Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I did not always support a national approach to product liability reform and I can well understand the hesitancy, particularly of newer Members, to support Federal involvement in what traditionally has been the province of state law. In fact, as attorney general of Connecticut and a member of the National Association of Attorneys General, I voted for resolutions opposing earlier Federal product liability legislation that would have swept away virtually all State product liability laws and repealed the doctrine of strict liability for product defects. But as I traveled around the State of Connecticut, this problem-- product liability litigation--kept coming up in my discussions with small business men and women, with small and large manufacturing companies, and with plant managers. They told me of problems they had experienced with the product liability system, of the expense of defending yourself even when you win, of the cost of settlements to avoid paying litigation costs, and of the time and energy that product liability suits diverted away from the business of designing new products and bringing them to market. At a time when we need to be rebuilding our country's manufacturing base, to be promoting innovation in our manufacturing sector, to be designing, building, and bringing to market the next generation of high-quality, high-value added products the world will need, our liability system chills innovation. The debate should really center around consumers, because it is consumers who suffer because of this system, not simply businesses. Consumers are the ones who have to pay higher prices in order to cover product-liability-related costs. If a ladder costs 20 percent more because of liability-related costs, consumers--not businesses--end up paying that 20 percent premium. The best interests of consumers as a whole are not always identical to the interests of people who are seeking compensation. The people who suffer or die because a new drug or medical device was never developed, or was delayed in its development, are hurt as surely as those who suffer because a device malfunctioned or a drug was improperly designed. These silent victims of our product liability system's chilling effect on innovation are consumers whose interests also deserve protection. Of course, even for its intended beneficiaries, people who are injured by defective products, the legal system hardly can be said to work well. GAO, in its 5-State survey, found that product liability cases took an average of 2\1/2\ years just to reach trial. If the case was appealed, it took, on average, another year to resolve. This is a very long time for an injured person to wait for compensation. In some instances, too, our product liability laws have erected barriers to suit that just do not make sense. For example, in some States, the statute of limitations--the time within which a lawsuit can be brought--begins to run even though the injured person did not know they were injured and could not have known that the product was the cause. In those States, the time in which to bring a suit can expire before the claimant knows or could ever know there is a suit to bring. Mr. President, no one will argue that this bill will cure all the ills in our product liability system. That would require a gargantuan overhaul and we are not likely to reach reach agreement in the near future as to what that would look like. I make no secret of the fact that I would have preferred a broader bill. Product liability cases are only a part of the problems in our civil justice system. I have very real concerns that when we fix some of the problems there, some lawyers will just target nonmanufacturing clients, like financial service providers, municipalities, nonprofit organizations. I would have preferred a bill that covered much more, but clearly that was not to be. By working incrementally to eliminate the worst aspects of our current system with respect to product liability, perhaps we can begin to create a record that will allow us to restore some balance to our tort system overall. The enactment of the Federal General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 has demonstrated that reform does not mean that injured people will go uncompensated and bad actors unpunished, but that reform means more jobs and safer aircraft. I hope we will have the same chance to build the same foundation for more reform with this modest, balanced product liability bill. For people injured by defective products, this bill makes a set of very important and beneficial changes. First, it enacts uniform, nationwide statute of limitations of 2 years from the date the claimant knew or should have discovered both the fact he or she was injured and the cause of the injury. Injured people will no longer lose the right to sue before they knew both that they were hurt and that a specific product caused their injury. Second, this bill will force defendants to enter alternative dispute resolution processes which can resolve a case in months rather than years. If the defendant unreasonably refuses to enter into ADR, it can be liable for all of claimant's costs and attorney's fees. On the other hand, if a plaintiff unreasonably refuses to enter ADR, they will suffer no penalty. For workers who face possible injury in the workplace, this bill will reform the product liability system to give employers a stronger incentive to provide a safe workplace. Under current law, an employer is often permitted to recoup the entire amount of workers compensation benefits paid to an employee who was injured by a defective machine, even if the employer contributed significantly to the injury by, for example, running the machine at excessive speeds or removing safety equipment. This essentially means that an employer can end up paying nothing despite the fact that their misconduct was a significant cause of the injury. This bill would change this. When an employer is found, by clear and convincing evidence, to be partly responsible for an injury, the employer loses recoupment in proportion to its contribution to the injury. This does not change the amount of money going to the injured person, but it makes the employer responsible for its conduct. Manufacturers of durable goods--goods with life expectancy over 3 years that are used in the workplace--will also be assured that they cannot be sued more than 20 years after they deliver a product. This will bring an end to suits such as the one in which Otis Elevator was sued over a 75-year-old elevator that had been modified and maintained by a number of different owners and repair persons through the decades. By the way, this same provision will not apply to household goods such as refrigerators, and is only intended to cover those workplace injuries that are already covered by workers compensation. Manufacturers will also have some protection against deep pocket liability. While the bill still permits States to hold all defendants jointly liable for economic damages such as lost wages, foregone future earnings, past and future medical bills, and cost of replacement services, noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering will be apportioned among codefendants on the basis of each defendant's contribution to the harm. For wholesalers and retailers, they will, in the majority of cases, be relieved of the threat that they can be held liable for the actions of others. Under current law, for example, the owner of the corner hardware store could be sued for injuries resulting from a power saw just as if she was the manufacturer of a power saw, even if she had no input in the design or assembly of the power saw and had done nothing other than to inspect a sample to make sure there were no obvious flaws and to put the items on the shelf. For our American economy and industrial base, passage of this product liability reform legislation will move us back to promoting innovation and the development and commercialization of new products. Passing this bill will create and save jobs here, not overseas. Mr. President, let me reiterate that I believe this bill can be a win-win situation. It provides real balance. It balances the scales of justice to ensure that the victims of defective products will continue to be compensated while consumers receive the best products available. It is incremental reform. Frankly, it is a lot less than I had hoped for and that I voted for. But I think it is incremental because it is hoped that is the way to begin the road to genuine legal reform in our country. In this debate today, we hear a lot of charges, countercharges, and attacks coming from every which direction as we come close to the vote. One thing should not be lost. This bill does not absolve a company that has not made a safe product. If a company has made a defective product, it will and must be held fully accountable, period. But when a company does follow the rules and makes a safe product, it should not have to settle frivolous claims simply to avoid the expense of litigation and protect against the risk that a huge and irrational judgment will be awarded against it. Mr. President, once again I thank my colleagues, Senators Gorton and Rockefeller, who have really been extraordinarily able and honorable in this task. I honestly believe that what is on the line here today in this vote is not just the fate of this product liability bill, but it is a broader question of whether this Congress is able to function on a bipartisan basis and get something done to respond to a real problem as we have described out in society. The critics who say--I hear this all the time when I go home--``Why are you folks all so political? Why don't you get together and get something done, and respond to some real problems? Why don't you compromise?'' A compromise is not just to reward the people who send us here to serve them. Compromise is getting something done. Senators Gorton and Rockefeller--Republican and Democrat working hard for years now but particularly the last year and 3 months--bipartisan, and willing to accept compromise, get the bill past the hurdle of breaking a filibuster here in the Senate with over 60 votes, get it passed, take it to the conference committee, again compromise, get something done to start us down the road to a response, to a real problem, and now we are faced with these last-minute attacks and a threat of a veto by the President. I think what is on the line here is whether, with all the procedural intricacies at work, we can produce. I hope that the answer is yes. I hope that we will vote this afternoon to break the filibuster, that we will then tomorrow pass this bill and that President Clinton will then reconsider his decision to veto it. This is a moment of opportunity. It is a moment of test for this institution, and it may not come again in this way for quite a long time. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, March 15, 1996, marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the oldest veterans organization in this country--the Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A. Most people think that the American Legion is the oldest veterans group but, in fact, it is not. On March 15, 1896, 63 Jewish Civil War veterans gathered in New York City to form the Hebrew Union Veterans as a response to allegations that Jews in 19th century America were not inclined ``to stand by the flag as soldiers.'' From this group of 63 has developed the current organization of over 100,000 members. The Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A. is proud of the history of its individual members in all of America's wars and conflicts. It is also proud of its own history as an organization. All of us share in that pride for it is well-earned. JWV led the effort to end the pogroms against Eastern European Jews at the beginning of this century. They led the national boycott of German goods in the 1930's. And they have supported the state of Israel since its birth in 1948. Moreover, the JWV actively supported the civil rights movement of the 1960's and was the only veterans group to support the 1963 march on Washington. It also was the first group to call for the withdrawal of United States military forces from Vietnam in 1971. The JWV's 100-year history has kept it in the forefront of groups which support America's military personnel and our veterans. It has supported educational, veterans, and community projects and has done so regardless of religion, race, or gender. America is proud of all its veterans. Today, we should stop and pay tribute to this outstanding veterans organization. America congratulates the Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A. on its centennial anniversary.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so that I might speak for no more than 5 minutes on the preceding Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey to restore funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture. Senator Lautenberg and others have discussed the critical programs of environmental protection that would be funded by the amendment in some detail. I want to touch very briefly on a few of the key aspects of the amendment, particularly the provisions related to funding for technology. First, Senator Lautenberg's amendment adds back a modest amount of funding for environmental technology, $62 million, for a total spending on environmental technology of $108 million. Unfortunately, the continuing resolution includes only $46 million for spending in this critical area. Funding for the President's Environmental Technology Initiative, which is known as ETI, is slashed from his request by 92 percent to only $10 million. Mr. President, the failure of the continuing resolution to provide adequate funding for environmental technology is, in my opinion, very shortsighted. A small amount of funding on these programs can yield enormous savings for our regulated industries while providing superior protection for all of our citizens. During the current debate on environmental protection, we often hear what at first appear to be conflicting messages. Some in the electorate clearly want less of the overly bureaucratic, heavy-handed command-and- control approaches we have turned to too often in the past to protect our environment. Those folks want new solutions that rely more on the marketplace. They have a good point. On the other hand, it is clear that the public's commitment to protecting the environment has remained very strong, and understandably so. I was pleased that at a meeting with my staff recently, representatives of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association affirmed their support for strong environmental protection laws. Of course, that should not be surprising. Folks who run our businesses, who are citizens, are as concerned as anyone else about the quality of the air they and their families breathe and the water they drink or swim in. They want to be good citizens, good corporate citizens, of our community. What the conflicting messages tell me is that we have to be smarter in our approaches to environmental protection, not weaker. That is precisely what the Environmental Protection Agency is working toward in its Environmental Technology Initiative. The program is developing and promoting new approaches to regulation and new technologies that will increase our efficiency, cut costs, expand exports, and produce a healthy, productive environment for our citizens. Under the Environmental Technology Initiative, EPA is working with the States to streamline permitting processes and to ensure that the permit approval process does not penalize those companies that are willing to try new, cheaper solutions involving technological improvements in order to control pollution. The National Academy of Public Administration's report on improving EPA's programs, mandated by the Appropriations Committee, emphasized the need to eliminate regulatory and policy barriers hampering use of new technologies. Mr. President, 63 percent of the funds proposed by the President for the Environmental Technology Initiative would be spent on programs to promote just this kind of permit flexibility and other regulatory innovative practices. These are the type of programs that the Connecticut Business and Industry Association and other businesses are telling us they want to help them meet their environmental responsibilities in a more efficient manner. During the last Congress, I worked with colleagues on ways to promote these new, more cost-effective environmental technologies. I learned that the single most significant barrier to investment in these new technologies is that many of EPA's regulations inadvertently lock in the old, existing technologies. Under the Environmental Technology Initiative, EPA is working now to develop regulations that correct this mistake, that do not lock in any one existing technology. They are working at EPA with State and nonprofit and Federal laboratories to test and verify the performance of these new, promising technologies. We need to make sure that this verification program can be expanded. EPA is investing in other programs that make good economic and environmental sense. One of the most successful environmental programs has been the market-based program to reduce emissions contributing to acid rain. Studies show that this very exciting new program is yielding enormous health benefits while costing the industries regulated by the Clean Air Act at least $2 to $3 billion less than estimated at the time of enactment of the law. ETI, the Environmental Technology Initiative, is investing in programs that will expand market-based approaches. And that is exactly what the Lautenberg amendment would support. Over the long term, improvements in environmental technology, particularly when it comes to pollution prevention, are critical to the ability of American companies to compete. Not only do new technologies reduce compliance costs but they improve competitiveness by leading to greater efficiency. Saturday's New York Times had an exciting article about the success of the paper industry in vastly reducing its discharges of contaminated water into rivers or streams and in the process saving huge amounts of water and energy while still increasing production. Those companies have found that this approach provides a competitive advantage. ETI is working in partnership with industry to develop these cleaner technologies. For example, it is working with industry to reduce toxic emissions released by metal finishing processes used by more than 3000 metal finishing facilities nationwide. One of these projects already is reducing the use of chromium. Another project aims to slash the time EPA takes to approve new technologies that prevent dangerous contaminants such as cryptosporidium from entering our drinking water, and other technologies that will disinfect the water as well as provide quicker confirmation of drinking water safety. In other words, at the most basic level, the development of innovative environmental technology will enable us to maintain strong environmental protection at dramatically lower cost. Involving Federal and State agencies such as EPA as partners in this effort is important because these agencies should have a good sense of the regulations that may be promulgated in the next decade. Working in partnership with the Federal Government is the best way to focus technology development on areas where the economic and environmental benefits will be the greatest. Involvement in technology development will also help increase awareness by EPA and other regulatory agencies of what is or is not possible from a technology development standpoint as they develop regulations. ETI is also working with industries to promote the exports and diffusion of U.S. technologies throughout the world. There is an enormous market for these technologies and U.S. companies should lead. In Connecticut, the environmental technology industry--a $2 billion industry according to recent reports--has become a major exporter. Mr. President, the second provision in Senator Lautenberg's amendment that I want to discuss briefly is the add-back for funding for the so- called Partnership for the New Generation of Vehicles. That is sometimes referred to more familiarly as the clean car initiative. This is an extremely important and innovative program that has transformed a traditional adversarial relationship between industry and Government-- in this case the auto industry--into a relationship that is built on common goals and has produced a broad-based cooperation. The goal of the program is to develop an attractive, affordable, midsized car, much like the Ford Taurus, Chrysler Concorde, or Chevrolet Lumina, which achieves up to 80 miles to the gallon. It is mostly recyclable, accelerates from zero to 60 miles per hour in 12 seconds. The occupant of the chair can remember our youths together, when how fast you could go from zero to 60 was truly a measurement of one's status in life. This car is aimed to hold comfortably six passengers and to meet all safety and emissions requirements and to cost about the same as comparably sized cars on the showroom floor. This would be a revelation. Up to 80 miles per gallon. The program is really a win-win program. Government is working as a partner with industry to protect our environment. At the same time, it is stimulating new technologies that lead to increased competitiveness for American industry in the fiercely competitive international automobile marketplace. The clean car initiative not only protects the environment, but also jobs--high wage jobs--for our work force. This program is cost shared. Industry is pulling its own weight. Government funding is used in long term precompetitivess research and development. And there is clear progress being made toward the program's goals. One representative of the partnership told Vice President Gore last year: ``By the end of l997, we will narrow the technology focus. By 2000, we will have a concept vehicle. And by the year 2004, we will have a production prototype.'' He added: ``This is not just about jobs. It is not just about technology. It is not just about the environment. It is also about a new process of working together, for both industry and Government, in ways that have not been attempted before.'' Again, the Lautenberg amendment pluses up the money available for this program. It is a very, very cost-effective investment of public funds. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on several other provisions in Senator Lautenberg's amendment. I strongly support the restoration of funding for the State revolving fund under the Clean Water Act. SRF money is critical for Connecticut and particularly Long Island Sound. The SRF program espouses the virtues that the majority has been emphasizing this Congress--it provides low interest loans to States to meet community based environmental needs and offers flexibility in how money is spent. For example, Connecticut has received $170 million in Federal funds and has committed over $1 billion in State funds since 1987 to improve sewage treatment plants. In Connecticut, clean water is not just an environmental issue--but an economic issue. Long Island Sound, for example, generates approximately $5 billion per year for the local economy--through fin and shellfish harvest, boating, fishing, hunting, and beach-going activities. The commercial oyster harvest is a great example. In l970, Connecticut's once thriving shellfish industry was virtually nonexistent. Today, its $50 million harvest has the highest value in the Nation. This improvement is due in large part to required improvements in water quality. Our work on cleaning up Long Island Sound, however, has a long way to go. Health advisories are still in effect for recreational fish consumption, and disease-causing bacterial and viruses have been responsible for numerous beach closures. Connecticut still needs hundreds of millions of dollars to perform needed improvements on public sewage system, which continue to be the largest source of pollution for the sound. The total estimated cost of upgrading the outdated plants is estimated at $6 to $8 billion. I am also very concerned that the comprehensive conservation and Management plan for Long Island Sound will be curtailed without adequate SRF funding. Through this plan, representatives from EPA, New York, Connecticut and other local governments have joined forces with businesses, developers, farmers, and environmentalists to work cooperatively to upgrade sewage treatment plants, improve stormwater management and control non point source runoff. A reduction in SRF funds will limit each State's ability to assess local conditions and move toward more site-specific and flexible watershed protection approaches. Inadequate funding of the SRF delays needed improvements in Long Island Sound and in other greater water bodies in this country-- improvements that have enormous economic, recreational and environmental benefits. That is why I support the additional funding in Senator Lautenberg's amendment. Finally, I want to express my strong support for the modest additions to the funding for climate change. I was pleased to be a cosponsor of an amendment offered by Senator Jeffords to restore a significant amount of funding for EPA's ozone depletion and global climate change programs. But I think it is critical that a minimum there be no decrease in EPA's programs from fiscal year 1995 enacted levels. Adequate funding for DOE's climate change programs is also critical. Mr. President, the new scientific assessment by the world's leading scientists concludes that the best evidence suggest that global climate change is in progress, that the temperature changes over the last century are unlikely to be entirely due to natural causes, and that a pattern of climate response to human activities is identifiable in observed climate records. The assessment concludes that the incidence of floods, droughts, fires and pest outbreaks is expected to increase in some regions. For example, we are experiencing a continuing rise in average global sea level, which is likely to amount to more than a foot and a half by 2010. To bring that home to Connecticut, sea level rises of this magnitude along the coast could result in total inundation of barrier beaches such as Hammonasset Beach, which is probably our most popular State park, and destruction of some coastal property. The President's global climate action plan is modest . It commits the United States to reducing greenhouse gas emission to l990 levels by the year 2000. This is a modest step because our efforts at stabilizing emissions is different from stabilizing atmospheric concentrations. Constant annual emissions will still increase the total concentration of greenhouse gases and heat-trapping capacity of our atmosphere. The President's plan relies on voluntary, public private partnerships which are based on building a consensus between business and Government. It does not rely on command and control regulation. If these types of innovative alternatives are to be the basis of our future approach to environmental protection, it is critical to support the programs now in existence. I also strongly support the additional funding for the Department of Agriculture's Stewardship Incentive Program. This program provides financial and technical assistance to private nonindustrial forest land owners to manage their forest land for timber production, wildlife, recreation and aesthetics. It is an important nonregulatory incentives program for preserving wetlands and endangered species across the country that has widespread support, including the Connecticut Forest and Park Association.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy of Vermont be added as a cosponsor of the Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be equally divided between the sides.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the economic and security partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia is vital to both nations. Strong business ties are a key element of this partnership. Saudi Arabia is America's leading supplier of oil, while American technology is important to the efficient development of Saudi oil reserves. America's substantial imports are offset by more than $6 billion dollars' worth of exports to Saudi Arabia each year, principally of manufactured goods. American firms have played an important role in the development of Saudi Arabia's modern defense, transportation, and communications infrastructure. My own home State of Connecticut enjoys a healthy trade relationship with Saudi Arabia, particularly in the area of aircraft engines and spare parts. When I visited Saudi Arabia a few years ago, I experienced first-hand the hospitality and cooperation which characterizes business as well as political dealings between Americans and their Saudi partners. A recent special edition of Middle East Insight was devoted to the six decades of business partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia. I would like to share with my colleagues an article by Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United States. As most of my colleagues know, Prince Bandar has been a friend of the United States for a long time. He has represented Saudi Arabia with dignity, energy, and intelligence. And he has contributed to a better understanding of the United States in Saudi Arabia. I am pleased to provide this short article for my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of my friend Senator Hollings and praise him for proposing this technology amendent which I have cosponsored along with my colleagues minority leader Daschle, Senators Kerrey, Bingaman, Rockefeller, and Kerrey. This amendment strives to preserve research programs in technology, education and the environment which are investments in our future. Cuts in research and development, R&D are bad for America's future. Now is not the time to pull out of federal investments in these programs, including the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] and Technology Administration [TA], National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] which have a significant impact on high-wage jobs and maintaining U.S. leadership in the global economy. Now is the time to protect our investments, maintain our strong base, and build upon technology infrastructure so that America will remain an economic world leader. Commerce's Office of Technology Policy recently issued a report which states: Although the federal Advanced Technology programs represent only a small fraction of the federal R&D budget, they leverage money in the public and private sectors, causing an economic impact far larger than that suggested by the program budgets alone. Moreover, they are the only mechanisms focused specifically on providing a bridge between the federal R&D investment and the efforts of the private sector to remain globally competitive. These relatively small investments in federal partnerships play a central role in increasing the efficiency of government mission research and safeguarding the country's prosperity.'' An essential part of improving economic growth is technological change. A recent Council of Economic Advisors report tells us that half or more of the Nation's productivity growth in the past half century has been from technological innovation. Looking at a 15-year curve, the U.S. had growth in private sector R&D every year until the 1990's. That growth wasn't huge--we were way behind the rate of growth of competitor nations, but we had such a big lead after WW II that we could tolerate lower growth for awhile. But since 1991, the private sector has annually been cutting R&D spending. This year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science estimates that Congress is implementing a 30-percent cut in government non-defense R&D. For the second year in a row the United States placed first in the World Competitiveness Report in 1995, Japan, top-ranked in 1993, fell to fourth and Germany to sixth. But when you look into the fine print of the report, it isn't so rosy. The United States ranks only 9th in the people category because of its 30th place showing on adequacy of its education system. The report also found the United States 40th in vulnerability to imports, was 40th in gross domestic savings, and it deteriorated to 29th in public funding of nondefense R&D. We clearly lead the world in the mixed blessing of downsizing and have garnered major productivity gains as a result. But disturbing long-term economic warning signals remain despite all the profit-taking of the past 5 years. This is particularly true when you look at one of the basic long term building blocks of economic growth: research and development. What are our foreign competitors doing? You guessed it. Japan has announced plans to double its R&D spending by 2000; it will actually pass the United States in nondefense R&D in total dollars not just share of GDP. This is an historic reversal. Germany, Singapore, Taiwan, China, South Korea, India are aggressively promoting R&D investment. Our lead in R&D has been our historic competitive advantage. If these trends continue, that lead will shrink. Competing advanced economies will be the winners if we cut technology programs that improve Government's efficiency and the taxpayer's return on investment. To keep building and renewing our economy, we have to keep investing in it. The numbers here are so bad they should be giving us fits: We have a 20-year downward trend in investment as a share of gross domestic product--we're at 11.2 percent for 1995, behind 47 competitor nations. The net national savings rate, which factors in government deficits, averaged 2.07 percent as a percent of GDP from 1990 to 1994, compared to the 8.11 percent average in the 1960's. The household savings rate last year, which doesn't include the Government deficit, is down to 4.6 percent; Japan's is 14.8 percent, France's is 14.1 percent, and Germany's is 12.3 percent. Obviously, our overall investment rates are related to our R&D investment rate. If you divide Government spending into investment and consumption categories, Government investments--items like education, R&D, and infrastructure--are increasingly dwarfed by major increases each year in entitlement consumption spending. Federal non-defense investment in the 1960's in these three categories was 23 percent of its outlays; it is now less than half that. These numbers tell us that we're slowly disinvesting in our economy. They tell us we may be starving our long term growth. I would like to focus on the programs that are victims under the proposed Appropriations bill we seek to amend, the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] and the Technology Administration [TA], the National Telecommunications and Informations Administration [NTIA], education technology and environmental technology. ATP--Investments in technology are investments in our future. ATP was enacted during the Bush administration to address technical challenges facing the American industry. Industry has already begun to benefit from this public-private partnership which aims to accelerate development of high-risk, long-term technologies. The nature of the marketplace has changed, and technological advances are a crucial component in maintaining our stature in the new world marketplace. Product life cycles are getting more and more compressed, so that the development of new products must occur at a more and more rapid pace. The market demands products faster, at higher quality and in wider varieties--and the product must be delivered ``just-in-time''. ATP funding is not a substitute for research investments that industry would have otherwise used for R&D. This program has attracted top-notch small-to-medium size companies who have lauded ATP. In an independent study, Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International [SEMI], an association comprised of 1,400 small companies that manufacture materials and equipment for the semiconductor manufacturers, found that 100 percent of the companies who participated in ATP rated it very favorably. Nearly two-thirds of the companies surveyed by Industrial Research Institute, an association of over 260 research companies who account for 80 percent of industrially-performed R&D in the U.S., only a small number of which have received ATP awards rated ATP with very high marks. The impact of the partnership activities amongst Government, industry, and academia is significant and far-reaching, according to a Silber and Associates study which interviewed every ATP industrial participant. I would like to share with you some of the company responses: We would not have done this research without the award. It absolutely enabled us. . . . We consider ATP a multiplier--by investing $3 million we gain access to $15 million worth of technology. . . . We particularly like that it wasn't a grant, but a match. This eliminated companies who just wanted a government subsidy . . . promotes putting your money where your mouth is. We're seriously committed and have already invested $2 million. ATP money encouraged us that a little company like us can be taken seriously. . . . Leverage reduces cost and risk. . . . Collaborations, cooperation, and learning to operate in a consortium with competitors were key outcomes. . . . ATP has clearly acted as a catalyst to develop new technologies and to foster ongoing joint ventures within the industrial R&D. Clearly, we should continue to support this program and restore $300 million for it as proposed in this amendment. TA--Cuts in Commerce's Technology Administration will severely handicap our government's ability to assess and strengthen the technology efforts of the American industry. How can we expect to improve U.S. economic competitiveness if we squeeze the ringmaster who oversees and assesses an important part of the U.S. R&D investment? TA requires an additional $2 million above the $5 million slated in the Conference report to peer review critical programs such as The clean car initiative, also known as the partnership for the new generation of vehicles, and to perform comprehensive competitive studies for many industrial sectors such as the chemical, semiconductor, banking and textile industry. NTIA--The National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Telecommunication's and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program [TIIAP] serves a very important purpose in connecting public libraries, schools and hospitals to state of the art telecommunications services and the Internet through its highly competitive cost-shared grant program. Last year, only 117 awards for 1800 applicants were given--that is fewer than 1 out of 15. To cut these programs that are in very high demand and essential in promoting education, reducing health care costs and providing more jobs is very short-sighted. The amendment restores $32 million which will enable TIIAP to provide 100-150 new awards. TIIAP programs are not a free ride and demand high community involvement to be successful. I strongly support investments in education technology which will inspire our children to enhance their creativity and reading and math skills using the innovative tools of Internet. The Environmental Technology Initiative will secure a cleaner and brighter America for our children and grandchildren with lighter, more fuel efficient cars and innovative pollution control technologies. To summarize, continued U.S. government investment in R&D is critical at a time when our competition is increasing its R&D support. The cuts in ATP, NTIA, TA and education and environment technology are unfounded and simply serve to starve our long-term prospects of developing high- wage jobs and maintaining U.S. leadership in the global economy. Now is not the time to drop out of the global R&D race and shift toward a path toward technology bankruptcy. As I stated before, the American Academy for the Advancement of Science has estimated that if current congressional spending trends continue, our Government will be cutting this R&D investments by almost one-third over the next few years. Defense R&D will be cut deeper than that. Our amendment attempts to correct that error in some critical program areas. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe this Congress erred last year when it allowed passage of a moratorium on new listings of endangered species, and new designations of critical habitat. This action did nothing to reduce the decline of wild plants and animals in our Nation, and across the world. If anything, the need to prevent their loss has grown, as God's creatures continue to lose a growing war against them. The moratorium did nothing to reduce the complications or costs of protecting them. In all likelihood, it has only made it more difficult as valuable time, and preferable management options, have been lost. The moratorium provided no funds to stimulate new approaches for conservation. It provided no financial incentives for private landowners. It did nothing to streamline listing procedures or tighten the quality of scientific determinations of species' risk. Instead, it built a false hope that somehow these problems would simply go away if we tried to put them away. It is understandable that nature does not heed man's advice. But it is unfortunate that we fail to heed nature's advice when it is so plain. Wild plants and animals are declining at rates thousands of times faster today than ever before in the fossil record. It is no coincidence that man's population, our thirst for natural resources, and our environmental problems, have grown just as fast in the opposite direction. Our ability to intelligently and effectively manage our resources has not kept pace with our ability, or desire, to use them. That is why we developed an Endangered Species Act and other laws for the conservation of wild plants and animals, and the basic natural resources upon which both they, and we, depend. We must do a better job of managing all natural resources for the complete spectrum of human needs they satisfy, and all of the values they provide. Man cannot live by bread alone. There are many arguments pro and con about the effectiveness of the ESA. Some say our success rate at saving species is too low to be worth the effort. Others say that it is too little, too late. For sure, the odds are against us when we let problems get so far out of hand. So it is a great credit to everyone involved in recovery of endangered species that we have so many great success stories like the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and Pacific yew tree. But I say that the single most important measure of success for the ESA is whether it has really made us better stewards of our resources. Without a doubt it has. Federal and State agencies pursue multiple use goals and conflict resolution with far greater expertise than they otherwise might. Some very bad government projects have been scrapped or modified over the years. Private conservation efforts are far more sophisticated and widespread. Other nations look more carefully at their actions. Science has pushed farther and wider to understand the causes of species decline, as well as the cures. Because of our concern about other creatures we have learned more about saving ourselves and leading better, more sustainable lives than we could ever have hoped all alone. Perhaps that is one reason God put them here with us. Perhaps our journey should not be alone. I recognize that stewardship comes with sacrifice. And I recognize that it can be misdirected at times. I support reforms to the ESA that ensure that the sacrifices involved are reasonable, supportable, and specifically targeted toward the prevention of species' decline, or their recovery. While the ESA moratorium has done virtually nothing to further progress in these areas, we are fortunate to have an administration that has been busy nonetheless. In this past year the Secretary of the Interior has implemented a broad series of administrative reforms to the ESA, including listing procedures for endangered species, that go a long way toward solving problems that may have existed with it. This reform plan includes stronger peer review of listings to ensure good science; a safe harbor policy for landowners creating new habitat; speedy habitat conservation plans and negotiated regional habitat protection approaches; greater State and local involvement in recovery planning; and recommendations for new positive incentives for landowners. In addition, the list of so called ``candidate species'' has been updated after careful scientific peer review. The procedure for listing candidates has been changed so that only those species meeting a higher standard of scientific information are included. Last April when Congress added the ESA moratorium to the Defense supplemental appropriations bill it singled out the ESA, and inaccurately portrayed it as the cause of many of our Nation's economic woes. For the past year our economy has been no significantly different than it would have without this moratorium. Today we can set the record straight by ending this moratorium and providing an appropriate level of funds to get the law working again. More than a century ago Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the famous Sherlock Holmes mysteries, wrote: ``so often those who try to rise above nature are condemned to fall beneath it.'' Let's not make that mistake with the ESA by suggesting that a blind eye sees a brighter future. Let's get back on track with the implementation of the ESA with its new reforms, and resolve not to waste any more time. For many creatures, time is running out.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Gloria Jean Cuming and the United States Tap Team, recent winners of the Annual World TapDance Championships, which were held in Dresden, Germany. Not only is this victory prestigious and respected around the world, but the victory was a special one for the team and our country. This is the first time in the history of the competition that the U.S. team won the coveted title. In addition to the sterling team performance, two individuals, Linda Provo and Stacy Eastman, advanced to the finals of the individual competition, the only 2 women among the 12 semi- finalists to do so. All 22 dancers are from the New Haven area in my State of Connecticut, and they all study at Ms. Cuming's dance studios. Ms. Cuming not only selected the team, but was their choreographer and assistant technical director as well. Mr. President, I know that you and the entire Senate joins me in congratulating these fine performers, who represent their art and their country with the greatest of skill and pride.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Connecticut gratefully accepts.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I gather there has been an agreement between the forces supporting and opposing this measure. Pursuant to that agreement, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes from time that had been allotted to the opponents of this bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. I am pleased and proud to say I am an original sponsor of this legislation which passed the Senate, passed the House, and languished in a conference committee because of a dispute over certain provisions of the bill. But, as so often happens, dictators like Castro, if given the time, will show their true inclination and will, by their acts, provide the best evidence and the best support for action by great and free nations like ours against them. So it was, painfully, tragically, in the case of Cuba and Castro, over the last few weeks. This is in the context of attempts by many in our country, well- intentioned attempts, to open some lines of communication with Castro to see if that might tame this beast, if that might make this tiger into a pussy cat. Just a few weeks ago, a distinguished group of visiting Americans had pictures taken with Castro, all looking very friendly. But what is happening on the ground at the same time in Cuba? In response to the deterioration of the economy and the continued suppression of the human rights of Cubans, I gather for the first time in three decades, the disparate opposition groups, that is groups opposed to Castro--and it is not easy, as we all know, to be opposed to Castro in Cuba--come together, form this group, Concilio Cubano, and begin to discuss peaceful, nonviolent ways to oppose the dictatorial regime of Castro. What is the response of that government, of Castro's government, to this group? He arrests its leaders, the leaders of the opposition, and puts them in jail. Think about the contrast. A distinguished group of Americans visiting, holding peaceful discussions, and at the same time the courageous domestic opposition to Castro--finally beginning to come together against the force of this state--gets locked up; all that in the week or so before this next tragic incident. They were four Americans. Sometimes we are too sensitive about things said in the media, but it struck me at the outset, when these planes were shot down, they were described as being piloted by representatives of the Cuban exile community. There is a Cuban-American community that has left Cuba. But these are not Cuban exiles in the sense that the term suggests, that they are somehow the other. They are us. These are Cuban-Americans who have attained citizenship and are proud of their extraordinarily productive community in Florida. So, four Americans in these unarmed planes were shot down, without appropriate warning under international law: an outrageous act; an act of murder--let us call it that, plain and simple. An act of murder of civilians by a military government has now dislodged this bill from the conference committee and brought it to the floor, and I am grateful for the support that has been given to the bill. The act of cowardice represented by that military attack demonstrates--as clearly as we could ask for it, much more clearly than any of us could argue on this floor or had argued before on behalf of this bill--that the Cuban Government's opposition to freedom is as strong as ever. The Castro regime remains hostile to the United States and the people of Cuba. This crackdown on the opposition, the shootdown of these planes, the litany of outrageous dictatorial acts that my friend and colleague from Florida has stated, show us once again that Castro is not redeemable. Forget it. Do not have idealistic dreams that this man, who comes out of the Stalinist era of communism, can suddenly become a freedom fighter. In supporting the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, we are acting in the best traditions of America's foreign policy because we are acting in the interests of human rights. We are acting in the interests of human rights. We are acting on behalf of the suppressed people who have lived too long under Castro's domination in Cuba. They have no less a right to live in freedom than the other peoples of the world toward whom we have extended ourselves, or against whom we have imposed economic sanctions to try to raise the liberty of the people who live within those countries. There are those who say that Castro denies human rights. That is true. And it is in the tradition of America, the best tradition of our foreign policy, to stand for human rights. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous agreement, I wonder if I might ask for 3 more minutes from the time of the opponents to the legislation?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the point is this. The opponents of the bill and others may say, ``Yes, Castro denies human rights, but he does not represent a threat to the United States.'' He does not, in a fundamental sense of our existence and security. But so long as there is a hostile government in Cuba, the fact is that enemies of the United States will find a partner. So long as there is a hostile government in Cuba 90 miles from our shore, those who wish us ill will find an ally. For that reason of our own national security, as well as the faithful support of the best principles of our country, human rights, I think the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act is a strong step in the right direction. Keep the pressure on. Bring Castro down. Let us move together on a bipartisan basis. The President strongly supports this legislation. Great majorities of both parties in this Congress support the legislation. Let us pass it and send the strongest possible message of hope to those who live under tyranny in Cuba and, hopefully, the strongest possible message that will bring fear to that individual who has tyrannized this proud people and that great island for much too long. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in my home State of Connecticut and across the Nation, something very positive is happening. Every day we hear about crime and violence committed by youth, teenage pregnancy, falling test scores and a host of other indications that the fabric of our society is fraying. These are problems that certainly need to be addressed. But today I would like to talk about Character Counts, a program that has committed itself to the children of this Nation in an affirmative way that conveys the faith and optimism we have in our youth and the high expectations we have for them. I am very proud to be a part of this growing endeavor. On yesterday, I joined with my colleagues in the introduction of a resolution to designate October 13-19, 1996 as this year's National Character Counts Week. Character Counts Week will focus attention on the importance of character education and mobilize participation in the program. Last year in Connecticut, almost 3,000 students and teachers from 75 towns attended a rally in Hartford kicking off Character Counts Week, and I know many other States have had an equally enthusiastic response to the promise of character education. I invite all Americans to join us in taking part in the character education of our young people as it is everyone's duty. Character Counts emphasizes six values--trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. These are values that we all hold in common; these values transcend religions, cultures, socio-economics, and generations. But these values need to be explicitly taught to our children and reinforced and reflected in the way we live and in the way we shape our society. Character Counts does exactly this--the program encourages participating schools to infuse their regular curriculum with the six core values. There is no set curriculum--schools create individualized programs to fit their needs. Character education can be quite simple--as one Connecticut educator commented, ``Any good teacher or good coach is probably doing it anyway.'' Character Counts spotlights and inspires these efforts. A 1992 survey of 9,000 high school and college students conducted by the Josephson Institute of Ethics revealed that 65 percent felt that values should be taught in school because some parents fail to do so in the home, and 45 percent felt that character education should begin as early as kindergarten. This tells me that kids not only need guidance, because it is often not received at home, but that they want guidance. A responsible society will work together to fulfill this obligation. Schools participating in the program have experienced a dramatic improvement in their behavioral problems. The Devereux Glenholme School in northwest Connecticut, the first school in the State to adopt Character Counts, saw a 50-percent drop in behavioral problems. And I know of at least three children in Connecticut who found sums of money, and instead of keeping it, turned it into the authorities. These children attributed Character Counts with helping them make the decision to turn in the money. I believe that our youth reflect the broader society as it is revealed to them by adults and that they will rise to our expectations. If expectations of ourselves and of our children are low, then kids will fulfill those low expectations. If we communicate to our youth that they are bad kids, then they will be bad kids. If we recognize their potential for being good kids and then show them and teach them what it means to have character, then they will grow up to be adults of character, and it is our obligation to see that this happens. Character Counts helps us meet that charge.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, a popular TV show in the 1960's, The Outer Limits, began each episode with these words: Do not attempt to adjust your television set. We control the horizontal. We control the vertical. . . Those words symbolized the kind of control the TV industry has had over what viewers could watch in living rooms all across the country. For a long time, we didn't mind, as TV offered plenty of quality shows, with a few inoffensive bombs sprinkled in here and there. But in recent years, the domination of the broadcast industry over what we see on TV has grated on the sensibilities of the American people, especially as TV has gone beyond the outer limits of good taste and decency, and into a twilight zone of immorality and degradation. The Outer Limits TV show ended each week with the announcer telling viewers, ``We now return control of your television set,'' and that is what has begun to happen today. This is an historic day for millions of American families. The major television networks and the people responsible for most of what we see on TV have agreed to create a rating system for their programs. This rating system will be compatible with the V-chip that television sets will carry in the near future. I would like to commend the entertainment industry leaders who have taken this step forward and agreed to implement a rating system and embrace the V-chip. I have no doubt that this will be seen as both a socially responsible and a good business decision in the long term. I have no illusions however, about how difficult it was for the entertainment leaders who met with the President to take this step. Today's news means parents will have a new tool to use as they struggle to raise their children in a healthy, moral environment. Parents will be able to block out programs that they deem inappropriate for their children. As co-sponsor of the V-chip legislation with Senator Kent Conrad and Representative Ed Markey, I am very pleased that the V-chip will soon become reality. President Bill Clinton deserves a lot of credit for making this major step forward possible. Beginning with his support for the V-chip last July, and continuing through his strong endorsement in the State of the Union Address, President Clinton, along with Vice President Gore, has helped move this issue front and center, and encouraged the television industry to abandon their opposition to ratings and the V-chip. We all will be watching what the television industry does to implement this new rating system. I have some concerns about how the ratings will be structured, because the credibility of that system is essential if parents are going to be able to use and trust the V-chip. The ratings must be tough enough to allow parents to prevent their kids from seeing too much violence, sexual activity, vulgarity, and even sexual innuendo, which has inundated many prime time television shows in recent years. A Seinfeld or Friends episode about masturbation or orgasms might qualify for a PG rating in a movie theater but should get the equivalent of an R when it comes on at 8 o clock at night. We must also guard against a rating system becoming a cover for even more inappropriate content in television programming. The parents of America will not stand still if the networks use the existence of ratings as an excuse to produce even more explicit and offensive shows. But, if properly designed and widely used by parents, a rating system operating through a V-chip can change the economics of the television industry, make quality programming more profitable than ever, and halt the current downward spiral in which the networks are too often competing with each other in a sleaze contest to capture their lucrative slice of a particular demographic pie. Today, the V in V-chip stands for victory, and the struggle to reclaim our public airwaves from the sleaze which too often dominates what is broadcast will continue. Ratings alone do not solve the problem. You can rate garbage, but you haven't changed the fact that it is still garbage. As my friend Bill Bennett said yesterday in a news conference we held with Senator Nunn and leaders from the Christian, Jewish, and Moslem organizations, a sign in front of a polluted lake does let you know that it's polluted, but it doesn't mean you can fish or swim in it. We need to clean up the polluted lake that is American television today, and take out the garbage. There are some television programs that no rating will make acceptable. Last week, Sally Jessy Raphael put a 12-year-old girl on her stage--a girl who had been sexually victimized repeatedly by older men--and verbally abused her in front of a nationwide audience. That is a form of child abuse in itself, and it's totally unacceptable, rating or no rating. That's the big, next task for the television industry--to use its incredible creative genius to bring us more programs that will elevate, not denigrate, our culture and our children. There is probably no other force around that dominates the lives of young people in America today as thoroughly as television. Millions of children spend more time in front of a TV than they do talking with their parents, praying in church, or listening to their teachers. The TV industry must do more to clean up their programs. Get rid of the violence that is still too pervasive, and damaging to impressionable young minds. Get rid of the gratuitous sex scenes, the common use of vulgarity, and the heavy sexual innuendo that dominates so many programs. You don't need to get down in the gutter to attract a big audience and make a profit. You do need to begin to draw a line, and say to yourselves and your producers, writers and actors--we won't go beyond that line, even if we can make more money, because it is wrong and it is bad for our country and our children. One way the television networks can demonstrate they mean business when it comes to helping America and its parents is to adopt a code of conduct to govern their programming. They used to have active standards and practices divisions, but those divisions have been sub-standard and out-of-practice in recent years, and need to be bolstered and empowered by a strongly worded code of conduct that sets decent standards. Another way the networks can show better corporate citizenship is to give us back the family hour. Give America's parents at least one hour at night when they can sit on the couch and watch TV with their children without fear of having their values insulted. Many parents, including my wife and I, have simply given up on network TV at night, choosing a family-oriented cable channel instead, or just reading or relaxing together. But tens of millions of families have no access to cable, and have little choice about what they can watch. There is no law, no business imperative, no reason not to give the American people decent, quality programs from 8 pm to 9 pm every night. To paraphrase the line in Field of Dreams, air them, and we will come. We will watch good TV. Mr. President, I am not a child of the information age. I am a child of the television age. I was raised watching TV, and I have watched TV with three generations of my children. I love TV, but I am not happy with what TV has become. It is not too late to reverse course. The degradation of America's culture can be stopped. We can't go back to the 1950's, but we can go back to a time of decency and quality television. We celebrate today the news that the television industry will develop a rating system for its programs and support the V-chip that will give parents more power to control over what their children see on TV. And we encourage the television executives to see today as a beginning, not an end. A beginning to a new partnership with America's families. ``A rising tide raises all ships,'' President Kennedy said, in speaking of economic growth. The same can be said of the tide of cultural decency. American television can uplift our people, or it can degrade them. It can inspire, or it can dispirit. Today, we hope the tide has begun to shift. Will the rising tide be sustained? All we can say now, is, ``stay tuned.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with the leadership of the Foreign Relations Committee and of the Senate in cosponsoring Senate Resolution 228, a resolution condemning the recent terror attacks in Israel. The heinous attacks in Jerusalem and Ashkelon on February 25 killed 25 people and wounded dozens more. A radical, crazy minority opposed to the peace process which is supported by most Israelis and Arabs has again taken innocent lives. The perpetrators and their supporters must be brought to justice. Such cowardly attacks are always reprehensible. But these attacks truly brought home to us the horror of terrorism because the victims included two Americans, one of them from Connecticut. This is the second time in less than half a year that the hand of terrorism has struck someone from Connecticut. In this case, Matt Eisenfeld--a wonderful young man, committed to the peace process, a student of the bible, exemplary of the best traditions--was struck down by cowards planting a bomb on a bus. I am in awe of the strength of the Eisenfeld family of West Hartford at such a difficult time. They have been true to their principles and true to their son's principles and continue to support the movement toward peace in spite of the awful loss they have suffered. Let us hope that people of similar strength and good will among the Palestinians and the Israeli population will not be distracted and deterred by these violent acts.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend and colleague from Vermont. Here we are again. Here we go again. I do not know whether we will change any minds, but I do think this is an important issue to debate and an important vote. I am disappointed by the extent of opposition to this bill that is desperately needed by the District of Columbia apparently primarily because of the portion that would establish a scholarship fund for poor children. I do not get it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Mayor Marion Barry dated February 23, 1996.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. In this letter, Mayor Barry literally pleads for us, for the sake of fiscal continuity of the District of Columbia, that we pass this bill. In it he says: I know that many Senators rightfully have serious problems with the voucher programs established in the appropriations bill. So do I. . . . This appropriations bill is not a vouchers bill . . . it only gives local officials the option to do so [which is to say initiate a voucher program] If they choose. Then he says, ``As much as I dislike the voucher issue, I cannot go another week without our full Federal payment. Real human suffering is at stake.'' What is stopping us? It is the voucher program. We all know this is controversial. I notice in the paper that some of my friends from the National Education Association claimed victory on the vote the other day, one saying, ``This is much bigger than D.C.'' The big point here is the District of Columbia and its future. I think maybe there is something bigger involved in the voucher program, but it is just a question of whether we are going to feel obliged to defend the status quo and the American public education system, which we know is not working for a lot of our children, or whether we will experiment, a very, very small amount of money compared to the billions spent on public education, to test what is going to happen to the kids, poor kids, whose parents decide they are trapped by their income in schools that are not educating them, schools in which they are terrorized very often, tragically, the ones who want to learn, by young hoodlums, stating it specifically. This program would allow them to break out of that. Let us see what effect it would have on those kids, and let us see what effect it would have on the public schools in the District. My mind is open. I have been a supporter of this voucher or scholarship program, but if these cuts occur and they occur more broadly than contemplated in the bill Senator Coats and I introduced, and somehow we find they cripple the public school system, we will step back and decide maybe it was not a good idea, was not worth it. I doubt that will happen. I think what is going to happen is we are going to create some opportunity for kids to break out of the cycle of poverty and maybe we are all going to learn a little bit, including the public schools, about how to better educate our children. There are tens of thousands of heroes working in our public school system. That is the heart of our hopes for the future of our children, the public school system. But it is just not working for a lot of our kids. I really appeal to my friends in the teachers organizations: Do not be defensive about this. You are strong. The public education system gets so much of public investment. I so actively support all the efforts to reform our public schools. This is not an either/or. If you are for the scholarship bill, it does not mean you are against public education. The fact is, what we have to focus on here is the kids. What is best for our children? Is there only one established way to educate them and brighten their future, or can we try another one, without doing damage to that? I am not hopeful about the outcome of the vote, but I appeal to my colleagues here. Listen to Mayor Barry's appeal to pass this bill and give this alternative and these 11,000 poor kids in the District a chance for a better education and a better life. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, since 1983, the United States Congress and the German Parliament, the Bundestag, have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and convey Members' views on issues of mutual concern. A staff delegation from the United States Congress will be chosen to visit Germany May 19 to June 1 of this year. During the 2 week exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag Members, Bundestag party staff members, and representatives of political, business, academia, and the media. Cultural activities and a weekend visit in a Bundestag Member's district will complete the schedule. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for 3 weeks this summer. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington and visit the districts of congressional Members over the Fourth of July recess. The Congress-Bundestag Exchange is highly regarded in Germany, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff members who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag sends senior staff professionals to the United States. The United States endeavors to reciprocate. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite United States delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern in Germany and the United States such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, immigration, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag staff members when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two staff people in their Member's district over the July Fourth break, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district. Participants will be selected by a committee composed of U.S. Information Agency personnel and past participants of the exchange. Senators and Representatives who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state why they believe they are qualified, and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications may be sent to Kathie Scarrah, in my office at 316 Hart Senate Building, by Friday, March 15.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Vermont. I rise to indicate my support for cloture on this D.C. appropriations bill. I do so because, as most Members in the Chamber, I would like to begin to see some money flow to the District generally for its operations, but I specifically want to speak to the reason why many of my colleagues will oppose the cloture motion, and that is their opposition to some of the education reform measures that have been attached to this appropriations bill. I strongly support those education reform provisions, including the scholarship program that has been referred to in this debate, which is a relatively small part of the overall District school reform proposals in this bill. I must say that I approach this debate in a very different spirit. We have been through a lot of gridlock, again, in this Congress. Ideas that are new have been talked about. Not too many have made it forward. But I feel a sense of joy, frankly, to have this package of progressive and genuinely important reforms for the District of Columbia school system on this floor for consideration today. It would be a shame if passage of these provisions, which could do so much to help children and families in this Capital city of ours achieve their full potential and escape the cycle of poverty, is stopped because of opposition to this modest program of scholarships for poor children. That is what we are talking about. The education reform provisions in this bill were not imposed by our friends in the House from up on high. In fact, they had their origin with a locally based education reform commission that was established in the District. While all of the attention and controversy in this debate and outside has been focused on these scholarship funds which will allow some children to leave the public school system and go to nonpublic schools, there are a wide variety of other provisions in this measure that deserve to be noted. The so-called D.C. School Reform Act, which is now part of the bill before us, would, in fact, direct approximately $302 million out of the $324 million in new funds over 5 years provided for in this bill to benefit public school students, public schools in the District of Columbia. Let me focus on two words. We are talking here about new money. We are not skimming money off that otherwise would go to the public schools. We are talking about new money and, in fact, all but $22 million of that will go to the public schools. It is just $22 million of the $324 million that are part of this innovative scholarship program. What else does the reform act do? It permits charter schools, public charter schools, and encourages choice among public schools. It assists the D.C. public schools in establishing a strong core curriculum in basic academics, promotion standards based on a new curriculum and training for the over 5,000 teachers in the school system. It protects public school teachers from losing their jobs due to any restriction in the number of full-time employees contained in this appropriations legislation. It provides for a new per-pupil funding formula to be developed by the District that we think will establish the stability and predictability in the education budget as the District cuts its overall budget. This measure provides so-called Even Start family literacy education programs in public schools for over 7,000 families, including 28,000 students and parents. It provides state-of-the-art security measures for over 3,700 students and teachers at high-risk schools in the District. It provides work force transition assistance to 27,000 seniors and juniors through the nationally proven Jobs for America's Graduates Program. It establishes a high technology training and referral center in the District that will serve up to 4,000 18- to 25-year-olds. And it establishes a national partnership with business to put in place computers and high-technology infrastructure in the schools, leveraging at least $40 million in public and private resources. That is all that this measure does for public schools and students in public schools. So what is all the fuss about? The fuss is literally the tail on the dog here. I gather that my colleagues are opposed to providing tuition scholarships to between 1,000 and 1,500 low-income District students in the first year to attend private schools of their choice, religious or nonreligious, and those schools, incidentally, have to be located in the District. Over 5 years, as many as 11,000 annual tuition scholarships could be provided. Do my colleagues in the Senate really want to oppose legislation that will enable kids from families below the poverty line to receive full tuition scholarships of up to $3,000 a year to give them a better chance to develop their potential in safer schools? Do we really want to stop families that are between the poverty line and 185 percent of poverty who can qualify for half-tuition scholarships, up to $1,500 per year under this provision? Do we really want to oppose parts of this bill that would provide 2,000 to 3,000 after-school scholarships in the first year, 22,000 over 5 years to low-income students after school programs, including academic tutoring, nonacademic enrichment programs, or vocational and technical training? Mr. President, I cannot believe that is really what the Senate wants to do and why we would block consideration of the overall D.C. appropriations bill. My colleagues in the Senate are probably not surprised that I am speaking in favor of cloture on this bill and support of the scholarship provisions, because I have fought for several years now, usually alongside, my friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, who I notice is on the floor, to create a similar national demonstration program to be available to kids in poverty areas around the country to, once and for all, test this idea. There is a lot of controversy about private school choice. There is no controversy about the fact that our public schools are just not working for millions of children in this country. There is no controversy about the fact that if you are not educated today, you are not going to be able to make it in the work force of today. We are all preoccupied with the Presidential campaign and brother Buchanan's statements about economic insecurity. What is the root of economic insecurity, and what is the road to economic security? A better education. The kids in our poorest school districts are simply not getting that education. Senator Coats and I have offered the Low Income School Choice Demonstration Act in an effort, once and for all, to make scholarships, such as those provided in this bill for District of Columbia students, or vouchers as we call them, available at between 20 and 30 demonstration sites around the country. Can anyone honestly say that we are so confident about what our public school system is doing that we do not want to test another way to see what effect it will have on the kids who have this choice, who get these scholarships, to see what effect it will have on the public schools? Senator Coats and I are open to the results. In our bill, we have the Department of Education doing an evaluation which will help us understand the effect of this program. Are we so intent on protecting the educational status quo, the existing system, which we know is failing millions of our kids, that we are not even willing to test, as Senator Coats and I would do in 20 to 30 systems around the country, as this bill would do in the District, another way to see whether it will work, to see whether it teaches us anything about how we can improve our public schools? Mr. President, just take a look at the front page of the Washington Post today. Coincidental, I guess. It is a story of a principal, Learie Phillip, obviously a fine man, working hard to provide an education at Roosevelt High School here in this city. The description is given of just the time he spends trying to maintain basic order, getting kids to go to the classroom, keeping children from marauding the halls, terrorizing other kids and teachers. There are descriptions of one teacher who attempted to get some kids to leave the halls and go to their classes, getting beaten up brutally--a teacher beaten up. Children are trapped; good children, wanting to learn, are terrorized in this school system. Let me read a quote from the Washington Post from another story last fall about an emergency education summit Mayor Barry held at Dunbar Senior High School on October 8, 1995. It was a group of student leaders who came to dominate the summit's main session--students describing life in the public schools in the District as a world in which they constantly go without--without books, without caring teachers and principals, without the training they need to succeed in life. ``Today the mayor has asked us here because there is a crisis in our public schools,'' said Devon Williams, 15, a sophomore at Banneker Senior High School. He adds, ``When school first started in September, it dawned on me that many public schools did not have teachers. I did not have a global history teacher for 2 weeks. If I don't have a book, if I don't have a teacher, what can I learn?'' Here is a quote from another Washington Post editorial back on June 28 of last year: According to the Washington Teacher Union's nonscientific sampling of D.C. teachers, 45.2 percent of the teachers who responded said they had been victims of acts of violence. Almost 30 percent said threats of violence had kept them or their coworkers home from work. ``Serious disciplinary problems are causing teachers to lose 18.5 hours of teaching time per year for each class taught,'' according to the union president's written testimony. ``Disruptive students steal time away from students who come to school to learn,'' Ms. Bullock of the Washington Teacher's Union testified. Mr. President, if this level of fear and violence applies to teachers, we really have to wonder and ask what life is like for the students in the schools who are there to learn. In some schools it must take a great deal of courage just to show up to class every day, much less to stand out by excelling academically. It has been an American tradition that one of the great strengths of our country has been that, with an education, you can work your way up out of poverty. But now, more than ever, there seems to be a vicious cycle in operation that has resulted in a concentration of poor kids trapped in inadequate, unsafe inner-city schools, without hope and without opportunity. Families who have money around our country, who are faced with sending their kids to schools, such as the one I have described, would do just one thing: They would walk. They would use that money to exercise a choice and remove those kids to better schools. The sad reality is that families without money cannot do any of those things. Families that have the money have the ability to exercise a choice. Poor families are at the mercy of failing schools. I, for one, cannot, in good conscience, accept the continuation of that reality. I cannot accept what it means in terms of deepening the cycle of poverty and hopelessness for the children of our poorest areas of America. I know that some of the opponents of this kind of scholarship or voucher program are concerned that it will harm public education by allowing the best students--the so-called advantaged students--to escape from public schools. Mr. President, in the case of this proposal, that is just dead wrong. These scholarships will be distributed according to a system worked out along with the D.C. City Council. In a broader sense, it misses the whole point of what the program is intended to do. We are trying to recognize that schools in some parts of the country--in this case, the District of Columbia--are not working for our kids. They are not performing their basic mission of educating our children. And so we have to give some of the kids an opportunity to seek a better way, until we have the ability to reform and improve the public schools. And maybe from the lessons we learn at these nonpublic schools, our public schools will learn how to make themselves better. Opponents say we should work to improve the public schools. Of course we should. Senator Coats and I and Congressman Gunderson agree with that. We should devote more time and energy and resources to improving public schools everywhere. And that has been where most of our money and effort has gone. That is where most of it goes in this bill. In the meantime, the fact is that poor children, who are average, above average, and below average--it does not matter--will all have a shot at these scholarships in the District. They all deserve an equal opportunity at the American dream. Right now, trapped in these unsafe schools with inadequate resources, with teachers afraid to teach, they are not getting that opportunity. Others oppose the program because it would allow the use of tuition scholarships at religious schools. This is an old argument. I happen to believe--according to what I take to be the prevailing Supreme Court decision of Meuller versus Allen in 1983--that this program is absolutely constitutional. But what is the great fear? Does somebody fear that by giving a poor child a scholarship to go to a religious school, we are establishing a religion in this country? That is ridiculous. We are giving that child an opportunity to go to a school that his or her family wants him to go to, and that one of the reasons they want them to go there is that, in addition to a safe surrounding and a good education, they are also going to get some values. Maybe that is something we have to learn, as well, from this experiment. The Rand Corp. did an important and revealing study in 1990. It showed that the performance of African-American and Hispanic-American children at Catholic parochial schools was much better than that of a comparable group in public schools--not skimming, similar kids, similar backgrounds. It also showed that the gap in performance that exists between the minorities and other children dropped significantly in the parochial school system. The study identified several factors in the success of the parochial schools they examined. Teachers in the schools are able to provide students with more personal attention. Those schools had a more rigorous academic curriculum. They do not teach down to the students. They tell them that they can reach up. They set higher standards for all the kids and, in fact, one of the results is that the kids get either to those standards, over them, or close to them. It was less of a stifling bureaucratic presence. I must say that I have always felt that every time I visited a religious-based school, another key to the success of these schools is their sense of mission, sense of purpose and dedication to values that the teachers and the schools bring to the classroom and to their children. Maybe it is hard to measure that, but we see it. Let me report briefly to my colleagues on a visit that Senator Coats and I were able to take to a school in the Anacostia area, Dupont Park School, affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is a very impressive place. The principal is a devoted woman. We asked her about the educational administrative bureaucracy there--she is it. There is no top-heavy bureaucracy. She directs the school and takes care of all of it. The kids, the demeanor, the commitment, the attitude of the children was very impressive to Senator Coats and me. Their test scores are exceptionally high. Mr. President, 97 percent of the kids at that school--and they come from a wide range of groups within the neighborhood; some of them from poverty families--97 percent of the kids test above national average. We went into the classrooms. The first graders were talking Korean to one another. The school choir sang a song from Africa in the African dialect. Computers--second, third, fourth grade kids working on computers, studying global history, working with advanced math. The school's annual tuition, well below the $3,000 threshold of the program of the scholarship program in this bill. We were in one of the classrooms and we asked, ``Do you like going to this school?'' Everybody said yes. We said, ``Why do you like going to this school?'' A whole bunch raised their hands, and we called on one young man and he said, ``I like going to this school because our teachers love us.'' This was a third or fourth grader. I thought maybe he would say it is an old building but it is very nicely kept. I thought maybe he would talk about the computers or the excitement of learning about world cultures. I am not saying there are not a lot of teachers in the public schools who love their students, but he has a sense of worth because he has received that message from the school. In another class we said, ``Why do you think your parents sent you here?'' One girl raised her hand and she said, ``My parents sent me here because my mom told me that here none of the students would be carrying guns or knives.'' That is the truth. As I indicated earlier, it seems to me there is something special to be learned from the schools. We ought not to cower from them in fear. We have nothing to fear from them. We have a lot to learn from them and their sense of purpose and dedication, and perhaps in the public schools we can build on some of that as well. The bottom line is this: Poor kids deserve the same access, the safe, secure, loving, encouraging environment as kids who have more money. That is what this scholarship program will test and offer to a small group of children in the District of Columbia school system. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his generous gift of time to me.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, again, I thank my friend from Vermont. I associate myself with everything the Senator from Vermont has said, including particularly the sense of despair, even outrage, that we may defeat continued funding for the District of Columbia which desperately needs it because of opposition to a very small part of this proposal that calls for scholarships for kids in the D.C. school system. I want to suggest in closing that those who oppose the scholarship program are opposing a false choice. This is not an either/or. It is not if you are for the scholarship program, you are against the public schools. Obviously, we are all for the public schools. I am a proud graduate of the public school system. I have supported just about every funding proposal for public schools that has come here and opposed those that have proposed cuts for the public schools. The fact is that billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are spent every year in our public school systems. There is almost nothing to give the kind of choice we are talking about testing in the District system. So what is the big deal? The choice to me is this: Is our responsibility to protect a system, which is to say the public schools, right or wrong--and we know they are failing millions of our kids today, doing a great job with millions of others--or is it to better educate our children? This is not just a question of money. If it were, the District school system would be in better shape than it is, than I described in the sentences I uttered earlier on. The District of Columbia public school system spends more per student than any other State, than any of the 40 largest school systems in America, and still it has the problems it has. My friend from Washington asked, ``Who wins in the scholarship program?'' I will tell you who. It is 11,000 students in the District of Columbia--mostly poor kids, by definition--who, by this measure, will have the opportunity to have a choice to do what families with money do when their kids are in schools where they cannot have an opportunity to learn. Think about it from the point of view not of the school system or of the teachers, but of the parents of these kids. Maybe a single mother working hard to bring up a child can give that child values, hope, and a future, and this scholarship system is that hope. Are we going to frustrate those 11,000 kids and stop funding for the District of Columbia? Good God, I hope not. I am going to support cloture.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on a number of occasions over the past several years, many of my colleagues and I have condemned the government of Iran for its repressive policies and actions toward its Baha'i community. Today, I join with Senator Kassebaum, Senator Dodd, Senator McCain, and others in submitting another concurrent resolution calling on Iran to change its repressive anti-Baha'i policies and to protect the rights of all its people including minorities such as the Baha'is. Since the Senate passed its first concurrent resolution on the Iranian Baha'is in 1982, we have seen some improvement in the situation. Persecution of individual Baha'is seems to be less severe than in past years. Expressions of international outrage and the application of diplomatic pressure have had some effect, even on the isolated and close-minded regime in Iran. But the progress we have seen is not enough. It is not enough to say that the government is not persecuting these people as much as they used to. It is not enough to say that only a few Baha'is are being held in Iran's prisons because of their religious beliefs. It is not enough to say that the Government of Iran is willing, in the words of a 1991 policy document, to ``permit them a modest livelihood.'' It is not enough that the Government of Iran is willing to allow Baha'is to ``be enrolled in schools.'' It is not enough when all of these rights are dependent on citizens NOT identifying themselves as Baha'is. The real thrust of Iranian policy is seen in the provisions of the 1991 policy document that say Baha'is ``must be expelled from universities * * * once it becomes known that they are Baha'is'' or that the Government will ``deny them employment if they identify themselves as Baha'is.'' A policy which calls for a plan to ``be devised to confront and destroy their cultural roots outside the country'' and to ``deny them any position of influence, such as in the educational sector, etc'' is a policy of repression and denial of fundamental human rights. Such a policy violates the obligations of sovereign states to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements guaranteeing the civil and political rights of citizens. Such a policy must change if Iran is ever to rejoin the community of nations. Our action today in passing this resolution is consistent with the actions of the U.S. Government and responsible international bodies for many years. The Reagan and Bush administrations worked to gain international support for the Baha'i community. President Clinton has cited ``the abusive treatment of the Baha'i in Iran'' as a critical human rights concern and his administration has remained attentive to the fate of this community. The State Department has worked diligently to secure passage of U.N. resolutions condemning Iran for its persecution of the Baha'is and to raise the issue at all relevant international fora. The U.N. General Assembly has adopted numerous resolutions condemning Iran's human rights abuses with specific reference to the Baha'is. The German Bundestag and the European Parliament have also adopted resolutions condemning Iran's treatment of its Baha'i community. And so we come before the Senate once again with a concurrent resolution which will keep this critical issue in the public eye and will maintain international pressure on Iran to change its ways. The American people understand very well that if the rights of all members of a society are not protected, then the rights of no one in the society are secure. We do not expect Iran to become a Jeffersonian democracy. But we and the entire world community have a right to expect and to demand that it not persecute any of its peoples solely for their religious preferences. How can a society consider itself to be just and based on the law of God when it persecutes in a broad and systematic fashion 300,000 of its citizens who constitute the largest religious minority in Iran? Iran must end its hypocrisy and extend to the Baha'i community the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international covenants on human rights. I urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution and our continuing effort to bring about change in Iran.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Enfield Fire Department on the occasion of their 100th anniversary. For the past 100 years this dedicated group of men and women have strived to ensure the safety of the community of Enfield, CT. Their dedication is evident in their unshakable commitment to self sacrifice for the security of their friends, families, and neighbors. Indeed some have given the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives while trying to protect their fellow citizens. This organization's dedication and commitment to the town of Enfield can be seen not only through the fire department's actions but also in the great confidence and respect the residents of Enfield place upon these men and women. Ordinary men and women asked to perform extraordinary tasks, never asking what was in it for them. The community's faith in their fire department has not wavered in its first 100 years and will undoubtedly continue through the next century. The Enfield Fire Department has been an important stone in the foundation of the town of Enfield. The people of Connecticut thank them for their service, dedication, and contribution to their community.