Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Joseph Gentile from the State of Connecticut. over the last three decades, Mr. Gentile, who resides in the Morris Cove section of New Haven with his wife, Bernadette, and three children, has truly demonstrated a genuine love for his fellow man. He has devoted himself tirelessly to his community in his quest to help the area youth and underprivileged succeed. Through his participation in sports and community organizations, he has always extended a helping hand and his goodwill to those in need. His accomplishments, as are the lives that Joseph has touched and help shape, are countless. As a coach, commissioner, administrator, and friend of the Annex Y.M.A. Little League, the East Haven Midget Football League, and East Haven High School he produced winners on and off the field. His football, baseball, and softball teams won numerous league, State, and district championships throughout his coaching career. More importantly, the youngsters he came in contact with learned lessons in humility, sportsmanship, and perseverance from a true role model. Joseph Gentile has also exemplified these same qualities as a long- standing member and former board of governor and director of the Walter Camp Football Foundation, as a volunteer for the Connecticut Special Olympics and while serving as a New Haven commissioner for persons with disabilities. He has also played an instrumental role while serving as district coordinator for the New Challenger Division in Little League baseball for physically and mentally handicapped children. When called upon for assistance, Joseph Gentile has always answered the call. Therefore, Mr. President, I see it only fitting that this outstanding and caring individual be commended for his many contributions, hard work and for always having a golden heart.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize two exemplary citizens from the State of Connecticut, Carmen and Vincent Aitro. These two men, twin brothers, have worked tirelessly to help their community and to improve the lives of Connecticut's youths. The Aitro brothers have a long-standing history of dedication to the New Haven area community-service organizations. Carmen and Vincent Aitro have used sports to instill positive values and principles into the young people they involve. They have directed or coached numerous teams and athletic organizations in sports, including baseball, basketball, and softball. Many of their teams excelled on the field, winning numerous league and State championships. The young people coached by the twins have received invaluable benefits, not just in terms of athletic skills, but also, more importantly, skills and attitudes that will aid and guide them throughout their lives. The Aitro brothers have already been recognized by their community. They have served on the board of directors of many organizations, among which are the Walter Camp Football Foundation, the New Haven Boys and Girls Club Board of Managers, and the Commissioner of the New Haven Housing Authority. The honors Carmen and Vincent have accrued are numerous, but include The Dante Club Old Timers Award, the Andy Papero Bronco League Man of the Year, the Boys Club Alumni Gold Ring Award, and the Walter Camp Award. Therefore, Mr. President, I believe that these two outstanding individuals should be commended for their many years of service and dedication. These are two men who truly made a difference through their accomplishments, and their nature of generosity and selflessness will long be remembered.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, a few moments ago I cast my vote in favor of the Defense authorization conference report for fiscal year 1996. I did so with very mixed feelings. There are many provisions in the conference report which I worked hard to attain and I am delighted they are in this report. But there are other provisions that I have opposed for several years and, in fact, voted against during the markup of the bill in the Armed Services Committee--restrictions on abortion and additional B-2 funding to name just two. There is also a provision on how the military must treat HIV positive soldiers which I believe is wrong-headed and discriminatory. I regret that in order to complete this conference the majority felt it necessary to accept these sorts of provisions. My vote today for passage of this conference report does not alter my determination to see that these provisions are changed before they can have the adverse impact on our military men and women which I fear is likely. As I weighed the bad against the good in this conference report, I have concluded that the good is essential for our servicemen and women and their families as they serve our country in Bosnia or wherever they are serving around the world. Mr. President, one of the many reasons I sought to serve on the Armed Services Committee is that it operated on a bipartisan basis for the good of our national security and our men and women in uniform. The fact that Senator Nunn, the former chairman, during his time on the committee has voted for more than 20 authorization bills regardless of who was in the majority is an indicator of this bipartisan spirit. The fact that Senator Nunn did not vote for this report is an indicator that this spirit was eroded this year. I greatly regret that. This erosion occurred, I believe, in spite of the hard work and best efforts of the distinguished current chairman, Senator Thurmond. I hope that we can take a hard look at ourselves and that we will be able to make whatever changes might help us return to where this great committee used to be.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, for all these reasons I will vote against the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. Frankly, if people oppose this mission I think the choice is really to step up to the plate and vote for the first resolution from the House to cut off funding. But to oppose the mission and support the troops I respectfully do not think works. I do not think it goes together. Again, the Dole resolution speaks in thoughtful and supportive terms. The Congress, it says, ``unequivocally supports the men and women of our Armed Forces who are carrying out their missions in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.'' I am quoting from the latest draft of that Dole-McCain resolution. And I continue: . . . and [the Congress] believes they [the troops] must be given all necessary resources and support to carry out their mission and ensure their security. It goes further, as I suggested earlier, to offer support for the President's commitment, to offer support for the mission based on the fulfillment of certain conditions in carrying out that mission. Again I say, the President has accepted those conditions. The resolution particularly includes language which expresses the high priority that so many us in this Chamber, led by the distinguished majority leader, have given to the issue of equipping and training the forces of the Bosnian Federation. I am pleased the President has now sent the majority a letter on this subject, dated December 10, in which he said: We believe establishing a stable military balance within Bosnia by the time the implementation force leaves is important to preventing the war from resuming and to facilitate IFOR's departure. We have made a commitment to the Bosnian Federation that we will coordinate an international effort to ensure that the Federation receives the assistance necessary to achieve an adequate military balance when IFOR leaves. Mr. President, I have raised this question of equipping and training the Bosnian Government with the President personally and with members of the administration on a number of occasions, as have other Members of the Senate and members of the Senate Armed Services Committee particularly, and the assurances we have received are strong and clear and unequivocal. This administration, in supporting the Dayton peace treaty which finally led to the lifting of the immoral, illegal arms embargo, is going one step further. This administration is committed to leading the coordination of the international effort to arm, equip and train the Bosnian forces so that they will be able to protect their families, their cities, and their nation, and deter aggression by a stronger neighbor, which, as Secretary Perry said in marvelous words, was ``a causative factor'' of the war in Bosnia. The imbalance of forces was ``a causative factor,'' Secretary Perry's words, in the outbreak of war in Bosnia. We want to eliminate that causative factor. So, between the assurances we have received from the administration orally and in writing, including the letter the President has sent us and the requirement stated in the Dole-McCain resolution, I am confident that the Bosnian forces will be equipped and trained to their satisfaction. In fact, when Prime Minister Silajdzic visited the Capitol a week ago, I asked him specifically if he was satisfied with the commitment that was made to him and the other leaders of Bosnia at Dayton before they signed the peace treaty, and he said yes. In fact, he made it very clear that he, frankly, did not care whether it was United States forces who did the equipping and training or it was third parties, so long as his people were provided the means to defend themselves if the need should arise after the implementation force leaves Bosnia. And he said, deeply, he was confident that that would be the case thanks to American leadership and support. So we come to the time of voting today. We, in the Senate, have an opportunity with our vote on these three pending resolutions to tell our men and women in uniform, to tell the governments which have signed the Dayton accords and all that might want to do harm to our forces once they arrive in Bosnia, that we will stand behind our military and behind our President as he executes his foreign policy responsibilities in Bosnia, whether or not we think the original commitment was wise. We have the opportunity to avoid instability in Europe which twice in this century has drawn us into dreadful wars. We have the opportunity to send a message loud and clear to all the other ethnic groups in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere who have begun or are prepared to seek advantage over one another by force of arms, and, yes, by genocide. We have the opportunity here to take this NATO alliance and make it so strong that it protects the security of the world and relieves us, the United States, of our solitary burden for maintaining the peace of the world. Some have said that NATO, by its charter, is a defensive institution meant to defend against Soviet invasion of Western Europe. It was, and it did that task magnificently. We are at a different point in history now. For all of us who said on this floor that the United States cannot be the policeman of the world, NATO is the way for us to make sure that the United States is not the policeman of the world. Just as we turned to our allies in Europe to help us in Operation Desert Storm, and they responded by joining us heroically, today they turn to us to ask us to help them implement this peace in Bosnia. If we say no, what will they say to us the next time we turn to them and ask for help? But if we say yes, as we have, we will see NATO loom large in Europe and beyond as a force for stability and peace. It has already begun. For the first time in three decades the French are sitting in the same room at the same table, planning and implementing a NATO military operation. So, let us not let this opportunity slip from our fingers. Let us take the long view. Let us understand that sometimes we are called upon to make a decision that is not popular with our friends and neighbors at home. Let us understand that foreign policy cannot and should not be made on the basis of public opinion polls, but must be made on the basis of each of our sincere calculations of America's national interests and national security needs. Let us stand together to open ``the door of future to the Bosnian children'' as Zlata Filipovic, the young Bosnian girl whose diary of life in Sarajevo so moved the world. As Bette Bao Lord, chair of Freedom House has said in an open letter: ``As our youth and our compatriots embark on this mission of peace, let them hear but one voice--that of America, a country of conscience and constancy, a country whose most enduring export is hope.'' I say to my colleagues, let us stand together and approve the Dole- McCain resolution. Exhibit 1 Washington, DC, December 12, 1995. Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Lieberman: As American military forces are being prepared for commitment in Bosnia, we believe it is essential that they go with a clear understanding that they are supported by their country--that is, by the whole American people--in their difficult and dangerous assignment. Our military forces serving in Bosnia will be under American command, acting in concert with military forces from NATO and other nations that participate in the military implementation of the Dayton peace agreement. The mission statement and the NATO chain of command make it clear that the military forces are not to be drawn into mission-creep nation-building but are to be used for tasks military in nature, and will not be subjected to attempts at micro- management from afar, or to ``dual-key'' aberrations. As you consider our country's involvement in Bosnia, we encourage you to send a message to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines wherever they may be (and to all others as well) that our country is giving them its full backing in the accomplishment of their assigned mission. We believe it is time to close ranks, support our troops in the field, and concentrate on helping them do their job in the best possible way. On behalf of the retired general and flag officers listed below, Sincerely, Michael S. Davison, General, U.S. Army (Ret.). Andrew J. Goodpaster, General, U.S. Army (Ret.). Walter T. Kerwin, General, U.S. Army (Ret.). William J. McCaffrey, Lt. Gen., U.S. Army (Ret.). William Y. Smith, General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.). Harry D. Train, Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.). I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, later today the President of the United States will leave for Paris to participate in a historic event, the signing of an agreement which will open the door to peace in the Balkans. Think about it, Mr. President. The year 1995. Think about the conflict in the Balkans that marked the beginning of this century and how it was left to run wild, leading to World War I and in some ways leading to the imbalance and incompletion of that war that ultimately led to World War II. The year 1995. Conflict breaks out in the Balkans, and today the President of the United States is leaving for Paris to participate in the signing of an agreement which opens the door to peace in the Balkans, which implements, as my friend and colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, has said and hopefully will say again, some basic tenets of international law. Mr. President, much has been said in the last month about the role the United States played, first, in bringing the parties to the negotiating table, and second, in hammering out a complicated agreement which all the warring parties would be willing to sign and, most importantly, would be willing to live with. Much has also been said about the role the United States must continue to play if this agreement is going to have a chance of bringing the benefits of peace to the people of Bosnia, stability to Europe, and increased security to the world. So, Mr. President, I would say that this is another one of those historic days in the life of the U.S. Senate. It is one of those defining moments in our history. Most of us in the Senate today faced a similar situation on January 12, 1991, when we stood to vote for or against authorizing President Bush to use American military forces in a war in the Persian Gulf. That situation in fact was very different from the situation we face today. There, on January 12, 1991, the President had already committed a half million American military personnel to the gulf region, within range of Iraqi Scuds. There the war the President was about to engage in would find American forces facing a dug-in, fortified Iraqi force, fighting a war. And casualty estimates stated on this floor and elsewhere went as high as the thousands. Here we are being asked to support, not a war, not to send our troops into war, but to send them on a mission of peace, to implement and monitor the peace that the parties to the war want as opposed to fighting as we did in the gulf war an untractable, unyielding enemy. And remember, though the forces that fought in Desert Storm were international, they were primarily American. Here, on this peacekeeping mission, two-thirds of the implementation force will be non-American; one-third will be American. Many of my colleagues believed that the best course of action in the early days of 1991 was to allow economic sanctions to continue to bite at Saddam and so did not vote for the authorizing resolution which Senator Warner and I offered. I understand the sincerity of that position. But the Senate did support President Bush on January 12 and voted 52 to 47 for Senate Joint Resolution 2 which stated, and I quote: The President is authorized . . . to use United States Armed Forces. . . . While 47 Members of this body did not vote for that resolution, let us not forget that when the President exercised this authority and ordered Desert Storm to begin, every Senator, and I daresay every American, supported our troops and the President of the United States. And I hope and sincerely believe this will be the conclusion of our discussions and deliberations and votes this week with regard to the mission our troops are going to carry out in Bosnia. Mr. President, the debate we have heard over the past days and weeks has been a good one, a thorough one, a sincere one. We have had numerous opportunities, as Members of the Senate, to hear directly from the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President's National Security Adviser, Ambassador Holbrooke who negotiated the agreement, and a variety of former Government officials, academics, and thinkers. The administration has, in my view, gone to extraordinary lengths throughout the negotiations and afterward to consult with Congress and to provide us ample opportunity to ask questions and to express our views. And so we find ourselves now, in the week when the Dayton agreement is to be signed by the warring parties. In the days following the signing, U.S. forces and those of our allies in NATO and 16 other non-NATO countries will move into the region to implement the peace which has been agreed to. These forces go not to impose a peace on unwilling participants, they go because the parties to the conflict asked them to go. They go because the world community, acting as a result of American leadership and through the mighty force of NATO, finally struck from the air to bring some pain to the aggressors, aided by an increasingly strong ground force of the federation of Bosnians and Croatians. Our troops will go because the parties to the conflict are fed up with the killing and slaughter, the deprivation and denial of their right to live in peace and civility, and they have asked us to come in and give them a chance to make this peace work. They have asked us to come in, in the case of the Serbs, because of the effectiveness of the economic sanctions the world community imposed on the government in Belgrade and on the former Yugoslavia, on Serbia and Montenegro. That is a point worth noting. People criticize economic sanctions and say they are irrelevant, they are useless, they are wrong. They worked here. That, as much as the failure, the increasing opposition that Serbian forces were facing in Bosnia certainly brought Mr. Milosevic to the peace table. Mr. President, we have been briefed on the missions which our military forces will perform. We have reviewed the rules of engagement which will be followed by our forces. We have seen the nature of the force which we will be sending to the region. And we can conclude with some confidence from all of this that the highly trained, heavily armed professional force of volunteer soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen we are sending will be able to do their assigned military missions within a reasonable time, and they will carry out this operation successfully. The operation is not without risk. No one in the administration has said otherwise. None of us who support the deployment of American troops to Bosnia to implement this peace has said otherwise. No one in this administration or this Congress is eager to send our forces to a place where some of these brave young men and women might be injured or, God forbid, killed. But I believe that with their training, the best in the world, their professionalism, the finest in the world, their sense of service and duty which impelled them to volunteer, their numbers and composition, the limited scope of their mission, the flexibility and robustness of their rules of engagement--which basically means that if these troops are threatened in any way, they will respond with overwhelming force. Remember what happened in Haiti when American troops there were challenged at that police station. They responded with overwhelming force and were essentially never challenged again in Haiti. All of this provides as much safety as one can hope for when a military force is deployed to what was, until recently, a combat zone. Of course, all Americans will be praying for the safety of our forces in the days and months ahead. All of us will understand and empathize with them and their families as they see Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Year's come and go separated from their loved ones and their friends. But these concerns, as real and deep as they are, are not sufficient reason to decide not to send our military to perform this important mission: To bring peace to Bosnia, to bring a greater level of assurance that there will be stability in Europe and in the former Soviet Union, to revive NATO, to reestablish at an ever higher level the strength and leadership of the United States of America. For the first time in nearly 4 years, the people of Bosnia--who have engaged the minds and hearts of every one of us in this Chamber as we watched their suffering, as we watched them be the victims of aggression and genocide--for the first time in nearly 4 years, these people in Bosnia can see a ray of hope for their future, they can picture a day without running from snipers or praying that mortar rounds do not land in the marketplace while they are shopping with their children, or land on the snowy hills where their children go to sled and to act like children rather than targets for the irresponsible cowards who have fired on them now for 3 or 4 years. Mr. President, we do not have the luxury of turning back the clock to a time when we might have done something other than sending our troops to serve on the ground as peacekeepers in Bosnia. As you know, in the past 4 years, I have spoken on the floor numerous times, joining with colleagues of both parties, in calling for a lifting of the arms embargo which was immoral, as the Senator from Idaho said before me. It was immoral, it was illegal, it was outrageous to deny a people the right they are given under the U.N. Charter, let alone and what might be referred to as natural law, to defend themselves and their families and their country. So I, and others here, finally a strong bipartisan majority, called for a lifting of the arms embargo against the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the conduct of airstrikes by NATO forces, to try to create some balance of force on the ground, to try to deter the aggressors, those who were committing genocide. Finally, this summer, thanks in large measure to American leadership after the fall of Srebrenica which led to a slaughter of thousands of men and boys buried in mass graves, finally NATO struck at the Bosnian Serb aggressors from the air. I will not go into all the what ifs which fill the minds of many of us. I wish we had followed a strategy of lift and strike long ago. Had we done so, there might well have been an end to the killing before now. But let me say, Mr. President, in supporting the lift and strike strategy, I never thought it was a substitute for an ultimate peacekeeping force. At its best, I believed that the lift and strike strategy would create that balance of force on the ground that would bring the parties to the peace table--exactly what has happened now. I believe if we had implemented that policy earlier, we would have brought them to the peace table earlier because we would have removed from the aggressors, particularly, the motivation to continue to fight. But I have always felt that when they got to the peace table, if they could agree on the peace, there would be a need for an international peacekeeping force. That is where we are now. Mr. President, it was important to many of us that on the day after the Dayton agreement was signed, the United Nations acted with the force of international law to lift the arms embargo--the goal so many of us in this Chamber had for so many years. In some ways, I regret that in the excitement over the Dayton agreement, and the questions raised about it, that extraordinary act did not receive sufficient attention and appreciation. The fact is that we have acted now. Thanks to American leadership, the parties came to the negotiating table and agreed to an extensive peace treaty; and tomorrow they will sign that treaty in Paris. We have brought the parties this far. It is American leadership, joined with our allies in NATO and Europe, and impelled by the will of the combatants in the field themselves that have brought us this far. We cannot abandon these people or the cause of peace now. Nor can we abandon our allies in NATO who are sending their forces in to implement this agreement. The President made it clear that he is prepared to send our forces, with or without the support of Congress, just as President Bush correctly made clear in 1990 and 1991 that he would send the United States' forces to the gulf war, even if Congress did not support his efforts. You come to a point where decisions and judgments of this kind cannot be made by 535 Members of Congress. That is what we elect Presidents for. In this case, I think President Clinton has demonstrated the leadership and courage we expect of our Presidents, just as President Bush before him did in the gulf war. When we speak of defining moments in history, post-cold war, this decision will stand alongside the decision in the gulf war, as a marker as to where we would go and the extent to which the forces of Western civilization--particularly regarding Europe--were joined together to stop conflict and deter war. Now it is this Senate's turn to demonstrate courage and leadership. Now it is this Senate's turn to support, in very clear terms, both the American troops, who will be on the ground, and the policy which has, at last, brought us to the point where the Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic, could tell me last week when he was in Washington, ``We are an inch from peace. Do not abandon us now when we are this close.'' So, Mr. President, we have three choices before us. First is the resolution that comes from the House, which would effectively cut off funding for any peacekeeping operation by American forces in Bosnia. Second, we have the amendment cosponsored by the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Oklahoma, which supports the troops but opposes the mission. Third, we have what is now described as the Dole-McCain resolution, offered by the distinguished majority leader and the Senator from Arizona--but I am sure it will be a bipartisan resolution when it comes to a vote--which offers support for the mission and the troops, the support contingent on terms that are stated in the resolution that the President has agreed to. Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about the language of the resolution offered by Senator Hutchison and Senator Inhofe, which ``opposes President Clinton's decision to deploy United States military ground forces.'' Yet, it says that ``the Congress strongly supports the United States military personnel who may be ordered by the President to implement the General Framework Agreement.'' Mr. President, it is my sincere belief--and I say this with the greatest regard for my colleagues who are sponsoring this resolution-- that we cannot support the troops and oppose their mission. I remember the words from the Bible, ``For if the sound of the trumpet be uncertain, who will follow into battle?'' Mr. President, the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution, with all respect, sounds a very weak and uncertain trumpet. Of course, we support our troops. No one ever doubted that. But how can we claim to both support the troops and oppose the mission? How would we feel if we were in uniform, heading to Bosnia, and the Congress of the United States says, ``Well, we are behind you, folks, but we do not support your mission"? I would not feel secure. I would not feel I had the support that I would want to have for my country going into a peacekeeping mission in a potentially dangerous zone, which the Commander in Chief has decided to send me into. I would want to see a closing of ranks in the same way that occurred at the time of the gulf war, to receive strong support, the kind of support that is involved and stated in the Dole-McCain resolution. The Hutchison-Inhofe resolution, in my opinion, sends a muddled message to every one of our troops, to their loved ones back home and, most worrisome, to those in Bosnia who would like to see this framework wrecked by keeping the United States and NATO forces out of Bosnia. To say that this Congress opposes the decision, the mission to deploy our forces, tells the war criminals in Pale and the rogues and terrorists in Bosnia who do not want peace and want the United States and the international implementation force out of Bosnia, that they can work their mischief against American forces, and because this Congress does not support the mission, this Congress may well pull the rug out from under the President and the troops and try to force him to withdraw those forces if damage is done to the troops by these rogue elements in Bosnia. I am very concerned about this possibility. I know it is not the intention of the sponsors of the resolution. But, frankly, I do not see how we can have it both ways. I do not see how we can support the troops and say we are supporting them if we so clearly oppose their mission. The Dole-McCain resolution offers a very thoughtful and credible alternative. It is not, to put it succinctly, a statement of unconditional support for the decision the President has made, but it is support for the mission. As one of the witnesses before our Senate Armed Services Committee said last week, the question now is not whether the commitment to send American forces to be part of this international implementation force should have been made--that is history and is done--the question now is whether we will honor that commitment, and that is what the Dole-McCain resolution offers us the opportunity to do. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor in recent weeks and spoken of their concerns about the danger associated with the terrorist, rogue, unreconciled Bosnian Serb groups and what harm they may do to our forces. But why, then, would we want to do anything which will give them hope that they can sabotage this peace effort of which American forces are so critical a part? This is a time to close ranks. This is a time to go back to the great moments in our history--obviously through the world wars, but then afterward as well. We associate the ultimate in this with the Truman-Vandenberg relationship, but it has happened throughout the cold war and continued through Operation Desert Storm. To close ranks, to honor the commitment that is made, understanding, as the Dole-McCain resolution says clearly, that it is in the interests of the United States to preserve American credibility, that it is, in the words of this resolution, a strategic interest. In that regard, I was very honored to receive yesterday a letter, which I suspect many of my other colleagues received, from retired Gen. Andrew Goodpaster, a former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, respected soldier, statesman, and patriot. General Goodpaster signed the letter on behalf of five other retired general flag officers: Gen. Michael Davison, Gen. Walter Kerwin, Gen. William Smith, Adm. Harry Train, and Lt. General William McCaffrey. Here is a sentence from that letter from General Goodpaster and the others: As you consider our country's involvement in Bosnia, we encourage you to send a message to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines wherever they may be . . . [and to all others as well] that our country is giving them its full backing . . . But listen to the final words of this sentence. Not just full backing-- . . . its full backing in the accomplishment of their assigned mission. We believe it is time to close ranks, support our troops in the field, and concentrate on helping them do their job in the best possible way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a copy of this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an American who celebrates his 80th birthday on this day. The chairman of the board, Francis Albert Sinatra, legendary performer and American treasure, was born on this day, December 12, in Hoboken, NJ, in 1915. Frank Sinatra rose from humble, blue-collar roots to superstardom by virtue of a God-given gift: his voice. Through hard work and determination he perfected his talent and sang his way to the top of the entertainment industry. His music dominated the charts from the 1930's through the 1960's. By the 1970's he was an American institution, surviving Elvis, the Beatles, and the rock and roll revolution. Frank Sinatra has performed for audiences around the world. He has influenced virtually everyone who is, or ever wanted to be, a singer. As Harry Connick, Jr., once said, ``Frank taught everybody how to sing.'' A universal entertainer from the old school, he could sing with the likes of Bing Crosby, dance with the likes of Gene Kelly, and act with the likes of Burt Lancaster. From 1941 to 1984 he appeared in 59 motion pictures. In 1953, he won an Oscar for his performance in ``From Here To Eternity.'' But Frank Sinatra has given more to America than his records and movies. In 1945, he won a special award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for a short film called ``The House I Live In,'' in which he stressed religious tolerance and racial equality. He had much to do with the desegregation of the entertainment industry by promoting African-American artists, most notably his friend, the late Sammy Davis, Jr. During World War II he could not serve because of a punctured ear drum, but he performed for troops overseas and assisted the war effort by selling war bonds. As a young man, he involved himself in politics by supporting President Roosevelt in 1932. He campaigned for Democrats throughout the 1950's. In 1960, President Kennedy asked him to direct his inaugural gala. In the 1970's he supported Republicans and again hosted inaugural galas for Preident Reagan in 1980 and 1984. In sum, Frank Sinatra should enjoy bipartisan support from this body. Frank Sinatra also deserves to be recognized for his work on behalf of charitable causes. He has given millions of dollars to charities and humanitarian causes publicly and anonymously. His donations have built children's hospitals, orphanages, and facilities for the mentally handicapped. In 1985 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor our Nation bestows. In making the presentation, President Reagan praised him for his generosity toward the less fortunate. Frank Sinatra is an American institution who has had an undeniable impact on the 20th century. He is part of American culture, one of the great voices of our time. There is probably a Sinatra fan on every block in every town in America, including this one on my block. Sinatra songs have provided the backdrop of our lives for the past 50 years. For most of us, a Sinatra song has the ability to conjure up memories of certain moments of our lives. So many of us can recall where we were when we first heard our favorite Sinatra song. Now as he reaches the age of 80, the voice has become the elder statesman of entertainment, a comforting presence, and a source of inspiration for younger performers. He is a remarkable and distinguished American, and his art will be with us for decades to come. He did it his way, and we loved it that way. I am as great a fan of his work as anyone, and I am sure I speak for many people in Connecticut, across the country, and around the world when I wish Old Blue Eyes a very happy 80th birthday and hope there will be many more to come.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern over the cuts in programs in the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations conference report.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects to the Rev. Richard Halverson, whose recent passing saddened all of us in this Chamber. He was, for us, a spiritual Rock of Gibraltar, always present as a reminder of eternal values, in the midst of even the most temporal of debates. One of the remarkable things about the life of this faith-filled man is the fact that he became the Chaplain of the [[Page S 18015]] U.S. Senate at a time when most people his age retire and go fishing or play golf. At 65, Reverend Halverson undertook the most significant, perhaps the most difficult, task of his life--ministering to the spiritual needs of 100 U.S. Senators, their staffs, employees of the Senate and countless others who came to him for counsel and prayer. He fulfilled that mission with great honor. I will always remember Reverend Halverson as a gracious man, a man of considerable intellect, and especially a scholar of the Old Testament and the Jewish religion, about which we had memorable conversations. We will miss Reverend Halverson, especially in a time when partisan rancor seems so sharp and divisive here in Capitol Hill, and in a society where bedrock values like belief in God and respect for one another seem to be at such risk. His warm presence always stood in strong contrast to the trials of the moment. We have faith that he is in the embrace of a loving God. Yet, I am confident he is praying for us still. May God bless Reverend Halverson, and may He grant his family and many friends solace from the grief we share at his passing, and confidence that life eternal is the reward for those who live to His will.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to offer respectfully a word of thanks to the distinguished majority leader and to the Senator from Arizona. The Senator from Arizona described the remarks of the majority leader as statesmanlike. I say that the remarks of the majority leader were more than statesmanlike. They were, in fact, patriotic in the sense that, in taking the position that he has, he has put the interest of his country ahead of politics. All that I know about the majority leader says to me that one should not be surprised to see him do that. Nonetheless, the action he has taken today should not pass without being commented on, and should be appreciated. Senator Dole and I, Senator McCain and others, Senator Biden on this side, have been working in a bipartisan way now for almost 4 years through the administration of President Bush, and now President Clinton, trying to create a reaction that was effective to what we have seen all along--acts of aggression against Bosnia, taking advantage of its military weakness, and ultimately becoming not just acts of aggression but acts of genocide. The four of us, and others on both sides, ultimately becoming a resounding majority, a bipartisan majority, cried out for the raising of the arms embargo, feeling it was immoral, it was unfair, and it was unrelated to reality to continue to impose on the warring parties there an embargo that was adopted in 1991 as an attempt to stop the war from breaking out. But the war did break out. On one side, the Serbs possessed most of the military war-making capacity of the former Yugoslavia. On the other side, the Bosnians had little or none, and, as a result, they were victimized. Particularly after the attack by the Serbs on the undefended, so- called ``safe haven'' of Srebrenica and the brutal, inhumane slaughter that occurred there, this brought the United States-led NATO to carry out a series of air attacks that finally convinced the aggressors that the rest of the world would not stand by and watch wars spread in Europe, watch people be slaughtered because of their religion, watch NATO and the United States lose their credibility and the respect that they enjoyed throughout the world. President Clinton led the effort in NATO to carry out those air strikes and then designated Secretary Christopher and Ambassador Holbrooke to bring the stature and force of the United States of America to bear to bring the parties to peace. No other country in the world could have done this. It is remarkable that each of the warring parties trust the United States more than any other country in the world. That is to say, that all three of them trust us. In Bosnia, in the Middle East, and perhaps in Northern Ireland, we have credibility, and we have strength. With that strength comes responsibility. But I would say also that with that strength and credibility comes increased security for each and every citizen of the United States. I agree with the commitment that President Clinton has made to send these 20,000 troops to be part of an international force of 60,000 because I understand that without that commitment, there never would have been peace, the three warring parties would never have come to the peace table and our allies in NATO would never have joined to keep the peace. So while I strongly support the commitment that was made--and I understand that my friends and colleagues who have just spoken do not-- what I particularly respect and appreciate is that the Senate majority leader and the Senator from Arizona understand that the question now is not whether we all agree with the commitment that was made; the question now is whether we will honor that commitment. What is on the line there is the credibility and reliability of America's word in the world, of America's leadership in the world. Somebody asked in the Armed Services Committee hearing that we held on Tuesday of a panel of witnesses, three people who had served in various administrations, ``Is Bosnia worth dying for?'' And, of course, each and every one of us hopes and prays and believes that there will not be casualties among our forces, that we are taking every precaution, learning from Somalia and Haiti, and how important it is to limit our objectives here with the military objectives easily carried out, to make sure that our troops have robust rules of engagement, which means if their safety is threatened in the slightest they can strike back with overwhelming force. But we understand that there are risks involved in any military operation, any sending of American troops to a zone where there may be combat, even if it is to keep the peace as it is today. While we understand all of that, what is important here is that my colleagues have to answer the question which the former Under Secretary of Defense answered on Monday when the question was asked, ``Is Bosnia worth dying for?'' He said, ``That is not the right question.'' In the gulf war situation, after Saddam Hussein moved into Kuwait, the question appropriately would not have been, ``Is Kuwait worth dying for,'' because there was much more on the line there as there is here. What is on the line here is the credibility and the reliability of the word of the President of the United States, who alone has made this commitment and is authorized to execute the foreign policy of the United States. Five-hundred and thirty-five Members of Congress cannot be at every meeting, every negotiation that the President of the United States is involved in. The Presidency, beyond this President, must have that reliability, that credibility, that strength. In that strength and reliability rests not just some distant esoteric governmental structure or authority point of view; in that reliability rests the security of each and every American. So I thank my colleagues for understanding that there is more at work here. The reliability and credibility of our word, the controlling of a conflict, hopefully ending a conflict that could have spread and become a wider war and drawn us in later on at a much higher price, the renewed strength of NATO on which we will rely to help us share the burdens of peacekeeping, not just here but around the world. We called on NATO allies in 1990 and 1991 in the gulf war and said we needed their help, and our allies came to our assistance, fought by our side. Today, in effect, they in Europe are asking our help--not to do it all, but to provide one-third of an international force. Who knows? A year or two from now, we again may find that some strategic interest or moral principle of ours has been challenged around the world and we will turn to our allies in Europe and NATO and ask them for help. If we say no today, then what can we reasonably expect them to say to us tomorrow? So, Mr. President, I thank again the majority leader and the Senator from Arizona for rising above politics and partisanship, doing what is not popular but doing what they have concluded and I believe is best for our country and best for those 20,000 soldiers who are going into peacekeeping in Bosnia. The last thing I think we would want to do is to send those 20,000 soldiers into Bosnia wondering whether they have the support of anybody besides the President of the United States. It is up to us in Congress, as representatives of the people of this country, every State and district of this country, to say to those brave soldiers--the finest fighting force that has ever existed in the history of the world, in my opinion--we are with you. We stand behind you. The time for partisan debate is over. You have a mission to do, and now we are focused on doing everything we can to support your mission and to help, as Senator Dole has said, to make sure that it can be carried out swiftly, successfully, and with good effect. I agree with my colleagues that part of that is to make sure that the Bosnian military is adequately armed and equipped to deter aggression once the NATO peacekeeping force leaves Bosnia. Mr. President, there are moments when not only the people of the United States but Members of Congress are disappointed, frustrated, discouraged by what happens here. There are other moments when we are elevated and inspired and encouraged because we see among our distinguished colleagues an extraordinarily able group that has been sent here from around the country. We see really the finest, in a sense I would say the most noble of human behavior, real acts of leadership, and I respectfully suggest that we have seen such an act from the Senate majority leader today and from the Senator from Arizona. I look forward to working with them and, hopefully, with a strong bipartisan majority of colleagues, to draft and then pass an appropriate resolution of support for those 20,000 troops and for the President and the Presidency that has made this commitment. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments Act of 1995. I want to commend Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, Baucus, and Reid for their excellent work in crafting a bipartisan bill. This bipartisan effort is particularly important because environmental issues have been marked by such sharp and bitter controversy this Congress. Twenty-five years of bipartisan support for strong environmental protection have been placed in jeopardy. I hope that this bill will serve as a model for getting us back on track. The bill makes reasonable changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act but does not roll back protection of human health. The No. 1 responsibility Congress has, and what people demand from us, is to protect the people we serve from harm. That means guarding our national security with a strong defense, and keeping our streets safe from crime. But that also means protecting people from drinking poisonous water, breathing dangerous air, and from eating contaminated food--in other words, protecting people from harms from which they cannot protect themselves. We can and should reform our laws to make them more cost-effective and to eliminate unnecessary requirements. But we should not waiver from our responsibility to protect people. One of the major reasons that the current Safe Drinking Water Act needs adjustment is that many drinking water systems--mostly smaller systems--have difficulty complying with the law because of lack of funding and expertise. These systems also often lack trained operators. The legislation addresses these issues by authorizing a State revolving fund of $1 billion per year through 2003 to upgrade facilities to enable systems to come into compliance with the current standards, and by requiring that States receiving SRF money must have a system of operator certification and a training program. The issue of the use of cost-benefit analysis in setting standards for protecting human health and the environment has been extremely controversial this Congress, particularly in the context of regulatory reform legislation. This bill demonstrates that the most effective way for Congress to consider the use of cost-benefit analysis is in the context of individual statutes. In the abstract, in the context of a broad regulatory reform bill covering every health, safety, and environmental law, cost-benefit analysis becomes highly contentious because we simply don't know the impact on all the laws we are affecting. But this legislation demonstrates that we can clearly reach agreement when we look at individual statutes. This legislation allows the EPA Administrator discretion to utilize cost-benefit analysis to move away from technology-based standards in those circumstances where benefits do not justify costs. But there are logical limits restrictions on this authority that make sense in the context of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These restrictions include the following. First, the discretion is solely with the Administrator to use this authority. No court may compel the Administrator to use this authority. Second, the Administrator cannot use this discretion when the benefits justify the costs for large systems and variances from the standards are available for small systems. Third, the Administrator cannot use this authority to make any existing standard less stringent. In other words, there can be no rollback of human health protection. Fourth, the authority may not be used for rules relating to cryptosporidium and disinfectants or disinfectant byproducts. Fifth, there must be a full consideration of nonquantifiable benefits in any analysis of whether benefits justify costs. Sixth, the health effects on sensitive subpopulations must be considered in determining whether benefits justify costs. Seventh, judicial review of the Administrator's determination of whether benefits justify costs can only occur as part of the final rule and can only be considered by the court under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Some concern has been expressed in the Litchfield County area of my State regarding levels of radon found in their drinking water, and the environmental community has raised concerns that the radon standard in the bill is not strong enough. Unfortunately, since 1992, Congress as part of the appropriations process has prevented EPA from issuing a radon standard. The EPA spending bill this year, which I opposed, again included this restriction. Those who have led this effort cite the fact that the EPA Science Advisory Board, in a report to Congress, raised serious concerns about EPA's approach to regulating radon. This bill moves the process forward by establishing for the first time a Federal standard for radon at a level which the managers of the bill indicate finds support in the EPA Science Advisory Board report. Importantly, however, the bill contains a specific provision allowing the EPA Administrator to set a more stringent level for radon if certain conditions are met; in addition, States have the authority to set more stringent standards. I am confident that the EPA Administrator will take this authority very seriously, and I intend to follow up with the Agency on its use of this authority. Finally, the provisions relating to source-water protection are, in my view, not strong enough. As we have found in Connecticut, protecting the sources of drinking water makes good common sense--it's pollution prevention that will save water systems and communities money. I hope these provisions can be strengthened in the House and conference. Again, my congratulations to the managers.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have voted today for the Defense Appropriations Conference Report because I believe it is fundamentally a sound and necessary bill which will fund critical defense functions for the current fiscal year. This bill is not perfect. It funds procurement of a few weapons systems which the Secretary of Defense and the military service chiefs have said they do not need or want; I would have preferred that such systems not be funded. But on balance I believe the right programs are funded, critical modernization for our armed forces will take place, and critical skills of defense workers across the country, including in my State of Connecticut, will be maintained. At the same time, I am very troubled that this appropriations conference report includes language that prohibits abortions in military facilities. My record of opposition to language that creates unfair barriers to legal abortion services is clear. I see no reason why this restrictive provision needed to be included on a defense appropriation bill and I oppose it. No one should misconstrue my vote today for this important appropriations bill--a bill which is even more critical as many defense workers have been furloughed along with thousands of other Federal employees caught up in our current budget crisis.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, yesterday I voted for the Treasury-Postal appropriations conference report because I believe we must send along appropriations bills to the President since we are now nearly 2 months into the current fiscal year and the Government is shutdown. However, I would like to make it clear that I do not support, and have not supported in the past, the so-called Hyde language in this bill which would prohibit any Federal funding for abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother. I have long felt that if abortions are allowed under our laws, then I can't find justification for limiting the option of Federal employees to obtain health plans that allow such coverage, as most private sector employees have. For this reason, while I voted for this bill given our Government's current dire economic status, I want to make it clear that I am opposed to the Hyde language which appears in this bill and hope there will be an opportunity later to reconsider it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I join in support of the motion to strike the so-called Istook amendment from the continuing resolution. I will not speak long because, as a Congress, we have spent far too much time on this already and there is so much more we need to accomplish. The Istook amendment is in my view nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. Who could argue with this solution's ostensible justification-- prohibiting Federal grantees from using tax dollars to lobby the Government. No one, I suspect. My evidence: this practice is already illegal, and has been for a long time. If charities or other nonprofits are violating that law and all the regulations that govern how they account for and spend Federal grants they may receive--and I have not heard persuasive evidence that they are--no new law and its accompanying regulatory burdens and bureaucracy should be adopted before examining whether better enforcement of the existing laws and regulations wouldn't address the problem. I though that we had evolved as a Congress where our first response to a problem or a perceived problem was not slapping yet another layer of laws and bureaucracy on top of an already complicated regulatory structure. Using Government funds to lobby is already illegal and charities are already limited in what they can spend overall on lobbying and still retain their charitable tax status. In my view, this proposal has a curious old government feel to it-- despite the revolutionary credentials of this amendment's proponents. Similarly, the Istook provision has a Federal bias that I thought was no longer fashionable. It extends the Federal Government's regulatory reach into the affairs of local, private organizations, even affecting the way they may spend their own, privately raised dollars. For example, it defines political advocacy so broadly that local charities will have to measure and document the time and resources they spend trying to influence the decisions of local administrative bodies because they may be affiliated with national charities. Under the Istook provision, national charities and nonprofits must include the political advocacy expenses of any of its local affiliates in calculating whether it has exceeded its threshold limit. At year's end, will the Hartford, CT, chapter of the Boys & Girls Clubs have to calculate whether the time and resources it would like to spend seeking permission from the local zoning board to expand its building tip the national Boys & Girls Club operations over the Istook threshold edge and put all Boys & Girls Clubs grants at risk? I have to assume that the supporters of this amendment did not intend that effect. But they have cobbled together such a complicated, layered regulatory scheme regulating so-called political advocacy at all levels of government, that absurd consequences are inevitable. For example, the amendment limits the ability of Federal grantees to purchase or secure any goods or services from any other organization whose expenditures for political advocacy for the previous Federal fiscal year exceeded the greater of $25,000 or 15 percent of the other organization's total expenditures. So not only will the charities and nonprofits that are subject to this provision have to keep detailed records concerning how much they spend on their own broadly defined political advocacy, but they will have to make sure that the local stationery or computer stores from which they are buying their supplies are documenting their expenditures for political advocacy. In most cases, of course, those businesses won't likely be spending anywhere near 15-percent of their revenues on traditional lobbying, but it is not inconceivable that in a particular year, a small business might spend that much in a combination of litigation challenging a State or Federal law or seeking a zoning variance or pursuing other local or State administrative challenges. Under Istook, all those activities are considered political advocacy and would have to be included in the calculus of whether that small business has reached the 15-percent threshold. And, regardless of whether that 15-percent threshold is reached, the small businesses and others will still have to keep records if they want to sell computers, furniture, or other products and services to Federal grantees like the A.S.P.C.A., the American Foundation for the Blind, CARE, World Vision or the American Lung Association, and MADD. In summary, this solution will only succeed in wasting the time, resources, and energy of everyone that must comply with it and every government agency that must implement it. It will enrich the lawyers and accountants who inevitably will be hired to decipher its byzantine regulatory structure. And, it will do all this, while not incidentally, impinging upon the constitutional rights of millions of citizens across the country to make their views known to their Federal, State, and local officials. To quote from the executive director of the Litchfield, CT chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has received small NHTSA grants to conduct lifesaving highway safety programs, MADD has spent the last 15 years trying to make drinking and driving socially unacceptable by the American public and this outcry from the public has resulted in more effective laws, stronger enforcement and lives saved. I cannot believe that the Senate would want to silence the voices of these drunk driving crash victims and concerned citizens whose sole purpose is to save lives just because the organization they support with their donations receives a small grant from the Federal Government to do good work. Don't we have enough real problems to deal with without manufacturing artificial ones? Do we really want to adopt a convoluted new law on a continuing resolution that will do little other than get in the way of the people who, on a day-to-day basis, are doing some of the most important work in our society--the Red Cross, the American Cancer Society, the Boy Scouts of America, Catholic Charities. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to strike.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I oppose the attachment of the House Commerce dismantling bill to the debt limit bill. This is not the way to consider how to organize trade and technology functions. The President has requested a clean debt limit bill without extraneous, unrelated bills attached to it. Clearly the inclusion of the Commerce dismantling legislation weighs down the debt limit bill and should not be considered as part of it. This is a backdoor attempt to make economic growth the victim of our budget axe. Trade, telecommunications, technology, weather services. That is what is at risk. The House's intent to eliminate this department is just not rational. In our enthusiasm to make cuts to balance the budget we are losing sight of the reason we want to balance the budget in the first place--to make our economy stronger. The irony is that by cutting the trade and technology programs we are cutting programs that are already making our economy stronger. We will be defeating our own purpose. I am particularly concerned about keeping the technology and trade functions integrated in the Department of Commerce. Within the Department of Commerce there are programs that work with the private sector to foster new ideas that may underpin the next generation of products. This is one of the few places where there are information channels that ensure that the ideas generated in our world class research institutions find their way into the marketplace. Previous administrations had the foresight to realize that we are entering a new era, an era where economic battles are as fiercely fought as any previous military actions. New kinds of technology programs were begun with bipartisan support to make sure that the United States was well armed for these economic battles. I do not want to see us lose our technology edge in the marketplace, because this edge translates directly into jobs for our work force, new markets for American business, improvements in our balance of trade, and from this economic success, needed revenues for our treasury. The home of technology is with our trade programs where they will have the most impact and do the most good for our economy. The Technology Administration is a critical component of the Department of Commerce and we need to make sure its key functions are maintained. Yet the pending legislation would scatter Commerce agencies and slash technology spending. Making changes in technology and trade functions at this juncture in time must be done extremely carefully. New markets are emerging in developing countries. Conservative estimates suggest that 60 percent of the growth in world trade will be with these developing countries over the next two decades. The United States has a large share of imports in big emerging markets currently, in significant part because of the efforts of the Department of Commerce. While we are making changes in the Department of Commerce, our foreign competitors are increasing their investment in their economies. Competing advanced economies are just waiting for us to make a move that will weaken our economic capacity. We cannot afford to dismantle successful programs that are making and keeping the United States competitive. We should be sure that changes we make will be improving the Government's efficiency and improving the taxpayer's return on investment. The kind of technology programs that I am advocating are not corporate welfare. I find the term in this context not only inaccurate, but offensive. American industry is not looking for a handout. Quite the contrary. These programs are providing incentives to elicit support from the private sector for programs that are the responsibility of the government. Times are tough and the government needs to cut back, so we are looking for the handout from private industry, not the other way around. Let me explain. Our goal should be, not to try and categorize research, but to make investments that are appropriate, and that strengthen our economy. I believe that there is an important and legitimate role for government to play in technology research. The National Association of Manufactures has spoken out strongly in favor of the kind of technology programs that are run by the Department of Commerce. I would like to read some quotes from their statement about Federal technology programs: The NAM is concerned that the magnitude and distribution of the R&D spending cuts proposed thus far would erode U.S. technological leadership. A successful national R&D policy requires a diverse portfolio of programs that includes long- and short-term science and technology programs, as well as the necessary infrastructure to support them. The character of research activities has changed substantially in the past decade, making hard and fast distinctions between basic and applied research or between research and development increasingly artificial. R&D agendas today are driven by time horizons not definitions. In short, rigid delineations between basic and applied research are not the basis on which private sector R&D strategies are executed, not should they be the basis for Federal R&D policy decisions. The NAM believes the disproportionate large cuts proposed in newer R&D programs are a mistake. R&D programs of more recent vintage enjoy considerable industry support for one simple fact: They are more relevant to today's technology challenges. For example, ``bridge'' programs that focus on the problem of technology assimilation often yield greater payoff to a wider public than programs aimed at technology creation. Newer programs address current R&D challenges for more effectively than older programs and should not fall victim to the ``last hired, first fired'' prioritization. In particular, partnership and bridge programs should not only not be singled out for elimination, but should receive a relatively greater share of what Federal R&D spending remains. These programs currently account for approximately 5 percent of Federal R&D spending. The NAM suggests that 15 percent may be a more appropriate level . . . Given the critical importance of R&D, far too much is being cut on the basis of far too little understanding of the implications. The world has changed considerably in the past several years, and R&D is not different. Crafting a Federal R&D policy must take stock of these changes; to date this has not happened. As the major funder and performer of the R&D in the U.S., industry believes its voice should be heard in setting the national R&D agenda. The Congress and the Administration should draw on industry's experience and expertise in determining policy choices. For example, as a guide to prioritizing Fedeal R&D programs, the NAM would favor those programs that embody the following attributes: Industry-led; cost-shared; relevant to today's R&D challenges; partnership/ consortia; deployment-oriented; and dual use. We believe these criteria provide the basis for creation of a template for prioritizing federal R&D spending. In sum, the NAM remains firmly committed to a balanced federal budget. But we also firmly believe that the action taken thus far in downsizing and altering the direction of U.S. R&D spending is tantamount to fighting hunger by eating the seed corn. We urge the Congress to consider carefully the impact of R&D on U.S. economic vitality and to move forward in crafting an R&D agenda that will sustain U.S. technological leadership far into the future. I would like to describe two programs in which I have taken a particular interest, the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] and the Manufacturing Extension Program [MEP], both eliminated by the pending bill. [[Page S 16901]] atp Dr. Alan Bromley, President Bush's Science Advisor in 1991, determined a list of 20 technologies that are critical to develop for the United States to remain a world economic power. There has been very little disagreement among analysts and industry about the list. No one company benefits from these technologies, rather a variety of industries would benefit with advances in any one of these areas. These are the kinds of areas that form the focus areas of the ATP. The focus areas are determined by industry, not by bureaucrats, to be key areas where research breakthroughs will advance the economy as a whole not single companies. There is no doubt that industry benefits from partnering with the Government. 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. Innovative technological advances enhance speed, quality, and distribution, to deliver to customers the product they want, when they want it. Ironically, the competitive market demands that companies stay lean and mean, diminishing the resources that are available for R&D programs that foster the kind of innovation necessary to stay competitive. Because of all of these pressures, industrial R&D is now focused on short-term product development at the expense of long-term research to generate future generations of products. The conclusion is clear. This short-term focus will lead to technological inferiority in the future. Our economy will suffer. Some of my colleagues in Congress believe that basic research will provide the kind of innovation necessary to generate new generations of high tech products. On the contrary, we have seen historically that basic research performed in a vacuum, that is without communication with industry, is unlikely to lead to products. In this country, we have the best basic research anywhere in the world. There is no contest. Yet, we continue to watch our creative basic research capitalized by other nations. We must improve our ability to get our brilliant ideas to market. Basic research focuses on a time horizon of 10 to 20 years. Product development focuses on a time horizon of less than 5 years, and sometimes much shorter than that. It is the intermediate timescale, the 5 to 15 year timeframe that is critical to develop a research idea into a product concept. We have a responsibility to make sure that our private sector does not fall behind in the global economy. Diminishing our technological preparedness is tantamount to unilateral disarmament, in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Government/industry partnerships stimulate just the kind of innovative research that can keep our technological industry at the leading edge. These partnerships help fill the gap between short term product development, and basic research. American companies no longer survive by thinking only about the national marketplace. They must think globally. Familiar competitors like Japan and Germany, continue to compete aggressively in global markets. New challenges are coming from India, China, Malaysia, Thailand, some of the leading Latin American nations and more. We cannot afford to let jobs and profits gradually move overseas to these challengers, by resting on our laurels, complacent in our successes. Other countries, seeing the success of the ATP, are starting to imitate it, just as we are considering doing away with it. Our competitors must be chuckling at their good fortune, and our short-sightedness. We simply cannot afford to eliminate ATP, as the bill proposes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to proceed as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise this morning to comment on developments in the former Yugoslavia. I particularly want to comment on a resolution, House Resolution 247, which was adopted last night in the other body. Madam President, I say respectfully that there are two parts to this resolution. The first I disagree with. The second I think is unnecessary. I rise to make the point that as the representatives, the Presidents of the three major parties to the war in Bosnia, Bosnians, Croatians, Serbians--gather in Dayton, OH, to begin the effort that many thought was impossible--to negotiate a peace treaty in the Balkans--that it is appropriate for us to step back. It is a time not to pass resolutions, in my opinion. It is a time to ask questions that are appropriate about the course of the negotiations. But it is primarily a time to give the negotiators some room to see if they can achieve an agreement that will bring peace to the former Yugoslavia. Madam President, I rise to explain why I am troubled by this resolution, and what I hope will be the course of congressional action here. Let me begin with recent events. The people of the former Yugoslavia have suffered almost unimaginable horrors for the last several years. Every day seems to bring new reports of genocidal acts in Bosnia. In the past week alone we have seen disclosures which are chilling, that confirm our worst suspicions about the fate of so many people who lived in the alleged safe haven of Srebrenica, who were driven from their homes and now, according to eyewitness testimony, were slaughtered by Serb forces; according to some accounts, in the presence of, perhaps at the direction of, General Mladic, the commander of the Bosnian Serb forces already indicted by the international war crimes tribunal. New reports highlight ethnic cleansing and genocide by the Serbs in the area of Banja Luka which continues even now although these reports are sketchy because the international media has been denied access to these locations. Madam President, last week Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights John Shattuck was in Bosnia and Croatia to investigate the reports that have come out of the region. He found that prison camps such as Keraterm--the site several years ago of outrageous human rights violations--have been reopened. A cease-fire is declared but a prison camp is reopened, the site of torture has been reopened. He found that people had been forced from their homes in Banja Luka, some sent to prison camps, some sent into forced labor, and apparently too many others murdered, slaughtered, especially in the Sanski Most and Bosanski Novi areas around Banja Luka. Assistant Secretary Shattuck met in Belgrade with President Milosevic and demanded immediate and unconditional access to all missing persons and to areas where crimes have or may have been committed. He also discussed the situation of refugees from the Krajina. Several thousand Croatian citizens of Serb background want to return to their homes there. Shattuck found indicators of a human rights situation which is nearly out of control with people of all ethnic backgrounds being dislocated, persecuted and murdered, not for what they have done but simply for who they are. We cannot let the frequency, the regularity of these reports of systematic campaigns of rape and terror numb us to these atrocities. We must express our outrage as we did when we first heard these reports years ago. We must recommit ourselves to bringing the genocide, the torture, the rape, the slaughter to an end and to bring those responsible for this barbarity to justice. Last week, I was privileged to join with the distinguished occupant of the chair, Senator Hutchison, of Texas, and our colleagues Senators McCain, Levin, Thurmond, and others, in offering a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on this human rights, this life and death crisis. The resolution was unanimously adopted as an amendment to the budget reconciliation bill last Friday. Let me go to the words of that resolution because we spoke clearly and unanimously to ``condemn the systematic human rights abuses against the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.'' We spoke unanimously to demand that the Bosnian Serb leadership ``should immediately halt these atrocities, fully account for the missing, and allow those who have been separated to return to their families.'' These are words that describe a situation that we can only imagine. It is hard for us to put ourselves into. But men and boys separated from mothers and daughters. Where are they going? What will become of them? We now find, certainly in Srebrenica, that what became of them was that they were slaughtered and buried in mass graves. Again last week in the resolution promulgated by the occupant of the chair, Senator Hutchison, we spoke unanimously to assert that ```ethnic cleansing' by any faction, group, leader or government is unjustified, immoral and illegal and all perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and other human rights violations in former Yugoslavia must be held accountable.'' Every side in the Bosnian conflict bears some guilt, some responsibility for ethnic violence. The Serbs of Bosnia and of Serbia-Montenegro, the Croats of Bosnia and of Croatia, rebel Moslems in northwest Bosnia, even Bosnian Government forces have inflicted war on civilian populations and driven people from their homes. But there can be no doubt that now, as throughout the years of war and strife suffered by the Bosnian people, the Serbs are primarily responsible and have committed the most heinous and brutal crimes. America must do all that it can to end these atrocities and to ensure that the guilty are punished without supporting retribution and allowing the cycle of violence to continue. The international community has put in place a mechanism to do this--the War Crimes Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Earlier this month in Storrs, CT, at a dedication ceremony for the Thomas J. Dodd Library and Research Center to preserve the memories of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal 50 years ago, President Clinton said: ``Those accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide must be brought to justice. They must be tried and, if found guilty, they must be held accountable.'' I agree wholeheartedly with the President as I know my colleagues do. Madam President, in some substantial degree the latest horrific stories of mass slaughter from Srebrenica, reflected in the resolution adopted unanimously on Friday evening, remind us of why so many of us in this Chamber have been concerned about the course of events in the former Yugoslavia. As I saw these events, and others agreed--some did not--from the beginning this has been a case of aggression by Serbia, stimulated in fact from Belgrade. Perhaps it went beyond what Belgrade sought, what Belgrade expected. Perhaps Belgrade was forced to suffer more than they expected because of the economic sanctions. But this has been a course of aggression to build a greater Serbia using genocidal tactics as a means of that aggression. What did that mean? Again, one nation in Europe invading another, committing genocidal acts based on the religion of a people, in this case Moslem; instability in Europe, at a post-cold war time when that instability could spread, if not checked, throughout the Balkans, involving other countries--Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania--and sending a terrible message to those who had lived within the former Soviet Union about the lack of concern or unwillingness to act by the world, by the powers in Europe, by NATO. So, many of us called for a policy of ``lift and strike.'' Lift the arms embargo. At least give the people of Bosnia the weapons with which to defend themselves and then use NATO air power to strike at the Serbs to make them pay for the aggression and for the genocide. For too long no one listened. Excuses were given. But ultimately, a resolution passed this Chamber and the House, overwhelmingly, with bipartisan support, calling for our Government to lift the arms embargo unilaterally if the world community was not prepared to do so multilaterally. Then came the Croatian invasion and capture of the Krajina. The outrageous, the unspeakable murders at Srebrenica--an army attacking an unarmed safe haven, U.N. peacekeepers from the Netherlands left in a horrible middle position--ultimately aroused the conscience of the world and particularly the NATO powers leading to the extremely successful NATO airstrikes against Serbian targets, poignantly forcing us to raise the question of whether those airstrikes, if they had happened at an earlier time, could have prevented some of the slaughter that occurred. Because once leadership was exercised and power was brought to bear, and those who were the aggressors were forced to suffer some pain and humiliation, the road to peace was opened. Assistant Secretary Holbrooke has moved skillfully, aggressively in difficult circumstances to find some common ground among the parties to bring about a cease-fire that now leads us to the discussions occurring in Dayton, OH, that begin tomorrow. Some rightly have questioned the idea of negotiating with Serb leaders who may themselves be guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. If we hope to reach a settlement which will bring the Bosnian conflict to an end, it may be that we have no choice but to negotiate with Serb leaders. No one should misconstrue these negotiations as excusing, forgiving or forgetting war crimes which have been committed. We are doing none of that. Those who have committed war crimes with their acts or their orders will be brought to justice. Moreover, before real negotiations can begin, the Serbs must be required to stop ethnic cleansing and other atrocities which are still taking place. This is not an unrealistic or unwarranted precondition, but a test of whether these negotiations can achieve peace. If one party or another chooses to continue to propagate the war or undertakes or tolerates ethnic cleansing, then we are not dealing with leaders who want peace. If these leaders do not control their own forces and cannot restore an order which prevents further atrocities and turns the guilty over for punishment, then how can these leaders implement a negotiated settlement in which territory will change hands but the rights of all people will be respected? But if those leaders gathering in Dayton do stop the fighting and the atrocities, we must give them every opportunity to achieve a negotiated settlement. We owe this to those who have already died, but more importantly to those who still live and who want to live in peace. The settlement which eventually comes from these negotiations may not be what some of us would like, but we should not second-guess the decisions of those who will make them and who are willing to live with the results. However, a few elements will be key to any viable settlement: To give reconciliation a chance, there must be real protection for human rights. To provide hope for full reintegration of a multiethnic Bosnian state, there must be significant unity through a meaningful Bosnian central government. To ensure long-term stability, a regional military balance must be ensured--not just within Bosnia, but among Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia. This will probably require both arms control and reductions as well as arming and training the Bosnians. Finally, to ensure justice without retribution, the settlement must require all states of the former Yugoslavia--Serbia-Montenegro and Croatia as well as all parties in Bosnia--to fully cooperate with the War Crimes Tribunal and to comply with its indictments and decisions. There can be no amnesty, no refuge for any guilty party. As President Clinton said in Storrs, CT, ``There must be peace for justice to prevail, but there must be justice when peace prevails.'' Madam President, the question of whether there will be a peace treaty depends on the three nations that are gathered there under American auspices in Dayton, OH. If they achieve a peace agreement and open the door to the end of this slaughter, and present an opportunity to preserve the stability in Europe--remember again, why are we interested? Twice in this century aggression and genocide unchecked in Europe led to wider war. But if a peace treaty is agreed on, it is clear that NATO forces will be needed to implement that peace treaty to monitor, to keep the parties apart. Let us be clear that we are on the eve of proximity talks and the prospect of peace because the United States exercised leadership and power and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization exercised power through discriminate and carefully planned air strikes. United States leadership and NATO bombing against the Bosnian Serb aggressors were absolutely essential to bringing all sides to the peace process. But our involvement cannot end there. U.S. leadership and involvement by the United States and NATO will be essential to the successful implementation of a settlement. The United States cannot bring the parties this close to peace and then just wash our hands of them. We will need to lead this effort and to be involved as befits the leader of the free world. We owe this to our NATO allies and to the alliance which has served peace and stability for nearly 50 years. We owe this to the ravaged people of Bosnia. And we owe this to the memories of all who have been the victims of genocide. It is only right--no, it is necessary--for the United States to stand up to genocide. We did not stand up in time 50 years ago and too many innocents perished as a result. We must not repeat this mistake. The United States is the leader of NATO. NATO functioned as an extraordinarily successful defensive military alliance against the Soviet Union throughout the cold war. There are those post-cold war who have asked, what is NATO's purpose? But remember, NATO is the strongest functioning military alliance among nations in the world. The NATO powers gathered at our urging to fight alongside us in the gulf war to bring about that magnificent post-cold-war victory. Clearly, NATO will not be willing to play the role of peacekeeper or keeping the peace that may be achieved in Dayton, OH, unless the United States is part of that peacekeeping force. I think we have to be honest about that. If we are not part of that force, NATO will not go in, there will not be peace in the Balkans, and we have only more aggression, more instability, and perhaps more genocide to look forward to. Beyond that, Madam President, I would say this. The relationship in NATO works both ways. Our allies in Europe are asking us to be part of this. Our friends in Bosnia are saying they will not trust the peace unless we are part of policing it. But what is the next crisis going to be in which we will not want to carry the burden alone, in which we are turning to our allies in NATO and saying, ``Help us''? What will they say if we say to them in this case, ``Sorry, folks, you take care of it''? So I say to my colleagues in the Senate, there is a lot on the line here. That is why I say that the resolution passed in the House last night was untimely and unhelpful. I support the policy of American forces being part of a NATO force to police a peace treaty that is agreed upon in NATO. Are there questions to ask? Yes, there are. Should the administration consult with Congress? Of course it should. And it has been. But this is a time for questions, not resolutions. Let me also say I support the second part of the House resolution, which says troops should not be dispatched without congressional authorization. But let us remember this: So does President Clinton. He said to Senator Byrd in his letter he would welcome, encourage, and at the appropriate time request an expression of support by Congress. That is what I anticipate. President Clinton has already begun the important process of consultations with Congress. Key senior officials--Secretary of State Christopher, Secretary of Defense Perry, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili--have all come to Congress to explain the why and how of this proposed undertaking. Everyone understands that there are many important questions which remain unanswered. Some of these answers will depend on the outcome of the negotiations in Dayton. Some will depend on ongoing NATO military planning. Some will depend on decisions to be made by the North Atlantic Council. But the President and other administration officials have made clear that the United States will participate in implementing a peace settlement only if several nonnegotiable conditions are met. The operation must be a NATO operation, with full NATO command and control and no U.N. dual key arrangements. The mandate for U.S. forces and their missions must be clear. The forces must be large enough and the rules of engagement sufficiently robust for the NATO force to carry out its mission and to defend itself from any attack. President Clinton and his Cabinet officials have promised to continue their close consultations with the Congress and to explain their proposals to the American people in order to assure that the President has their support. This process of consultation should continue in a meaningful, bipartisan way. The President needs the support of Congress and the American people if this mission is to be successful. Just as President Bush recognized the need for congressional support before combat began in the Persian Gulf war, President Clinton realizes the importance of congressional support. Thus, he has said, in words nearly identical to those used by President Bush in January 1991, he ``would welcome, encourage and, at the appropriate time, request an expression of support by Congress promptly after a peace agreement is reached.'' So I hope that my colleagues in both Chambers will give the negotiators some room, ask questions, but hold the resolution until a much more appropriate and constructive time. I welcome the coming debate. The stakes are too high for the people of Bosnia, for our men and women in uniform, for the position of America in the world of the next century and for all Americans for us not to engage in this debate. Just as in those early days of 1991 when I joined a majority of the Senate in supporting George Bush's use of force in the gulf war, we are at a turning point in our history. When His Holiness Pope John Paul II was recently in the United States, he spent a short period of time with President Clinton. The President reports that the Pope said to him at the end of that conversation, ``Mr. President, I am not a young man. I have a long memory. This century began with a war in Sarajevo. We must not let this century end with a war in Sarajevo.'' If we believe in the hope expressed by the Pope and in the important role which America must play in the world, we must be involved in implementing peace in Bosnia. Without us there will be no involvement by NATO. Without NATO there will be no peace to implement. Without peace in the Balkans, there will be no peace and no stability in Europe, and there will be a continuation of murder and genocide. I am not prepared to accept this outcome for America or the world. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I introduce an Intrastate Towing Technical Corrections Act. This legislation will clarify that it is not Congress' intent to preempt state or local regulations dealing with the operation of tow trucks. I would like to recognize the junior Senator from Washington who introduced similar legislation in the 103d Congress, which, unfortunately, was not acted upon prior to adjournment. Last year Congress passed the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. The act included a provision in section 601 which effectively preempts state and local intrastate trucking regulations pertaining to prices, routes, and service. However, it was not Congress' intention to legislate on towing issues; and it has opened up myriad problems for the consumer, leading to higher towing rates. In Connecticut, towing rates have been deregulated; and tow operators are free to charge as much as they want. Now, some may say that the market should determine prices--and I agree--but in the towing market the consumer has no other recourse, more times than not, than to pay the tow truck operator after the vehicle has been towed. Safety concerns abound also. Especially when considering large tractor trailers that break down on interstate highways. I have heard from many constituents that deregulation is causing exorbitant price increases in their towing rates. Again, this was not our intention when we passed the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. This bill will keep towing charges in line with market prices. Plain and simple, Mr. President, deregulation is leading to overcharging. My bill would let the States set towing rates. It would be beneficial for the consumer and beneficial for States. I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record excerpts from an article in the Hartford Courant by Tom Condon, which addresses this problem.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer these most public words of congratulation to a great Connecticut citizen who is retiring after a long and distinguished career with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. For nearly 40 years, David Hendel of West Hartford, CT has been a fixture at MetLife and he will be sorely missed in those hallways. As a past president of the MetLife Veterans Club of Hartford/ Providence, a member of the president's club for 6 years, and 10 years on the leadership conference, David has redefined loyalty and dedication in the workplace. If ever there was a man who could be counted on to put forth his best effort day in and day out, David Hendel is that man. David has not merely made his mark at MetLife, he has also worked hard to better his community and this is what makes him such a special individual. A veteran of the U.S. Army, David has devoted his spare time to such organizations as the West Hartford Zoning Board of Appeals, the West Hartford Democratic Town Committee, and Temple Beth El of West Hartford. Truly, David has taught a generation of West Hartford residents the meaning and value of community service. A true role model, David has shown us all that we must work both as individuals and as parts of a greater community to leave a positive mark on the world around us. As Members of Congress, we are charged with improving and strengthening the fabric of this Nation. I hope this body recognizes that, by following the lead of citizens like David Hendel, we can all advance toward that lofty goal.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I introduce an Intrastate Towing Technical Corrections Act. This legislation will clarify that it is not Congress' intent to preempt state or local regulations dealing with the operation of tow trucks. I would like to recognize the junior Senator from Washington who introduced similar legislation in the 103d Congress, which, unfortunately, was not acted upon prior to adjournment. Last year Congress passed the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. The act included a provision in section 601 which effectively preempts state and local intrastate trucking regulations pertaining to prices, routes, and service. However, it was not Congress' intention to legislate on towing issues; and it has opened up myriad problems for the consumer, leading to higher towing rates. In Connecticut, towing rates have been deregulated; and tow operators are free to charge as much as they want. Now, some may say that the market should determine prices--and I agree--but in the towing market the consumer has no other recourse, more times than not, than to pay the tow truck operator after the vehicle has been towed. Safety concerns abound also. Especially when considering large tractor trailers that break down on interstate highways. I have heard from many constituents that deregulation is causing exorbitant price increases in their towing rates. Again, this was not our intention when we passed the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. This bill will keep towing charges in line with market prices. Plain and simple, Mr. President, deregulation is leading to overcharging. My bill would let the States set towing rates. It would be beneficial for the consumer and beneficial for States. I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record excerpts from an article in the Hartford Courant by Tom Condon, which addresses this problem.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been managed as one of the great wilderness systems on this continent since the Eisenhower administration. It is on par with other great places in our natural history, including the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Jackson Hole, the Badlands, Glacier Bay, Denali, and others. Opening the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas development violates our stewardship commitment to future generations, fails to use common sense about balancing the budget, and destroys a highly threatened piece of our American heritage. This is a unique and treasured land that must serve our entire Nation for the next century, not just a few for the next few years. Unnecessary development of significant Federal lands like the Arctic Refuge is not the way to balance the budget. The amount of oil that can potentially be recovered from the Arctic Refuge is simply too small to affect our energy security, and too destructive to the environment, to be worth it. The U.S. Geological Service estimates a 95-percent chance of only 148 million barrels of oil in the refuge. The Congressional Budget Office assumed 3.2 billion barrels in its budget scoring of oil and gas leases, more than 20 times this recent USGS estimate. Worse yet, CBO assumed oil prices of $38.60 in 2000, compared to Energy information administration estimates of only $19.13--less than half. And, it is possible that 90 percent of the lease revenues could go to Alaska instead of balancing the Federal budget. Under the most favorable scenario, only 50 percent of the revenues go to balancing the budget. Clearly, the $1.3 billion we have been promised by CBO in return for developing this pristine area is a massive fiction, like so many other bogus asset sales in this budget. The OMB has estimated oil and gas revenues more realistically to be between $750 million and $850 million, assuming Alaska does not sue for a 90-percent split. If the State does, these revenues fall another 40 percent. We all hope for another strike like Prudhoe Bay. But the simple reality, based on the very best geological science and economics available today, is that the next Prudhoe Bay is expansion of Prudhoe Bay itself, and the continued implementation of national energy conservation programs. The next major source of energy is not a long- shot wildcat strike in an undeveloped Alaskan wilderness area, and it is incorrect to suggest otherwise. And it is ironic that we would consider opening this refuge to oil drilling now that the oil export ban will be lifted, as the House and Senate have voted to do. If the ban is lifted, a substantial percentage of the oil that is recovered, if any, would be exported to Asia, according to the Cato Institute, the Congressional Research Service, and others. The Arctic Refuge oil supplies would do almost nothing to help our energy security. Make no mistake, environmental impacts to the refuge would be severe and irreversible. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge includes the calving grounds for one of the largest caribou herds in North America, the porcupine herd of 152,000. It supports several thousand native Americans whose hunter-gatherer culture depends directly on it today as it has for 20,000 years. Over 200 species of plants and animals thrive in the refuge, including Muskoxen, Snow Geese, Arctic Foxes, Arctic Grayling and Arctic Char. It is the only natural area in the United States with all three species of North American bears--the black bear, the grizzly bear, and the polar bear. It is one of the most pristine areas in our Nation, untouched by development, and the last of its kind. Environmental studies repeatedly show that oil development is not compatible with the protection of these resources. Biologists from Federal and State agencies and universities conclude that oil development will harm the calving success of the caribou herd, and reduce its long term numbers very significantly. The remaining 90 percent of the Alaskan North Slope is already open to oil and gas leasing. Is it too much to protect what little we have left? Let us honor our history of conservation, and the future of generations to come, by protecting this last Arctic Refuge. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the President on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the commitment we have made to balancing the budget has forced each of us to reassess a wide variety of Federal programs. We are asking tough but necessary questions about welfare, Medicare, funding for the arts, and so forth, all with an eye toward determining whether we are truly doing right by the taxpayer, and whether we can afford to continue the status quo. One corner of the budget that I believe deserves this kind of heightened scrutiny is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's farm subsidy programs. Each year about $10 billion gets plowed into price and income supports for commodities, in the name of helping the struggling family farmer. But there's substantial evidence to show that these programs are not serving the interests of those small farmers, nor are they doing justice to America's taxpayers. The current system for distributing commodity payments is too complicated, plagued by too many loopholes, and permits far too many tax dollars to flow to wealthy landowners, passive investors, and others who the programs are not designed to serve. Perhaps worst of all, the system in place today actually encourages farmers to try to circumvent the laws governing who is eligible for program payments and the limits on how much they can receive. The resulting waste and abuse is not fair to the taxpayer, nor is it fair to the overwhelming majority of hard-working farmers who are obeying the spirit as well as the letter of the law. That is why I rise today to introduce the Farm Fairness Act of 1995, a plan to dramatically reform the payment limit and eligibility laws, and restore some basic fairness to the way subsidies are distributed. This legislation would go a long way toward rooting out the waste and abuse in the commodity programs while strengthening our commitment to the family farmer these programs are meant to support. What's more, it would save hundreds of millions of dollars each year, which would enable us to significantly reduce the cuts in the commodity programs we are asking the small- and medium-sized farmer to absorb over the next budget cycle. Mr. President, the need for the kind of changes I am proposing has been well established by the USDA inspector general. Over the last few years, the IG's office has produced dozens of investigative reports documenting widespread attempts to cash in on loopholes in the law. These plans invariably involve the creation of shell corporations set up for the sole purpose of getting around the $50,000 cap on payments that was set by Congress. These efforts have been effective, too: in 1993, nearly 10,000 farms received payments above the $50,000 limit. The law is so full of loopholes that these excessive payments are technically legal, even though they make a mockery of the $50,000 cap. In fact, a U.S. Attorney's Office recently declined to prosecute a substantial fraud case against a big farming group because, in the judgment of the U.S. Attorney, the law seemed to sanction the group's deceptive behavior. ``[T]he program rules are not simply complex, but actually invite the creation of complicated entities, and numerous federal payments, that arguably do not correspond to a common sense notion of farming,'' the U.S. Attorney wrote. Perhaps the most notorious case of abuse is that of landowner profiled a few years ago on ``60 Minutes,'' whose family exploited several loopholes in the eligibility laws to receive almost $3 million in USDA money over a 2 year period. He did it by creating an ornate ownership structure that looked like a Christmas tree, but this tree was trimmed with phony partners: among them were three churches and a local boy scout council that the landowner used to maximize his payments. Like this landowner, many farmers are enticed by these loopholes to concentrate more on farming the government than farming their land. This trend of farming the government is so pervasive that one former Agriculture Secretary called it ``the principal problem'' in the farming community today. As a result of these flaws in the law, you don't have to be a farmer to receive farm subsidies. In fact, a recent study showed that at least $2 billion in crop payments have been made to individuals living in America's 50 biggest cities over the last decade. We cannot think of any justification for crop subsidies going to Manhattan, Greenwich, and Beverly Hills. More farm subsidies are going to nonfarming locales than any taxpayer would ever guess. That's because, in spite of the rhetoric about the family farmer, these programs are disproportionately benefiting wealthy landowners and off-farm investors: The richest 4 percent of program participants receive more than 40 percent of all payments. If we are to justify a continued investment in the commodity programs, I believe there must be some fundamental reforms. The legislation I am introducing today would do just that. It is designed to restore some common sense to the administration of these programs, to remove the incentives for farming the government, and ultimately to better target the subsidies to those who were meant to receive them. Among other things, this proposal would: Close the loopholes that allow huge sums of farm subsidies to flow to nonfarmers; eliminate the shell corporations the current rules encourage farmers to create; set tough penalties for cheating the Government to add a real deterrent for engaging in fraudulent behavior; bring some simplicity into a system that is nearly unintelligible to anyone but a well-trained lawyer; and reduce the budget in a way that minimizes the pain for the small family farmer who is playing by the rules. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Farm Fairness Act would save approximately $1.8 billion over the next 7 years. I believe that is a conservative estimate, and that if the reforms I am proposing are properly enforced, this legislation would reduce commodity payments anywhere from $2 billion to $3 billion over 7 years. That amounts to a significant chunk of the $13.4 billion in commodity program cuts called for in the budget reconciliation package we are in the process of considering. Without a proposal like this, those cuts will be made across the board, meaning the small wheat farmer in Fargo will suffer as much as the passive investor in Key Largo. To prevent that from happening, I intend to offer a version of the Farm Fairness Act as an amendment to the budget reconciliation bill this week. This proposal is called the Farm Fairness Act because it will restore some fairness to the way we support farmers, by targeting payments to the people who are actually plowing the fields and harvesting the crops. And it will make sure that taxpayers finally get a fair return for the tax dollars we spend on the commodity programs. It is a balanced measure, one that Members from both farm and nonfarm States can support, and I would urge my colleagues to do so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be included in the Record, along with a section-by-section summary that I have prepared explaining the contents of the bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the commitment we have made to balancing the budget has forced each of us to reassess a wide variety of Federal programs. We are asking tough but necessary questions about welfare, Medicare, funding for the arts, and so forth, all with an eye toward determining whether we are truly doing right by the taxpayer, and whether we can afford to continue the status quo. One corner of the budget that I believe deserves this kind of heightened scrutiny is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's farm subsidy programs. Each year about $10 billion gets plowed into price and income supports for commodities, in the name of helping the struggling family farmer. But there's substantial evidence to show that these programs are not serving the interests of those small farmers, nor are they doing justice to America's taxpayers. The current system for distributing commodity payments is too complicated, plagued by too many loopholes, and permits far too many tax dollars to flow to wealthy landowners, passive investors, and others who the programs are not designed to serve. Perhaps worst of all, the system in place today actually encourages farmers to try to circumvent the laws governing who is eligible for program payments and the limits on how much they can receive. The resulting waste and abuse is not fair to the taxpayer, nor is it fair to the overwhelming majority of hard-working farmers who are obeying the spirit as well as the letter of the law. That is why I rise today to introduce the Farm Fairness Act of 1995, a plan to dramatically reform the payment limit and eligibility laws, and restore some basic fairness to the way subsidies are distributed. This legislation would go a long way toward rooting out the waste and abuse in the commodity programs while strengthening our commitment to the family farmer these programs are meant to support. What's more, it would save hundreds of millions of dollars each year, which would enable us to significantly reduce the cuts in the commodity programs we are asking the small- and medium-sized farmer to absorb over the next budget cycle. Mr. President, the need for the kind of changes I am proposing has been well established by the USDA inspector general. Over the last few years, the IG's office has produced dozens of investigative reports documenting widespread attempts to cash in on loopholes in the law. These plans invariably involve the creation of shell corporations set up for the sole purpose of getting around the $50,000 cap on payments that was set by Congress. These efforts have been effective, too: in 1993, nearly 10,000 farms received payments above the $50,000 limit. The law is so full of loopholes that these excessive payments are technically legal, even though they make a mockery of the $50,000 cap. In fact, a U.S. Attorney's Office recently declined to prosecute a substantial fraud case against a big farming group because, in the judgment of the U.S. Attorney, the law seemed to sanction the group's deceptive behavior. ``[T]he program rules are not simply complex, but actually invite the creation of complicated entities, and numerous federal payments, that arguably do not correspond to a common sense notion of farming,'' the U.S. Attorney wrote. Perhaps the most notorious case of abuse is that of landowner profiled a few years ago on ``60 Minutes,'' whose family exploited several loopholes in the eligibility laws to receive almost $3 million in USDA money over a 2 year period. He did it by creating an ornate ownership structure that looked like a Christmas tree, but this tree was trimmed with phony partners: among them were three churches and a local boy scout council that the landowner used to maximize his payments. Like this landowner, many farmers are enticed by these loopholes to concentrate more on farming the government than farming their land. This trend of farming the government is so pervasive that one former Agriculture Secretary called it ``the principal problem'' in the farming community today. As a result of these flaws in the law, you don't have to be a farmer to receive farm subsidies. In fact, a recent study showed that at least $2 billion in crop payments have been made to individuals living in America's 50 biggest cities over the last decade. We cannot think of any justification for crop subsidies going to Manhattan, Greenwich, and Beverly Hills. More farm subsidies are going to nonfarming locales than any taxpayer would ever guess. That's because, in spite of the rhetoric about the family farmer, these programs are disproportionately benefiting wealthy landowners and off-farm investors: The richest 4 percent of program participants receive more than 40 percent of all payments. If we are to justify a continued investment in the commodity programs, I believe there must be some fundamental reforms. The legislation I am introducing today would do just that. It is designed to restore some common sense to the administration of these programs, to remove the incentives for farming the government, and ultimately to better target the subsidies to those who were meant to receive them. Among other things, this proposal would: Close the loopholes that allow huge sums of farm subsidies to flow to nonfarmers; eliminate the shell corporations the current rules encourage farmers to create; set tough penalties for cheating the Government to add a real deterrent for engaging in fraudulent behavior; bring some simplicity into a system that is nearly unintelligible to anyone but a well-trained lawyer; and reduce the budget in a way that minimizes the pain for the small family farmer who is playing by the rules. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Farm Fairness Act would save approximately $1.8 billion over the next 7 years. I believe that is a conservative estimate, and that if the reforms I am proposing are properly enforced, this legislation would reduce commodity payments anywhere from $2 billion to $3 billion over 7 years. That amounts to a significant chunk of the $13.4 billion in commodity program cuts called for in the budget reconciliation package we are in the process of considering. Without a proposal like this, those cuts will be made across the board, meaning the small wheat farmer in Fargo will suffer as much as the passive investor in Key Largo. To prevent that from happening, I intend to offer a version of the Farm Fairness Act as an amendment to the budget reconciliation bill this week. This proposal is called the Farm Fairness Act because it will restore some fairness to the way we support farmers, by targeting payments to the people who are actually plowing the fields and harvesting the crops. And it will make sure that taxpayers finally get a fair return for the tax dollars we spend on the commodity programs. It is a balanced measure, one that Members from both farm and nonfarm States can support, and I would urge my colleagues to do so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be included in the Record, along with a section-by-section summary that I have prepared explaining the contents of the bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Nebraska. Lieberman Motion To Commit