I originally conceived the idea of the alternative force study, it was John who was instrumental in developing the detailed proposals we have been discussing today and in working closely with the staff of the cosponsors in achieving a common approach. I will miss John's good counsel very much, and I wish him well in his future endeavors. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I was about to do that. I was going to ask when a vote be taken it be taken by the yeas and nays. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. We have not, and if it is OK with the chairman, I would like to go ahead and introduce the amendment now. Amendment No. 4156 (Purpose: To provide for a quadrennial defense review and an independent assessment of alternative force structures for the Armed Forces)

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like, in responding to the chairman, to now----

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it was my understanding the pending amendments had been set aside and this amendment was now the pending business. Is that correct?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as previously discussed, this is the amendment which would provide for both an in-the-Pentagon-and-outside-the-Pentagon, under the Secretary of Defense, national defense panel review of our national security structure to answer basic questions: What are the threats to our national security in the coming decades, and how can we best meet them? It is an attempt to get out of the box, get out of the day-to-day here and look forward, over the horizon, so that we are ready to face and meet whatever threats to our security exist, and to do so in the most cost-effective way. Mr. President, I appreciate the broad bipartisan support for the amendment, including the statement from the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond. I believe my cosponsor, the Senator from Indiana, who spoke only briefly before, does have further comments. I do want to indicate to my colleagues here that Senator Coats and I do intend to ask for a rollcall vote on this. We do not expect the debate will be long, but we do hope to do so sometime soon this afternoon. I look forward to the debate and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4156 to the Department of Defense authorization bill and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Indiana, for his support and his work in preparing the amendment that he spoke of on a force structures study for the United States and also to thank our colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb, for the very thoughtful, forthright, and very constructive words that he spoke on behalf of the amendment that we hope to offer to the defense authorization bill before too long this afternoon, after a unanimous-consent request is agreed to by the leadership. If I may, to expedite matters, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the amendment that I will be offering at the appropriate time. I am honored to be offering it on behalf of Senators Coats, Robb, McCain, Nunn, Inhofe, Kempthorne--the occupant of the chair--Warner, Hutchison, Santorum, Murkowski, Levin, Ford, Bond, and, I am pleased to say, last but not least--last but most--the distinguished majority leader of the Senate, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott. This amendment calls on the Secretary of Defense to conduct a thorough study of alternative force structures for our armed services. What are we talking about? We are really talking here about providing the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, most of whom are cosponsors of this amendment, and then in turn the full Congress, with the information to help us answer fundamental questions about our future national security. The questions are as simple as this: To the best of our knowledge, to the best of the knowledge of the best thinkers we have on these matters, both inside and outside the Pentagon today, what are the security threats that America is likely to face in the next century and how can we best meet those security threats? It is as simple, and in some ways as complicated, as those simple questions suggest. Those of us who are sponsoring this amendment believe that such a study is essential if the United States is going to be able to meet the security challenges of the 21st century in light of the dramatic changes that have occurred in the geopolitical situation, the changes in the threats to our security which, in the view of some experts, are even more daunting than those we faced in the cold war, and the ever- present but increasingly more difficult problems of resource constraints, which is to say budget pressure--limited amounts of money to spend on the full range of governmental responsibilities; remembering, as we approach this function of Government, that the reason governments were formed in the first place was to provide that underpinning of security without which we cannot then go on to secure and provide the freedom and opportunity and benefits that Government attempts to provide for our people. This study that will be authorized by this amendment is also an attempt to not just provide a road map to our future national security, but to break out of the day-to-day momentum, the inertia of the process of authorization and appropriation for defense needs as it exists now. Many changes have occurred, dramatic changes responding to changes in technology, which provide our war fighters with capability that no war fighters in history have ever possessed. Yet the changes are so dramatic, the world so uncertain, our fundamental responsibility to provide for our national security so great, that what we who will put forth the amendment are asking is that we step back from the day-to- day, that we look out over the horizon. As one of my cosponsors said, that we go up to 30,000 feet and we look out as far as we can see to the future security threats we may face and how we can best meet them; to ask the bold questions, the questions that unsettle the status quo, that do not always, in the normal course of the process, get asked here. That is really what this is all about. The United States obviously is, today, the world's only true superpower. On the other hand, there is no shortage of threats to our national interests. We see them all around. In many real ways our military has been operating at a greater tempo since the end of the cold war than it did before. We face many dangers--rogue states like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the more profound and we hope longer range and perhaps never-realized potential for the emergence of another superpower peer competitor, perhaps a resurgent Russian nationalism, perhaps China in the next century--those are factors we need to consider and attempt to evaluate as we plan and execute our national security programs. Obviously, there is also the insidious and dangerous and more near- term threat posed by terrorists who may come to possess weapons of mass destruction, and who also, unfortunately, possess a disregard for human life which might restrain rational actors from employing those weapons of mass destruction and, in fact, have restrained those who possessed those weapons in the past from doing so. Add to this the major advances in and proliferation of ballistic missile technology, which make possible the ability to deliver these weapons of mass destruction cheaply, effectively, and with stealth, and we have to conclude that the world is not only not as predictable as it once was but in many respects it is actually more dangerous than it was during the cold war. Our ability to deal with these changing conditions is, of course, affected by limited defense budgets, as I have said. In moving, as we are doing, slowly but directly, to a balanced budget, we are going to be under increasing pressure, in meeting our defense needs and other needs, to get the maximum bang for the buck. If we are to succeed in making the best use of these limited defense dollars, we have to continually ask: Are we spending our defense dollars as wisely and efficiently as we possibly can? Are we buying the right things to support a properly sized force structure? Are we taking maximum advantage of technology to avoid being bested in the future, being defeated in the future by an opponent that is now inferior but one that may invest wisely in the next generation's technologies and take advantage of vulnerabilities that we may have? Again, underlying all these questions are those fundamental questions I posed a few moments ago: What are the threats we will face in the future and what do we need to deter and, if necessary, defeat those threats? We have to determine the bottom line of what is it we want our military to do, not just in the sense of military capabilities, but also in the broader context of what responsibilities we want the United States to accept in the next century and what we will need our military to be able to do in order for our country to fulfill those responsibilities. Once we answer those questions--those fundamental questions--we can move on to define how we shape, size, and equip those military forces so they can confront the wide range of challenges we will face and if necessary, again, deter and defeat an opponent's military forces. Mr. President, we need to generate here an informed national debate on what our defense posture should be in the 21st century. The fact is, that these questions of national security are too frequently discussed and debated only by a small group of Americans, yet they are the fundamental questions that any society faces. How do we protect our security? How does the Government best do that? It is the hope of those of us who will introduce this amendment a bit later on in the afternoon that the study, the inquiry authorized by this amendment, both within the Pentagon and by the independent, nonpartisan commission created by the amendment, will engender what will challenge, not just those of us here, but those outside the building, outside Washington, to engage with us in a great debate as to how we can continue to protect our national security in the next century. We cannot afford, either fiscally or strategically, to continue to tinker at the margins of our military forces or to procure cold war systems we have previously bought but only in diminishing quantities and at ever-increasing prices. We need the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to put their best minds to work on these ideas and issues in a focused and comprehensive and independent way. The amendment that we will offer does not in any way second-guess or infringe on the duties and prerogatives of the Department of Defense. In fact, we know that there is much thinking in the department today along the very lines this amendment would request. We believe our amendment will strengthen the department's hand and help it prepare in the assessment and recommendations which will serve as the basis for fortifying the national bipartisan, nonpartisan consensus for defense which we must have in the years ahead. This is not just a question of measuring by the dollars. What the Senator from Virginia said is worth bearing in mind as we judge our defense spending, which is that we are now committing less money to defense as a percentage of our gross domestic product than we have since the second world war. The pressure is on to continue to reduce those expenditures. We have to be devoted to eliminating waste and overlap and taking maximum advantage of new technologies so that the dollars are not the only measure. But it is worth noting, as we consider those broader and deeper measures, that even this year's defense authorization bill, with the additional money added by the Senate Armed Services Committee, represents the 11th consecutive year in which our spending for national defense has dropped in real dollars. That is something that all of us here, and as many people as we can stimulate into the discussion out there in the citizenry, ought to ponder. Mr. President, this amendment has a unique feature which is central to the goal of the amendment, which we hope will help in reestablishing the kind of national debate on national security, and a consensus to follow, which I think we all believe is essential. The amendment provides for what might be called a Team B, a group of wise men and women, recognized defense experts, to be appointed by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Senate and House defense authorization committees, to review the work of the Pentagon called for in this amendment and to offer comments and suggestions on how America can most effectively meet our defense needs in the next century. This group would provide its proposals and ideas to the Secretary for his consideration as he prepares to report to the Congress, required by the amendment. The real hope here is that this nine-person, nonpartisan commission, appointed by the Secretary of Defense, would essentially go out of the box and ask the questions that either we have not thought of or we have decided are unthinkable or that we should not think about, to force us to face the tough questions about our security needs, to help us do what we have been trying to do on the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, which is to break out of business as usual. For the benefit of my colleagues, I will briefly explain what the amendment does. First, it acknowledges that the Defense Department has been planning to do a quadrennial defense review at the beginning of the next administration, pursuant to a recommendation made by the Commission on Roles and Missions. And it then, in a sense, makes statutory that quadrennial review. It requires the review to go forward. It would be a comprehensive examination of the defense strategy, force structure, modernization plans, infrastructure, and other elements of the defense program with a view toward determining the defense strategy of our country as far forward as the year 2005. Then the amendment would establish the nonpartisan, independent, nine-person panel of recognized defense experts that I have spoken of. We are calling it, in the amendment, the National Defense Panel. It would be tasked, first, with assessing the Pentagon's quadrennial defense review, as it progresses, as well as the final report upon completion, and then would comment on the findings of the review to the Secretary of Defense. The amendment also requires the Panel to conduct an alternative force structure assessment which would result in a variety of proposed force structures that could meet anticipated threats to our national security. In this case we take it through the year 2010, and if the panel determines it is appropriate and rational, beyond the year 2010. The amendment specifies, although it does not limit, a baseline of issues which this national defense panel must address. These will include near-term and long-term threats, including weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and information warfare, a whole new category of threat to our country built on the dependence that we have developed on information technology and the fear that many have that an enemy may be able to disrupt our society by disrupting our information systems, our computer systems, particularly those critical ones, not only in the defense areas, but, for instance, in financial areas. The National Defense Panel must also consider scenarios based on these threats, which would include the possibility of both large and small conflicts, recommended force structures that would permit military responses to those scenarios, and an assessment of the funding which would be required. The Panel would submit its report to the Secretary of Defense, which in turn he would add his comments before providing it to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House National Security Committee by December 15, 1997. So we have the Secretary of Defense, consistent with our belief of civilian control of the military that is so fundamental to our democracy, overseeing the development of the in-house quadrennial defense review. The National Defense Panel convenes in December of this year if this amendment passes. It begins its own work, and it works with the Defense Department as the department is developing the quadrennial review. It offers suggestions and responses to those working in the department on the quadrennial defense review. That review is then submitted to the Congress next spring. The National Defense Panel continues its work, comments on the final product of the quadrennial defense review, and then offers to the Secretary of Defense, by next fall and into the early winter, its report--bold, hopefully, in some measure unsettling and provocative, which the Secretary of Defense then turns over to us by December of next year. Mr. President, there have been some concerns expressed about this schedule. Some, for instance, have said that December of next year is too late. Others have argued that this timetable does not give the Department of Defense adequate time to address all of these important issues. I believe we have struck a good middle ground here with the schedule that is in the amendment, building on work which is underway, has been done, or will be initiated if this legislation passes. The sooner the Members of Congress can get these important analyses and these recommendations, the sooner we will be able to hold hearings on them, try to involve the public in our considerations, and begin to make the very important decisions that will affect our national security in the coming decades. There is no time to waste, but, of course, these are such complicated, fundamental, important questions that we are giving both the Defense Department and the National Defense Panel, that we felt they deserved a reasonable amount of time to complete their work. There is one last very important point which I do want to emphasize. That is that this amendment was developed in a truly bipartisan way, such that we really consider it--those of us who are sponsoring it--to be a nonpartisan amendment. Of course, it ought to be. When we are dealing with our national defense, there ought not to be Democratic and Republican positions. There ought to be American positions. That is the spirit in which the work on this amendment has gone forward. Members and staff from both sides of the aisle on the Armed Services Committee were involved in writing this amendment. The process we used resulted in lengthy, thoughtful, and spirited debates about the future of our national security and our Armed Forces. Each of us, I think, undertook this endeavor because we care about our national security and have tremendous respect for the professionals who serve every day, in and out of uniform, in the Department of Defense. My special thanks go to Senators Coats, McCain, Robb, and their staffs who contributed so much to this effort, as well, of course, to Chairman Thurmond and Senator Nunn and their professional staff members, for their encouragement and their very, very concise and constructive support. We also appreciate the time that was spent by personnel in the Department of Defense, particularly Deputy Secretary of Defense John White and his staff, who reviewed and advised us on this amendment, and who have wanted to go forward in a spirit of cooperation not only among the parties here but between the Congress and the executive branch. The future of our national security is obviously far too important to be left to business as usual at either the executive or legislative branch. I cannot thank the Department of Defense enough for the support, encouragement, counsel, occasional disagreement, but ultimate consensus that is expressed in this amendment. In summary, and finally, Mr. President, what this is all about is becoming engaged in a very difficult, complicated, farsighted but critical debate about how we can have the best national security possible for America, particularly now as we, in some sense, reign supreme, unchallenged, as the greatest superpower in the world, understanding that history teaches us that the special position of power and relative invulnerability is not enjoyed by nations for long periods of time unless they plan and act to make that so. Nations rise and nations fall over the course of history. What this amendment is about is making sure that the United States of America remains strong and dominant, able to deter threats to our security and, if necessary, to defeat them far into the next century. We have the resources, we have the brain power, we have the courage and skill of our war fighters to make that happen. This amendment is all about making sure that we use and develop those natural strengths that America has to the best of our ability. I come back to the final point that we have to involve the American people more in these discussions. Sometimes, particularly when we exist, as we do now, at a time of relative national security, it is hard to get people to focus in on the details and on the need to continue to commit adequate resources to our national defense. I am convinced that if we find ways to involve more of our citizens in these discussions, in the work of a nonpartisan panel, a national defense panel, in the hearings that it may hold, in the hearings that will surely be held here in Congress after we receive these reports from the Secretary of Defense, then the American people and we, their Representatives in Congress, will surely provide the resources necessary to preserve our liberties and defend our national principles and interests. Mr. President, an informed public will always understand the wisdom and the memorable comment made by the great British soldier and leader, Sir John Slessor, when he said, It is customary in democratic countries to deplore expenditure on armaments as conflicting with the requirements of social services. There is a tendency to forget that the most important social service that a government can do for its people is to keep them alive and free. Mr. President, I hope when we introduce this amendment later in the afternoon that other colleagues will join us in cosponsoring it and, of course, in voting for it. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address the amendment. I look forward to returning and actually introducing the amendment when the appropriate unanimous-consent agreement is entered. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stanley Kaufman, a Brookings Institution fellow, and Mark Rosen, Institute for National Securities Studies fellow assigned to my office, be permitted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I do rise today on a serious matter. That is to submit, along with several colleagues, a resolution which we hope will advance the twin causes of peace and justice in the former Yugoslavia. I am very proud to be joined in introducing this resolution by a bipartisan group of colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, Senator Specter, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Moynihan. Unfortunately, because of the ups and downs of Senate scheduling, I do not think that any of these distinguished colleagues are able to be here today to join me to speak on this resolution, though Senator Biden did address the subject generally and mentioned the imminence of this resolution when he spoke on the floor on Wednesday. I hope my colleagues will have the opportunity to speak to the resolution in the days and weeks ahead. Last October President Clinton honored us in Connecticut by speaking at the University of Connecticut, at the opening of the Thomas J. Dodd Library and to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials that followed World War II. At that time, last October, while war still raged in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia, President Clinton spoke these very eloquent words. ``Some people,'' he said, ``are concerned that pursuing peace in Bosnia and prosecuting war criminals are incompatible goals. But I believe,'' President Clinton said, ``they are wrong. There must be peace for justice to prevail, but there must be justice when peace prevails.'' I could not agree more. A very powerful principle stated very eloquently by President Clinton. Later last year, a few months later, the United States, led by former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, in an extraordinary act of diplomacy, following the force that the United States operation had applied to the forces on the ground, particularly the aggressive forces in Bosnia, the parties to the conflict were brought together in Dayton, OH. The peace agreement for Bosnia resulting from those talks in Dayton was signed in Paris just about 6 months ago. There followed the deployment of the NATO-led Implementation Force, or IFOR, including within it 20,000 of America's finest soldiers. The work of IFOR has been a clear success in ending the war, in separating the forces, and in monitoring the actual withdrawal of the previous combatant forces to within agreed areas under the Dayton peace agreement. But, Mr. President, unfortunately the process of rebuilding Bosnia as a unified, multiethnic state has been much slower and much more difficult. I suppose that should not be shocking when one considers the scars of war, the way in which the war took a country that had become in so many parts of it so magnificently multiethnic and brought out and raised to the surface historic ethnic antagonisms that had previously existed. But even in that effort toward recreating Bosnia, progress has been made. Yet many, understandably, have called for the elections that are planned, pursuant to the Dayton agreement, for September 14 to be delayed because the conditions do not yet exist for them to be free and fair. War criminals are still in power, refugees and displaced persons are unable to return to their homes, and freedom of movement is still severely limited by the nationalistic barriers that have been created in one community or another within Bosnia. But I believe strongly that our focus should not be on when the elections should take place. Rather we, together with the majority of people in Bosnia and in the international community who favor peace and reconciliation, must redouble our efforts to create the right conditions for the elections to go forward as scheduled. Mr. President, to do so, to rebuild that peace and reconciliation that I am convinced the overwhelming majority of Bosnians long for so deeply, we must deal with the problem of indicted war criminals, particularly Karadzic and Mladic, former President and military chief of the Bosnian Serb aggressors. These two, as is well known, remain at large. They are able to influence political and military developments. As the President said so well in the statement that I quoted, there can be no peace without justice in the long term. To secure that peace the time has come for this body to restate that the apprehension of these indicted war criminals must be an urgent priority. It is time for concerted action to bring these indicted war criminals to justice. So the resolution we are introducing today is really quite direct and simple. It restates the clear obligation under the Dayton peace agreement and U.N. Security Council resolutions of all the parties in the former Yugoslavia, including in particular both the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, with its capital in Belgrade, and the Bosnian Serb entity called Republika Srpska, to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal. Mr. President, the most urgent element of that requirement is that the indicted war criminals, particularly Karadzic and Mladic, must be detained and brought to justice. That must be reaffirmed and remain an urgent priority, in the words of the resolution we have introduced. To do that, the resolution calls for four separate actions. First, it finds and urges that the International Criminal Tribunal, the war crimes tribunal, merits continued and increased American support to do its work. The tribunal faces daunting challenges in collecting and analyzing evidence to ascertain exactly what crimes were committed and by whom. But if this work is not done, the peace that is enjoyed in Bosnia will forever be a hollow peace and in fact it will not be a lasting peace. Second, the resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should support the request of the President of the International Criminal Tribunal, the war crimes tribunal, for reimposition of economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with its capital in Belgrade and on the Bosnian Serbs for their clear failure to carry out the responsibilities they accepted in signing the Dayton peace agreement, which is to say, their failure to cooperate with the tribunal in the apprehension and the bringing to justice of these indicted war criminals. There are many flagrant pieces of evidence of this. Some months ago there were television pictures of General Mladic in a parka skiing as if he was some American on a weekend jaunt in the winter to northern New England, in my part of the country, or perhaps Colorado or Utah or other parts of the country. An indicted war criminal, a man with blood on his hands, specifically indicted for being the leader involved in the slaughter of at least 6,000 people--6,000 people--in Srebrenica after the fall of that undefended city, allegedly a safe haven in Bosnia. Most recently, of course, Karadzic has been seen repeatedly walking around, seemingly free, in the Republika Srpska. General Mladic recently carried out the responsibility of attending a funeral in Belgrade--quite publicly. Authorities clearly knew he was coming, and he was not arrested. I think it is clear that the Serbian authorities, in this case, particularly President Milosevic, have failed to act. That failure to act is clear, and it is inexcusable. The High Representative, Carl Bildt, overseeing so much of the civilian reconstruction effort, has the clear authority to reimpose sanctions if the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the Bosnian Serbs, are failing significantly--that is the term used--to meet their obligations under the peace agreement. There can be no doubt that the continued leadership roles of Karadzic, Mladic, and others are a significant violation of the Dayton agreement. Mr. President, this resolution calls for reimposition of full economic sanctions, which we believe is long overdue. Third, the resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the NATO-led implementation force, or IFOR, in carrying out its mandate, should make it an urgent priority to detain and bring to justice persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal. I know that some will be concerned that this call for IFOR action to arrest war criminals could lead to a situation similar to the hunt for Aideed in Somalia, which had tragic consequences. That, Mr. President, I assure my colleagues, is not the intention of those of us who have sponsored the resolution. The resolution is drawn with real clarity and concern to make sure that is the case. The detention of war criminals, in fact, has always been part of the IFOR mandate. The IFOR's authority to arrest war criminals has never been in doubt. But the kind of house-to- house search carried out in Somalia is not called for by this resolution. In fact, from what I have heard Secretary Perry and General Shalikashvili say, IFOR is already mandated and, in fact, is doing just what it should be: patrolling more widely and aggressively to restrict the freedom of movement of war criminals, as well as to improve the freedom of movement of ordinary, peaceful citizens. If an IFOR patrol encounters Karadzic or Mladic or any other indicted war criminal, IFOR personnel should bring to bear the necessary resources to effectively detain those war criminals and to bring them to justice. We did not want to go into this level of detail in this resolution because, frankly, we do not believe the Senate should be expressing such detailed directions about on-the-ground military operations. The intention of this resolution is to make clear that an agreed upon aspect of the IFOR mission--to detain war criminals and bring them to justice--must remain an urgent priority and must be carried out effectively. Mr. President, the reason this function is so critical, so central, to the IFOR mission is that otherwise all the extraordinarily courageous and effective work done by this 60,000-person force, 20,000 of whom are Americans, all the work they have done to separate the parties, to move them back into agreed upon areas, to create the context for peace, will all be for naught. All the effort, all the money spent, in my opinion, will all be worth nothing and have no lasting affect unless these war criminals are apprehended, because so long as they are free, their freedom makes a mockery of the Dayton agreement. It 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. The fact is that so long as people like Karadzic and Mladic, indicted war criminals, remain free, peace will not take hold in the former Yugoslavia. That is why we are restating, as this resolution does, that the apprehension, the detention, and bringing to justice of these war criminals must remain an urgent priority as part of the IFOR mission in the former Yugoslavia. Fourth, finally, recognizing that the lack of full cooperation on war crimes goes beyond the so-called Republika Srpska, the resolution calls for all States in the former Yugoslavia--this involves people on all sides ethnically--to be denied membership and participation in international organizations until and unless they are operating fully with the tribunal. Mr. President, as we have found over the course of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, which threatened to grow wider and threaten stability more broadly in Europe, if the sound of the trumpet--if I may paraphrase the Bible--is uncertain, who will follow into battle? If the sound of the trumpet is uncertain, who will hear what is behind the trumpet? If we allow these outrageous, provocative acts by indicted war figures roaming free to go unresponded to, they will act more outrageously. The latest proof of this is in the newspaper this morning. Page A-30 of the Washington Post carries a Reuters story from Belgrade: ``A local board of the Serb Democratic Party nominated Radovan Karadzic today as candidate for president of the Bosnian Serb Republic in elections to be held later this year, Serb media reported.'' Can you imagine that? Can you imagine the outrage here? This is as if, at the end of World War II, someone in one of the countries that the allies defeated nominated a leader in that country who had fought the war against us to be a leader of the postwar country. Can you imagine the reaction in the United States of America if that had happened? Here these people are nominating Karadzic, in direct and outrageous violation of the Dayton agreement, to run for President. This is specifically prohibited by the Dayton agreement, but reminds us that unless we continue to keep the apprehension of these criminals as an urgent priority, unless we begin to tighten the screws again by reimposing economic sanctions on Belgrade and tightening the area of mobility that these war criminals have enjoyed in the past, as I am encouraged to believe we are now doing, this whole effort will have been for naught. This resolution, my cosponsors and I believe, gives the Senate an opportunity to make clear the importance we place on the full and successful completion of the IFOR mission, which is to say to remove the conditions that will bring about clearly a return of war and genocide and the absence of peace with true justice in Bosnia. In closing, I want to thank my colleagues who joined me in cosponsoring this resolution. I hope that other colleagues of both parties--there is nothing partisan about this at all--will take a look at the resolution and decide to cosponsor and join us as supporters. Mr. President, I do also want to offer personal thanks to Frederic Baron who is working in my office as a fellow on loan from the State Department, who really represents a quality of service, as I have seen in my office, the highest standards of intellect and of principle that characterizes the American Foreign Service. I thank Frederic for the role he played in assisting me in putting this resolution together.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from North Dakota. Mr. President, I appreciate his final request, and I express to him and my colleagues my fervent desire not to use--particularly I express this to the occupant of the chair--it is my fervent desire not to use the full 20 minutes. (The remarks of Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the submission of Senate Resolutions 270 are printed in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')