Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk which I offer on behalf of myself, and Senators Daschle, Harkin, Graham, Rockefeller, Breaux, and Kennedy, who are members of a Medicare working group.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to restore the solvency of the Medicare part A trust fund for the next 10 years and then to go on, beyond dealing with that immediate, obvious deficit looming, to reform the Medicare Program and provide real choices to Medicare beneficiaries by increasing the range of health plan options available, providing better information so that beneficiaries can act as informed consumers, and to require planning and action for the changes that will come with the retirement, later in the first decade of the next century, of the baby-boom generation. This is a constructive Medicare alternative. Mr. President, what we have here is a missed opportunity. Democrats and Republicans agree generally that there are some problems with the Medicare Program that we must address: Problem No. 1. Our Republican colleagues argue that the Medicare Program must be saved from impending bankruptcy in the part A trust fund. Democrats agree that we must act to restore the solvency of the part A trust fund. The Health Care Financing Administration's Actuary tells us that it will take $89 billion in spending reductions to assure solvency through the next 10 years--through 2006. Democrats have put forward a strong proposal that would do this in a fair manner. It has been scored by CBO and achieves solvency for at least the next 10 years. Problem No. 2. The rate of increase in the cost of the Medicare Program is unsustainable at 10 percent each and every year. We all agree that this problem must be dealt with. Democrats and Republicans have both put forward proposals that begin to bring competitive market forces into the Medicare Program. I would argue that the Democratic proposal is much stronger in this regard. We would strongly move the Medicare Program toward competitive bidding among the private health plans participating in Medicare. We would also tie rates of increase in payments to private health plans to the private sector market place, rather than to arbitrary budget targets. Ultimately, I am convinced that competition among an expanded range of private health plans serving Medicare patients will be the key to reducing long term rates of growth in the Medicare Program. We recognize that the Medicare Program is 30 years old and is showing signs of its age. We have proposed changes that would bring the program into the rapidly changing health care system of the 1990's and the next century. Problem No. 3. The most difficult problem looming on the horizon, Mr. President, is the coming retirement of the baby boom generation--a relatively huge number of Americans will begin to turn 65 starting around the year 2010. There are 76 million individuals in the baby boom generation. They outnumber by 50 percent the generation that preceded them into retirement. Over the next 5 years, only about 10 percent of Medicare cost increases will be attributable to more beneficiaries. Once the baby boomers retire, however, [[Page S 16008]] the combination of, one, a declining base of workers and, two, longer lifespans will double the combined costs of Medicare and Medicaid even if medical inflation, above CPI is eliminated altogether. If Medicare is not prepared for the implications of this demographic shift, it may not be able to weather the storm. Democrats and Republicans have both put forward Medicare reform plans that would set up a high level, bipartisan commission to make the tough recommendations that are needed to prepare for this historical shift. The differences between the parties, nevertheless, remain stark. The bill that is on the Senate floor today would cut $280 billion out of the Medicare Program over the next 7 years. The problem, Mr. President, is that this figure is based solely on a series of budget targets that lead to a balanced budget and reductions in taxes of $254 billion over the next 7 years. The reconciliation bill before us is too long on squeezing beneficiaries and too short on genuine reform. It treats Medicare as a cash cow to be milked to keep promises of deficit and tax reduction made in the campaigns of 1994. The figure of $280 billion in Medicare cuts is not good for the Medicare Program and the population it serves--those who depend on it today and those who will depend on it in future generations. In the end, Mr. President, I am convinced that we can find a solution to all of these problems. What we have on the Senate floor today, however, is not the solution. It maintains all of the problems of the existing Medicare Program and underfunds them. It is a package of cuts, not reforms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a Democratic Medicare plan printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to express my concerns about one provision that the Finance Committee was unable to include in its final tax package. It is a provision that was contained in the bipartisan capital gains legislation that Senator Hatch and I introduced, S. 959. The provision would change current law in ways that would be extremely helpful to families in my region of the country. Under current law, when an individual or family sells its principal residence for a gain, and for whatever reason, does not reinvest all of the proceeds in another home, any gain from that transaction is generally treated as a capital gain, and is taxed at more favorable capital gains rates. Special rules apply to individuals over age 55. They are permitted to completely exclude from tax up to $125,000 of their gains from sales of their residences. By contrast, if an individual or family sells a personal residence at a loss, that loss is treated as a personal loss, and no part of the loss may be recovered. No capital loss rules for losses on residences are provided under current law. No way presently exists for a family to be made whole from a genuine economic loss. S. 959, a bipartisan bill that has 45 cosponsors, included a provision to provide some relief to individuals who have experienced these true losses. S. 959 would permit capital loss treatment for loss on the sale of a principal residence. This proposal is fair, because it provides that both losses and gains on sale will be treated as capital, not ordinary. Until the 1980's, the possibility of suffering a loss on the sale of a principal residence was all but unthinkable. Then, starting with the oil price shocks of the early 1980's, we have experienced a series of regional economic slowdowns and recessions that have caused the prices of housing to fall. These occurred first in the Southwest, and more recently in California and New England. Several things--all bad--can happen when the value of a residence falls. In southern California and in New England in the early 1990's, homeowners began to experience what came to be known as the upside-down mortgage. Homeowners found that the value of their homes had fallen so much that the home was worth less than the outstanding debt of the mortgage. Thus, if the homeowners were forced to sell, they would come out of the deal actually owing their lender more money than they had from the sale. Then, if the banker forgave some portion of the debt, the homeowners actually owned income tax on the transaction. In 1992, it was estimated that 41 percent of the sales in California were in this upside down position. The problem of upside down mortgages in resolving itself in California, but it is a disaster for people caught in that bind. In New England, the downward trend in home values continues; thus, the problem of upside down mortgages persists. In my home State of Connecticut, many areas have experienced steep price declines since 1989. For example, the median sales price for an existing home in Hartford was $165,900 in 1989. The median home price has since declined to $133,400. The purchaser of a median priced home in Hartford, in 1989, has lost, on average $32,500 or over 24 percent of their home value over a 5-year period. This represent a loss of roughly $6,500 per year. Similarly, the median purchase price for an existing home in the New Haven-Meriden Metropolitan Area was $163,400 in 1989. The median home price in New Haven-Meriden metro areas has since declined to $139,600. The purchaser of a median priced home in New Haven-Meriden, in 1989 would have lost $23,800 or slightly more than 17 percent of their home value by 1994. This represents an average annual decline in home equity of $4,760. If people sell their homes at a loss, they have suffered a true economic loss. Moreover, it is a loss that may represent the loss of their biggest source of savings. People who experience a loss on the sale of their home are often wiped out financially. The provision that Senator Hatch and I included in S. 959 permits capital loss treatment for these painful situations. Because of the mechanical operation of the capital loss rules, it may take many years for a family to recoup the true losses they have experienced. Still, the relief in S. 959 is only partial relief for some individuals. Because of the serious impact on families of these losses, it is only fair that we provide at least the capital loss relief as a form of rough justice so that these families can have some relief from the true losses they have incurred. This important provision is contained in the House bill. It is my hope that the chairman and the conferees will be able to accept this provision during the conference. It would provide critical relief to families that have sustained genuine losses, and is in the best interests of fairness and family.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill contains the essential elements of S. 959, the Capital Formation Act of 1995. That bill, which I cosponsored with Senator Hatch, had over 40 cosponsors. I am pleased that the bill before us contains a broad-based capital gains tax cut as well as a targeted provision which provides a sweetened incentive to invest in small businesses. I would have liked it if the real estate loss provision had been included by the Senate Finance Committee and I intend to work to see that that provision is included in conference. I think it is important to understand that the benefits of a capital gains cut are not limited to the wealthy. Anyone who has stock, who has money invested in a mutual fund, who has investment property, who has a stock option plan has a state in this debate. We are talking about millions and millions of American families. Unlike most other industrialized nations, we stifle savings and investment by overtaxing that savings and investment. This capital gains bill rewards those who are willing to invest their money and not spend it. It rewards people who put their money in places where it will add to our national pool of savings. Businesses can draw on this pool of savings to meet their capital needs, expand their businesses, and hire more workers. Of course, people who are wealthy can benefit from this proposal capital gains cut but only because they are willing to put their money in places where that money will create wealth. I would like to close with a quote from this year's Nobel Prize winner in economics, Robert Lucas. He said, and I quote, ``When I left graduate school in 1963, I believed that the single most desirable change in the U.S. tax structure would be the taxation of gains as ordinary income. I now believe that neither capital gains nor any of the income from capital should be taxed at all.'' Professor Lucas goes on to say that his analysis shows that even under conservative assumptions, eliminating capital gains taxes would increase available capital in this country by about 35 percent. I could not agree more on the need to increase available capital and I would invite anyone who does not think we have a problem with available capital to visit any of the thousands of economically distressed urban and rural countries across this country. While the capital gains provision before us reduces, but does not eliminate the tax on capital gains as Professor Lucas would prefer, I hope that you will join in supporting this provision. amendment no. 2985

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment with Senator Abraham to supercharge the enterprise communities and empowerment zones we created in 1993 This amendment builds on S. 1252, the Enhanced Enterprise Zone Act of 1995, which I have introduced with Senator Abraham. Our effort has been very bipartisan--to date Senators Santorum, Moseley-Braun, DeWine, Breaux, and Frist have all agreed to sign on as cosponsors of 1252. Across this country, there are differing views on the state of race relations, affirmative action, and minority set-aside programs like the 8(a) program. Racial divisions in this country have been highlighted by the O.J. Simpson trial and to some extent, I believe, healed by the message that came out of the Million Man March. The differences across America on issues like affirmative action and 8(a) also exist among Members of the U.S. Senate. That being said, I believe that each and every Member of the Senate believes the following: that regardless of what we each believe we should do about the racial divisions in this country, what to do about affirmative action, and what to do about minority set-aside programs, we all believe that not enough is being done to help those people who live and work in and want to start business in the economically distressed urban and rural areas of this country. Any response to the economic distress in urban and rural areas which does not include a mechanism to attract businesses and jobs back to these areas is a response that is destined for failure. Last week the Senate Small Business Committee held a hearing on S. 1252 and former Housing Secretary Jack Kemp had this to say: The train wreck is not so much the inability to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate over the budget . . . The real train wreck is what those 400,000 men were saying on the Mall a few days ago: that there are not enough jobs in America. We are not creating enough opportunities for people to become entrepreneurs, to become owners, to become homeowners, to become business owners. To get jobs not only as truck drivers, but someday to own the truck and maybe start a little trucking company. We took a step toward identifying and helping these areas of economic distress by passing the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities Act in 1993 with much-needed help from this President. With the passage of that legislation, Congress recognized something that our States have acknowledged for many years: Government loses the war on poverty when it fights alone. What we really need to do is figure out a way to pull the people and the places with little or no stake in our economic system, into our system. The 1993 legislation was a fundamental change in urban policy. It was a recognition that American business can and must play a role in revitalizing poor neighborhoods. The 1993 legislation was a critical step in the right direction. But we need to go further, particularly in helping the existing 94 enterprise communities. This amendment is designed to supercharge these zones. We propose to add tax incentives and other Federal assistance to these zones with an eye toward the creation of economic opportunities for the urban and rural poor. Very briefly, this amendment provides a zero capital gains tax on the sale of any qualified zone stock, business property, or partnership interest that has been held for at least 5 years within an EZ or EC; it allows individuals to deduct the purchase of qualified enterprise zone stock from their incomes--up to $100,000 in 1 year and $500,000 in their lifetime and it allows businesses to double the maximum allowable expensing for purchases of plant and equipment in enterprise zones. This amendment also includes a modified version of a proposal which Senator Hutchison has been working on to provide a limited tax credit to businesses to help defray the cost of construction, expansion, and renovation. While revenue constraints have forced us to scale back that proposal we hope it will work so well that we will want to expand it in the future. A third initiative embraced by this package is low-income home ownership and residential management of public housing. Jack Kemp has been instrumental in pressing us to make this happen. Setting down a stake in the system has been out of reach for the poorest among us for far too long. We believe this amendment will create opportunity for those who work hard, ownership opportunities for those who want to own property and support for those families who need it. Last week, the New York Times carried a story about Mr. Lavale Thomas, a former Green Bay Packer running back and current black entrepreneur, speaking to a group of high school students in Washington, DC. And here are the questions the students asked Thomas: ``How did you get a loan? Was it harder for a black man to get banks to lend money than a white man? Would blacks buy from other blacks? What did he give back to the community?'' These are great questions for kids to be asking. They all get at the issue of, ``How do I become part of the system?'' This amendment is designed to make it easier for these students to become part of the system and to build a better future for themselves. While we will not be offering this amendment today, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting much-needed help for our economically distressed areas by supporting S. 1252. nursing home standards

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk about a proposal I have been working on to make the child tax credit better. This proposal, called Kid$ave, would do much to address a number of the fundamental problems we face today as well as the problems our children will face in the future. I had hoped to offer this proposals as an amendment to the bill before us but I am not convinced there is adequate time in this process to give this proposal a thorough airing. For this reason, I would like to outline this proposal and ask that the conferees on this bill review this proposal in conference. Kid$ave would transform the $500 middle-class tax credit being considered by the Finance Committee into a long-term retirement savings account. In addition to providing for the economic security of the next generation, the proposal would buttress savings and investment for the economic security of this generation. Kid$ave allows parents to set aside an annual $500 credit in an IRA in their child's name. The tax-deferred account would be governed by IRA rules, with [[Page S 16057]] one exception: children would be allowed to take a 10-year loan against this money for their higher education. Thanks to the wonders of compound interest, $500 a year set aside from birth to age 18 would, at 10 percent interest a year, grow to $1.3 million by the time the child reached age 59\1/2\, the age at which IRA funds can start to be withdrawn with no penalty. One of our greatest challenges is how to create economic opportunity and wealth for the working families of this country. I believe Kid$ave helps us meet that challenge in an affordable, responsible way. If there is going to be a tax credit to help families with children, I believe there is no better way to provide that help than to offer parents the opportunity to ensure a sound financial future for their children. That is good news for the future. But Kid$ave is good news for the present, as well. Kid$ave will help our economy today by creating a pool of savings available for investment. As you know, savings and investment rates in the United States are at historic lows: our household savings rate is 4.6 percent of disposable income, compared to Japan's 14.8 percent and Germany's 12.3 percent. When government deficits are factored in, U.S. net national savings falls to 2.07 percent. When our historic trade deficits are added to our plummeting savings rates, the result is an immense disinvestment in our economic future. While the Social Security trust fund is locked into Federal securities, Kid$ave would create a savings pool that would soon be the largest in the country, available for investment directly in our economy. It would deal directly with our national savings problem by assuring a long term capital source for economic growth and job creation. In other words, Kid$ave can help children when they retire, and it can help them find work until they retire. The proposal speaks to the problems we will face from changing national demographics. Because the baby boom is such a large population group, we will be imposing a vast financial burden on our children's generation to fund upcoming social security, pension and health care obligations, jeopardizing the long term availability of those programs to the following generations of Americans. This will create what Professor Rudy Dornbusch of MIT calls a true crunch in world capital markets, since we share that demographics problem with our industrial competitors in Europe and Asia. That capital shortage--which means major government and private sector borrowing to meet social and pension obligations and resulting sky high interest rates--will have serious ramifications for future economic growth unless we act now to head it off. The best course to take is to encourage a large buildup in private savings rates. Kid$ave tackles that problem head on. One additional advantage of Kid$ave should be noted, although it is harder to quantify at this time. This is the effect of encouraging Americans to save. The ethic of thriftiness seems to have been lost in recent decades, replaced by a credit car mentality. We would compound our problems if we pass such bad habits on to future generations. Kid$ave can help us turn the tide of indebtedness into a groundswell of savings and can transform our whole attitude toward money and how to use it to best advantage. That will yield incalculable dividends for our nation down the road. I would like to offer Kid$ave to all children in America. But I understand that revenue targets may require limits on who receives the credit, at least at the outset. I also understand that the Senate is divided between those who would like to cut taxes for middle-class families now and those who would prefer to balance the budget first. I believe Kid$ave can bridge that divide because it is a better kind of tax cut, one that helps us address the Nation's savings and investment crisis even as it provides tax relief. But best of all, unlike any other proposal on the table, Kid$ave gives our children a tangible, financial head start on the rest of their lives. In closing, let me say that whether or not you believe a family tax cut is a good idea at this time, this is an idea that improves on that credit. Last week's Baltimore Sun carried an article coauthored by an unlikely pair: John Rother of the AARP and Martha Philips of the Concord Coalition As they point out, they do not agree on much, but they do agree that a Kid$ave-like approach to a tax cut makes sense. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of their article be printed in the Record and I would encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this idea.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise with a few thoughts on this bill overall, and on the cuts we are contemplating in the earned income tax credit [EITC] in particular. This bill has a lot to recommend it. It provides incentives in the tax code for positive goals. The super IRA provisions will encourage savings. That is a constructive step forward. The capital gains piece will encourage people to put money where it will create wealth--that is to say it will encourage investment. While I've supported a middle- class tax credit, I think we could have made the credit even better by giving it to parents who set up retirement accounts for the kids. Those accounts would be governed by IRA rules with one exception--children would be allowed to take a 10-year loan against their account for higher education. And I'm not enthusiastic about what this bill does to Medicare--not because this bill does too much, but because it does too little to change the built-in flaws in this program. Overall, I'm encouraged by what this bill does to provide incentives for savings and investment and the creation of jobs and capital. However, in terms of incentives it falls woefully short in one area. That is in the dramatic and misguided cuts this bill makes in the earned income tax credit [EITC]. Let me tell you why I like the EITC and why I think that the Republican Party should embrace, not eviscerate this program. Put simply, the EITC provides an incentive to work. It promotes work over welfare and it does so through the Tax Code, not through a new social service program run by bureaucrats in Washington. That is something both parties should be able to support and indeed, in the past, both supported the EITC. President Reagan championed this program as the ``best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress.'' Last week in testimony before the Senate Small Business Committee, former HUD Secretary Kemp cautioned against cutting back too far on the EITC ``because that is a tax increase on low income workers and the poor which is unconscionable at this time * * *'' I am particularly troubled that the Senate has cut $43 billion out of this program over 7 years--this figure is nearly doublt what the House has cut from the EITC in their reconciliation package. And this cut of $43 billion is a dramatic increase in the cuts this Chamber agreed on during consideration of the budget resolution just 5 months ago. That resolution assumed $21 billion in EITC cuts. I found that proposed cut distressing. We are now talking about nearly tripling that cut. I find that downright alarming. Here are the people we will hurt the most with these proposals: Workers without children who receive the EITC. These are workers with incomes under $10,000; EITC families with one child and incomes above $12,000 and; EITC families with two or more children regardless of how low their income. In practical terms, about 17 million low- and moderate-income families--including nearly 13 million low-income families with children will feel the impact of these changes. In my home State of Connecticut alone, these changes would amount to an average increase of $311 for over 92,000 families. This simply makes no sense. It takes us further away from our goal of encouraging work and self-sufficiency. Of course we ought to get rid of waste and fraud in this program. I believe the administration has done a commendable job in helping in that effort. But the increase in this program in recent years has been by design not by fraud and deviousness. Congress voted to expand this program in 1986, 1990, and 1993. When the changes we made to the program in 1993 are fully phased in at the end of fiscal year 1996, the EITC will actually grow by very modest rate of 4.5 percent a year. This program has had bipartisan support because both sides of this aisle have been able to agree that we should use both hands to applaud those who are working to lift themselves out of poverty and then use one of those hands to give them the help and support they deserve. The Democratic Leadership Council, which I am pleased to chair, has a long history of support for this program. The research and writing arm of the DLC, the Progressive Policy Institute [[Page S 16059]] [PPI] has done a lot of excellent work on the issue. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Mr. Jeff Hammond on the EITC, which appeared in the September 29 Washington Times, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to set the record straight on the need to reform the corporate alternative minimum tax. What we have under current law is a nightmare for investment for businesses of all sizes. The AMT is not working as Congress intended when it was adopted in 1986. We never intended to so harshly penalize investment in equipment needed to modernize our factories; nor did we intend to force companies that have no profit to borrow money to pay their AMT. Yet this is precisely what current law does to some companies. There is bipartisan agreement on the need to fix AMT. President Clinton in [[Page S 16062]] 1993 recognized the need to fix the AMT and proposed shortening AMT depreciation recovery periods. To date, we have not adopted the President's proposal in full. For this reason, earlier this year, I joined with Democrats and Republican cosponsors of S. 1000, a reasonable piece of legislation, to help correct this antiinvestment tax system. While I commend the Finance Committee for taking some action on this issue, that action falls short of what ultimately needs to be done. There are two parts to AMT depreciation--method and recovery period. This bill fixes the method of depreciation, but does not do enough for the recovery period. Yet it is the unreasonably long recovery period for most investments under the AMT that creates the severe penalty on investment. S. 1000 fixes both parts of the AMT depreciation problem and I believe it is the right policy on AMT. I hope in conference and in negotiations with the White House that we can come up with a bill that will truly fix the antiinvestment nature of the AMT depreciation rules. This can be done in a way that preserves the integrity of the tax collection process by not letting truly profitable firms totally escape taxation while at the same time encouraging economic growth and job creation which I believe is essential to an improved standard of living for all Americans.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I echo my colleagues' sentiments and add that while our current R&E program supports many fine research and development activities, a number of significant R&D investors are ineligible to use this credit under our current law. The alternative incremental credit approved by the House enables those companies to take advantage of this resource, and while I am disappointed that the alternative credit is not part of the package before us today, I hope that the conferees will look kindly on this proposal. I am concerned that many U.S. companies engaged in high-technology research are unable to stay competitive in the global market due to declining Federal research dollars. By extending the tax credit for 20 months and offering the AIRC program, we can provide our industries with some certainty in helping them plan their research and development strategy.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a thought-provoking speech recently given by Judge Robert Bork about the media, and our perceptions of the first amendment and censorship. Judge Bork, who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, made these remarks at a forum sponsored by AEI entitled, ``Sex and Hollywood: What Should Be the Government's Role?'', at which I had the privilege of speaking. As the title suggests, this forum sought to examine what effect the media's bombardment of sexual messages is having on our children and our culture, and what [[Page S 16105]] steps the Government can and should take to address the public's growing concern about the threat posed by these increasingly explicit messages. In his comments, Judge Bork argued that this threat puts not only our children at risk, but our civil society as well. If the entertainment industry's standards continue to drop, he suggested, the Government would be well within its constitutional bounds to take more active steps to protect children by regulating lewd and indecent content. In making this argument, Judge Bork reminded the audience that the Government has regularly played the role of censor--albeit a limited one--for most of our history, and that in recent years the general notion of what forms of expression are fully protected by the first amendment has, in Judge Bork's eyes, become distorted. Judge Bork's comments remind us that our commitment to free expression must be balanced by our commitment to protect our children and the moral health of our Nation. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Judge Bork's statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I do not think I need more than 3 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona, not only for yielding time but for the extraordinary leadership and dedication he has shown in his support of this measure. Madam President, perhaps it is appropriate that I begin with some words from the prophets. Amos first. In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old. Then Jeremiah. So says the Lord; Behold I will return the captives of the tents of Jacob . . . and the city will be rebuilt on its mound. Madam President, tomorrow in this Capitol we will join in the worldwide celebration of the 3,000th anniversary of the entering of King David into the holy city of Jerusalem. In our time, in 1948, thanks to the courage of the people of the State of Israel, thanks to extraordinary support from people throughout the world, including particularly the Government of the United States, we witnessed the creation of the modern State of Israel and the establishment of Jerusalem as its capital. For the ensuing 47 years, for a lot of reasons that were not adequate, we in the United States, administration after administration of both parties, refused to locate our Embassy in Israel in the city of Jerusalem designated as the capital by that country as we do in virtually every other country in the world. Today, thanks to the leadership of Senator Dole who began this effort, of Senator Moynihan who has fought for it for so many years, of Senator Inouye, Senator Kyl, Senator Biden, who is on the floor, who has been unyielding and persistent in his support of this principle and, in the last few days, working together with Senators Feinstein and Lautenberg, we have come to the point where I think we fashioned an extraordinarily strong and honest bill that will receive overwhelming bipartisan support in both Chambers and I hope will be signed by the President. Madam President, I want to say that there have been concerns raised about the impact that passing this measure now would have on the peace process. In this regard, I will make two brief points. First, the location of the U.S. Embassy never was and never should be the subject of negotiations among third parties. It is our decision, it is an American decision, and we will make it here today. Second, as a supporter of the peace process in the Middle East, I feel particularly that this is the moment, as trust grows--and honesty is at the core of our relations with the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Arab world--that we do what is honest and say clearly our Embassy belongs in Jerusalem, the city that has been denoted by the Israelis as their capital. I will say in closing, ending, it seems to me, appropriately with a Psalm that we are realizing in this vote today the hopes expressed by David in Psalm 122, when he wrote: Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, calm within thy palaces. If I may offer a modern-day interpretation of the word palaces, calm be within thy embassies as they locate in the city of Jerusalem. I thank the Chair and my friends and colleagues. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank my friend and colleague from New York for his statement, which is not only characteristically learned--which is to say characteristic of him, not necessarily of all of us--but also characteristically principled. The history of our Government's policy on this question of the location of the American Embassy in Israel is a tawdry history. It is not the history of a great and principled nation. It is a history of a nation that has, I think, in the words of a musical, ``bowed and kowtowed'' too often and too low, when it was not necessary, on a matter as fundamental as respecting a country--not just any country but a country that is a dear and cherished, valued ally--in its own decision about where its capital is. It is a sovereign nation, a member of the United Nations. There has been a way in which our whole history here--harking to my earlier incarnation as Attorney General enforcing consumer protection laws--unfortunately, has been one of bait and switch. The political process has engaged in kind of alluring promises during campaigns and then switched to an entirely less principled, more pragmatic--in the worst sense of pragmatic--position once in office. But I really rise to recite that unhappy history just to say that, throughout all of that, as long as he has been in public office, the Senator from New York has been a steadfast beacon of principle on this--and of course other questions--but on this, unwavering, speaking out of the best of our traditions and the best traditions of international law. Hopefully, the Chamber will catch up with him in the vote on the measure before us. But I do not know that I have adequate words, not only to express my admiration, but to do the historical record justice here as to the really pioneering and principled and consistent position that the Senator from New York has taken. I thank him for his statement, but, really, more than that, I thank him for all he has done over the years to bring the Chamber to the point where we may finally be about to direct the movement of the Embassy to Jerusalem by a date certain. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the legislation before us, which would compel the movement of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Jerusalem, city of peace, the holy city, was entered almost 3,000 years ago by King David. Mr. President, 47 years ago, in 1948, the modern State of Israel was established. The Prime Minister at that time, David Ben-Gurion, declared Israel a state and declared also that its capital would be Jerusalem, although at that time, after the war for independence, Jerusalem was a divided city: the western part Israeli; the old city and the eastern part, Jordanian. In the normal course of diplomatic relations, every nation in the world would have established their embassy in the city, Jerusalem, designated as the capital by the new state of Israel, the state having been recognized by the United States, having been accepted as a member of the United Nations. But, for reasons that need not be spelled out in detail here, because of controversy that surrounded the State of Israel and its creation, the modern state, the United States did not move its Embassy to the capital of the State of Israel. When you think about it, it is nothing short of outrageous. We have gone through 47 years of the history of this country, 47 years of extraordinary friendship between the United States and Israel based on common values, common history, our common commitment to what is appropriately described as the Judeo-Christian tradition, our common commitment to democratic values. Through most of that time, the 47 years, Israel was the only country in the Middle East that was a democracy. It was 47 years in which our strategic relationships have grown ever closer, with joint military exercises and joint work on research and development, even, in this time, as we in the Senate have recently considered the priority threat that ballistic missiles represent to our country, the United States and Israel have been working jointly on a ballistic missile defense. I remember once years ago hearing the then Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir, say, and I believe it is true today, that there is one country in the Middle East where the United States will always know-- not just today, not just 10 years from now or 50 years from now or 100 years from now--as long as Israel exists, because the ties between these countries are so deep and so strong--there is one country in the Middle East where the United States will always know that in a time of need, in a time of conflict, in a time of danger, the United States can always land its planes, can always keep its equipment, can always bring its ships into Israeli docks. As she said, hopefully there will be a time--and, of course, we echo that here in this Chamber, and there is such a time now--where there are other countries in the Middle East where that is so, where U.S. troops, U.S. personnel, are welcome. But it will always be so in Israel. Yet, in spite of all these points of common value, common interest, common strategic purpose, shared strategic developments, nonetheless the United States continued to be frozen into this inconsistent, illogical and in some senses insulting position of not moving its Embassy to the city of Jerusalem, which Israel has designated as its capital. There have been succeeding generations of American politicians--of both parties--who somehow manage to be committed to the movement of the embassy to Jerusalem during campaigns, but then when it comes time that they hold office, it does not happen. I think we are about to change all that, and I think we are about to change it in a truly bipartisan way. It is, though a long overdue moment, nonetheless a critically important moment when we are in reach of a strong, bipartisan majority in this Chamber and in the other body in support of this legislation. Would that the legislation were not necessary. But, it is. In some senses it may be unfortunate that it is, but in other senses it is fortunate that we bring this legislation to the Senate because the effect will be to show the world, to show the people of Israel, to show all concerned parties in the Middle East, that the representatives here in the Senate and in the House, both parties, from every section of the country, agree that this is a matter of principle, a matter of common sense, a matter in which the United States, a strong nation--the strongest nation in the world--acts like a strong nation and does what is consistent with its principles. Mr. President, I congratulate those who have brought this legislation forward: the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, Senator Inouye, Senator Kyl, Senator Moynihan, and the countless others who have fought this battle for so many years now, standing together shoulder to shoulder behind this piece of legislation. I am privileged to join them as a cosponsor. Mr. President, the details of the legislation have been spelled out. But the heart of it is that by this legislation, Congress will have stated a clear message. The Embassy of the United States in Israel will be relocated to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel's choice of that city as its capital. That relocation will occur no later than May 31, 1999. Why that day? Obviously, if you believe that the Embassy ought to be moved to Jerusalem, it should be moved as soon as possible, but that date was inserted by the sponsors--and I think wisely so--as an expression of deference, or respect, if you will, for the peace process embodied in the Declaration of Principles signed by the parties, Israel, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the United States, and Russia on September 13, 1993, here in Washington. May 1999 is the termination of the process begun by this Declaration of Principles, the so-called Middle East peace process. But let us set that definite date. Let us leave no uncertainty about it, that by that date the Embassy of the United States will be located in Jerusalem. Mr. President, there are those who are concerned about what impact this movement now will have on the peace process. Of course, every time in the past--I heard Senator Inouye speak in a meeting about this--any time he has begun to move forward moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, there is always something going on in the Middle East that makes it less than the perfect time. So there are those who will say they are worried about what effect this movement will have on the peace process. But I say that this is the perfect time, though long overdue, to move the Embassy to Jerusalem because of the peace process, because we have a growing level of trust, because we have a growing level of mutual interest, and of common purpose among the parties in the Middle East. The United States has played a leadership role in bringing those changes about. But at the heart of those changes, at the heart of the peace process, must be an honest relationship between the parties involved. I do not think the United States should be at all unclear about this. We are committed to doing in Israel what we do in every other country that we know about in the world--putting the Embassy in its capital. Let this not be an act of delusion of the Palestinians or any of the other parties to this process. Let us be honest about it and, in a sense, let us get the question of where the American Embassy is in Israel off the table in the peace process. Let us get it over with. There is a lot to negotiate. Some have suggested that somehow moving the Embassy was contrary to the Declaration of Principles. Mr. President, I read from article V of the Declaration of Principles signed here in Washington on September 13, 1993. It says in section 3 of article V that it is understood that these negotiations--which is to say, the permanent statis negotiations that begin next year--shall cover the remaining issues, including Jerusalem; presumably final status of Jerusalem, and certainly not the question of where the United States locates its Embassy in this country. We are a great nation. How could we, as a great nation, yield that sovereign determination of ourselves to a process in which third parties are negotiating? So I think we ought to be honest with the Palestinians here and indicate that this Embassy of ours will move to Jerusalem. That kind of honesty will lead to trust as we go forward in the peace process. Second, Mr. President, I need not go on at length but would simply say I [[Page S 15478]] have supported the peace process. I think the status quo before the peace process was going nowhere good, nowhere good for Israel, nowhere good for the Arab world, nowhere good for the Palestinians, and nowhere good for the Israeli security. There were no viable options to the attempt to make peace between the parties in conflict, understanding that peace would not come overnight. It would be built step by step and with each step outlined in the Declaration of Principles, hopefully enough trust would have been built to go on to the next step. There are enemies of peace all around, and the worst enemies of peace are committing acts of terrorism still. Those acts of terrorism, directed particularly against citizens of Israel, have an effect on the body politic in Israel and shake confidence in the peace process, shake support for the peace process. So I want to say, Mr. President, is that as the Israel people wonder and ask themselves whether the peace process really will provide more security; as they express diminishing support for the peace process in polls that are taken; and as the Rabin government finds that in taking Oslo 2 or Oslo B, the most recent agreement between Israel and the Palestinian authority, to the Israeli parliament--in the Knesset, the vote on ratification was 61 to 59; it is that close--the people of Israel look to the United States, the foremost, most steadfast supporter of the state, and ask where security will come from. Are there limits to what Israel will be asked to do? I think this is the perfect moment for the Congress of the United States to say there are some limits here. There are some matters that are off the table. We understand the critical importance of the city of Jerusalem to the people of Israel. And as a sign of that, this is the appropriate moment--long overdue, as I have said, but nonetheless a constructive moment--to say by this act we are ready to move our Embassy to Jerusalem. So I hope, though I know there are questions raised, we will find a way, and perhaps before too long here today, to build a strong, overwhelming bipartisan vote for this measure. I know there are concerns about constitutional questions. I know there is a discussion of a possible waiver going on; that is to say, to give the President the authority under some circumstances to waive the ultimate penalties associated with not moving the Embassy by May 31, 1999. I understand those questions, and I am involved in the discussions of those questions. But it seems to me, as my friend and colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, said, it is critically important that any waiver be narrowly drawn in that it not be a waiver that will go on forever, but that if the President determines--first, the President must be required to find a genuine threat to America's national security to stop the forward movement of the Embassy to Jerusalem, a threat to our national security. Second, that the waiver ought to be limited in time to perhaps 6-month periods so that the President will have to make that decision each time those 6 months are over. Mr. President, I am confident at this moment that we share--all of us in this Chamber--a goal; that is, to do what is right, to move the Embassy to Jerusalem. The question now really is over legislative wording, the appropriate relationship between the branches. I am optimistic that we can do that because I think we all share in this goal, and we are all committed to strengthening both our relationship with our cherished ally, Israel, but also in bringing peace both to the Israelis and the Palestinians, and to the Arab nations throughout the Middle East. So I urge my colleagues to do what I know they want to do, which is to vote for this proposal. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, yesterday I addressed my colleagues about the dedication of the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center at the University of Connecticut this past Sunday, October 15. I asked that remarks made by President Clinton at the dedication be included in the Record but, unfortunately, part of that speech was not reprinted. I ask to have printed in the Record the full text of the President's remarks. I also ask that the remarks of my colleague, Senator Chris Dodd, at the dedication ceremonies also be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Transcript of President Clinton's Remarks at Dedication of Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, October 15, 1995 Thank you very much, President Hartley. Governor Rowland, Senator Lieberman, members of Congress, and distinguished United States senators and former senators who have come today; Chairman Rome, members of the Diplomatic Corps; to all of you who have done anything to make this great day come to pass; to my friend and former colleague, Governor O'Neill, and most of all, to Senator Dodd, Ambassador Dodd, and the Dodd family: I am delighted to be here. I have so many thoughts now. I can't help mentioning one-- since President Hartley mentioned the day we had your magnificent women's basketball team there, we also had the UCLA men's team there. You may not remember who UCLA defeated for the national championship--(laughter)--but I do remember that UCONN defeated the University of Tennessee. And that made my life with Al Gore much more bearable. (Laughter.) So I was doubly pleased when UCONN won the national championship. (Applause.) I also did not know until it was stated here at the outset of this ceremony that no sitting President had the privilege of coming to the University of Connecticut before, but they don't know what they missed. I'm glad to be the first, and I know I won't be the last. (Applause.) I also want to pay a special public tribute to the Dodd family for their work on this enterprise, and for their devotion to each other and the memory of Senator Thomas Dodd. If, as so many of us believe, this country rests in the end upon its devotion to freedom and liberty and democracy, and upon the strength of its families, you could hardly find a better example than the Dodd family, not only for their devotion to liberty and democracy, but also for their devotion to family and to the memory of Senator Tom Dodd. It has deeply moved all of us, and we thank you for your example. (Applause.) Tom Dodd spent his life serving America. He demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to the rule of law, beginning with his early days as an FBI agent then federal attorney. He was equally passionate in his opposition to tyranny in all its forms. He fought the tyranny of racism, prosecuting civil rights cases in the South in the 1930s, long before it was popular anywhere in the United States, and helping to shepherd the landmark Civil Rights of 1964 into law. He fought the tyranny of communism throughout his years in elected office. And while he bowed to none in his devotion to freedom, he also stood bravely against those who wrapped themselves in the flag and turned anti-communism into demagoguery. Tom Dodd was in so many ways a man ahead of his time. He was passionate about civil rights, three decades before the civil rights movement changed the face of our nation. In the Senate, he pioneered programs to fight delinquency and to give the young people of our country a chance at a good education and a good job. And that is a task, my fellow Americans, we have not yet finished doing. He saw the dangers of guns and drugs on our streets, and he acted to do something about that. Had we done it in his time, we would not have so much work to do in this time. Tom Dodd's passion for justice and his hatred of oppression came together, as all of you know, most powerfully when he served as America's executive trial counsel at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal. It was the pivotal event of his life. He helped to bring justice to bear against those responsible for the Holocaust, for the acts that redefined our understanding of man's capacity for evil. Through that path-breaking work, he and his fellow jurists pushed one step forward the historic effort to bring the crimes of war under the sanction of law. Senator Dodd left many good works and reminders of his achievement. Some bear his name--the children who have followed in his steps and served the public, who carried forward his ardent support for an American foreign policy that stands for democracy and freedom, who maintain his commitment to social justice, to strong communities and strong families. They have also upheld their father's tradition of loyalty. And as one of the chief beneficiaries of that lesson, let me [[Page S 15364]] say that I am grateful for it, and again, grateful for its expression in this remarkable project which will help the people of Connecticut and the United States to understand their history. I am delighted that this center will bear the Dodd name because it is fitting that a library, a place that keeps and honors books and records, will honor Tom Dodd's service, his passion for justice and his hatred of tyranny. Where books are preserved, studied and revered, human beings will also be treated with respect and dignity, and liberty will be strengthened. Dedicating this research center today, we remember that when the Nazis came to power, one of the very first things they did was burn books they deemed subversive. The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the truth. In the darkest days of the war, President Roosevelt, with those awful bonfires fresh in his memory, reflected upon how the free pursuit of knowledge protects our liberty. And he put it well when he called books ``the weapons for man's freedom.'' I am glad that Tom Dodd will be remembered here, in this place, in this building, with this center, in the state he loved, with the very best arsenal for the freedom he fought to defend his entire life. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak with my colleagues today about a remarkable and really historic event that occurred in my State of Connecticut this past Sunday, October 15, when the University of Connecticut dedicated the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, associated with the University of Connecticut library. It is a center named, obviously, for the great former Senator from the State of Connecticut, father of my colleague and dear friend, the current Senator Chris Dodd. It was a spectacular day, a beautiful fall day in Connecticut, but obviously it was more than the weather that distinguished the day. What happened really was a fitting tribute, that will go on through the years and decades ahead, to Senator Tom Dodd and the remarkable record of achievement that he built here in the U.S. Senate where he served from 1958 to 1970 and in the years before then. The events began with a dedication at the library site itself and then proceeded to the Gampel Pavilion [[Page S 15279]] where it looked to me like 8,000 or 9,000 people packed in to hear the President of the United States, President Clinton, deliver the first in a lecture series that will emanate from the Thomas Dodd Research Center, in this case specifically focused on the Nuremberg trials, 50 years after, because Senator Tom Dodd was a prosecutor there. Mr. President, Tom Dodd, as President Clinton said, spent his life in the service of his country. He trained as a lawyer, served as an FBI agent, then as a lawyer for the U.S. Government. He was, throughout his career, a great fighter for freedom, for human rights. And it is to the study of human rights that this research center will be committed. Senator Dodd fought the tyranny of racism as an attorney prosecuting civil rights cases in the 1930's, which was a long time before most other Americans thought about the idea of civil rights. And throughout his time here in the Senate, and before in the House, he was a great fighter against the tyranny of communism, one of the great, principal, fervent anti-Communists of the cold war period who put us as a nation on a course to understand that the cold war was not, as some historical revisionists would have us believe, just a kind of tug of war between two great powers--the United States and Russia--but a conflict of ideas, a continuation of the struggle between good and evil, between freedom and tyranny. That is, in its way, the history of our species on this Earth. Senator Tom Dodd understood that the battle against communism, the cold war, was part of that struggle of good against evil. His passion for justice, his hatred of oppression, his understanding that human rights began with the vision that every individual is sacred because God created that individual, his understanding that we had to strive to establish the rule of law to protect human rights and to promote justice was expressed magnificently, brilliantly in his work as an executive trial counsel at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal after the war. A film was shown of some of Tom Dodd's appearances at the Nuremberg trial. It was riveting. He was brilliant and compelling, and in that extraordinary human historic experience, coming out of the devastation and lawlessness of the Holocaust, established the principle of justice through law. Senator Chris Dodd, who spoke that day, reminded us that one of the remarkable achievements of the Nuremberg trial was not just those who were guilty, who were convicted and severely punished, but that three people were actually acquitted at Nuremberg and that, in its way, is a testament to the rule of law and justice as well. A beautiful building, 50,000 square feet, a repository of historic papers, Senator Dodd's and others--a living legacy that will go on from generation to generation bringing scholars there to study, to write and to be reminded of the centerpiece of the career of Senator Tom Dodd, which was the struggle for human rights and justice through law and the need to continue to fight that battle. Mr. President, the day on Sunday was a day in which we dedicated a building, but it was also a day in which I think Connecticut was struck and riveted by what was happening to bring the building about. It was truly an expression of devotion of a son to his father, an expression of the love of Chris Dodd and his brothers and sisters for their father and their commitment to honor his memory. As I had the opportunity to say on Sunday in Connecticut, as beautiful a fulfillment as I have ever seen of the Biblical commandment, honor one's father and mother, and the Dodd family did it with dignity and with purpose befitting their father, Tom Dodd, on Sunday in Connecticut. But, of course, the truly significant way and the ongoing way in which my colleague from Connecticut and dear friend, Chris Dodd, honors the memory of his father is by the extraordinary quality of his service in this body by his personal fight for human rights throughout the world and at home, and particularly at home for the rights of children, understanding and reminding each of us, as Senator Chris Dodd has so often on this floor, that a child who is without adequate food, without adequate shelter, without adequate parentage, without decent health care, without safety and protection from crime and abuse, suffers in that child's way, as much as people who are forced to live under tyranny, and in that sense, is deprived of human rights as well. It struck me, and I know my colleagues on the floor, knowing and loving Senator Chris Dodd as I do, will share the thought that I had on Sunday, which was, as we thought about Nuremberg and we thought about the Second World War and the films were there of the Holocaust and the genocide, that our colleague and friend, Senator Chris Dodd, in his service, in his life, is the diametric opposite of the evils that were portrayed and lived and suffered through in the Second World War; really a person without bias, a person of great warmth and compassion, a person of openness to all and a person who really in his life carries on the legacy that his father left. It was a spectacular day which had great meaning for the Dodd family, which truly honored the memory of Senator Thomas Dodd, which the President graced with a magnificent speech, talking as the President did about the record of Senator Tom Dodd, but also bringing it to bear on the acts of genocide that have occurred in the former Yugoslavia, on the importance of the war crimes tribunal that is now going on in The Hague directed to the war crimes that have been committed in the former Yugoslavia. And, finally, the President expressed support for the idea of a permanent court of international justice, a permanent court operating perhaps through the United Nations, emanating out of the United Nations, which could stand as witness and deterrent, as Senator Dodd did at Nuremberg, to prosecute those who violate accepted rules of international justice and fairness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the text of President Clinton's remarks at the University of Connecticut dedication of the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center on Sunday, as well as several articles from the Connecticut press, the Hartford Courant in particular, about the life and service of Senator Tom Dodd and what it means to each of us today.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the discussion that I gather a few of my colleagues here in the Senate began earlier in the day as a result of the fact that conferees have been appointed to deal with the telecommunications bills that have passed both the Senate and the other body. These are very important bills dealing with a rapidly expanding, rapidly changing, ever more influential sector of not only our economy but our lives, that of telecommunications. I rise today not to talk about the corporate structures that are overlapping or the technical details of the revolutionary changes occurring in telecommunications but to talk about the content, talk about what is broadcast on these increasingly important parts of our lives and particularly to focus on the ever-present box, the television, in our homes and the impact that what is on television has on our kids and therefore on our society. The Senate and the House included in their telecommunications bills the so-called V chip, or violence chip, or C chip, as we like to call it, choice chip provisions that I was privileged to cosponsor with the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], but which was supported by a very strong bipartisan group in the Senate to create the technical capacity in parents and viewers generally to have some control over what comes through the television screen and affects our kids and also to require the industry to create a rating [[Page S 15154]] system that would make it easier for a parent or anyone to block out shows either rated as too violent or containing lewd material, language or scenes or otherwise--all of that I think an expression of what I am hearing and I would guess the occupant of the chair, the distinguished Presiding Officer, is hearing from his constituents in New Hampshire, that what we are seeing on television is becoming ever more morally questionable; so much sexually inappropriate material is working its way into what is known as the family viewing hours from 7 to 9 in the evening, and it is having an effect on our kids. I find over and over as I talk to parents in Connecticut that they will say to me: Please do something about the violence and sex and lewd language on television and movies and music and video games because all of this is making us feel as if we are in a struggle with these other great, very powerful entertainment forces in our society to effect the growth and maturation of our own kids. They say to me, ``You know, we're trying to give our kids values. We're trying to give them a sense of priorities and discipline, and then the television music, movies, video games come along and seem to be competing with the values we're trying to give our kids. So please try to help.'' And the V chip component of these two telecommunications bills is critical to that effort. And I hope that the conferees will keep the V chip component in there. I know that the television industry is lobbying against it. But it is not censorship. It is really about citizenship. It is really about the television industry upholding its responsibility to the community. And it is about empowering parents and viewers generally to at least have some greater opportunity to control what is coming through the television screen into their homes affecting their children and their families. And it may in some sense, in doing that, make it easier for those of us who are viewers to express our opinions by what we are watching and what we are blocking out to the networks that we want better programming. We want programming that better reflects the values of the American people, which too much programming today simply does not. Mr. President, I want to now focus for a moment on another arena in which this struggle to upgrade the television and to hope that it can do something other than downgrading or degrading our culture and affecting our kids; and that is to call the attention of my colleagues to a significant debate taking place at the Federal Communications Commission about the responsibility of the broadcast television industry to serve the educational needs of America's children. What has stirred this debate is a ground breaking proposal being advocated by the Commission's Chairman, Reed Hundt, that would require a minimum amount of educational programming each week from each television station in America, 3 hours a week at first, growing ultimately to 5 hours. Before the FCC closes its public comment period on this subject next week, I want to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues why I believe this issue should be of such concern to us and the FCC and why I am so grateful to Chairman Hundt for taking the initiative here. I begin, Mr. President, with a little history. Congress has clearly been concerned about the content of television programming for our kids for a long time. Congress acted on that concern in 1990 when we adopted the Children's Television Act of 1990. And passing the legislation-- incidentally, it passed with overwhelming, again, bipartisan majorities in both Houses--Congress made an unambiguous statement about television's extraordinary potential as an educational resource and our displeasure at seeing that potential squandered. Congress also made an equally unambiguous statement about the responsibility of the broadcasters as what might be called public fiduciaries in meeting the educational needs of and potentials of our children. The fact is that the broadcasters have always been required the serve the public interest as a condition of receiving access to the public's airwaves, which is how they transmit to us, over airwaves that we, the public, own. The report language for the Children's Television Act of 1990 states explicitly that as part of that obligation--I quote --``broadcasters can and indeed must be required to render public service to children.'' To meet that standard, the Children's Television Act set specific goals for the industry. We asked them to increase the number of hours of quality educational programming for children that are on the air. We chose, I think in good faith and wisely, appropriately at the time, not to mandate a set number of hours of programming, instead, to make an appeal through the legislation to the television industry and to hope and trust that they would meet with specific action to broad goals we articulated. Mr. President, I am sad to say that 5 years later it is clear that that trust has not been vindicated. Not only has there been no noticeable increase in the amount of quality children's programming on the air, but the fact is that the spirit of the act has been trod upon. Some local broadcast outlets have actually made a mockery of the act's requirements by publicly claiming that programs such as the ``Jetsons'' and ``Super Mario Brothers'' are educational. The ``Jetsons'' can be fun, but I would not say that it is educational. Mr. President, just yesterday The Washington Post reported on a study that was released by Dale Kunkel, a researcher at the University of California in Santa Barbara, that concluded--it was an update of an earlier 1993 report on the broadcasters' compliance with the Children's Television Act. The conclusion was that the law has had little effect on the quantity of educational programs to be found in 48 randomly selected TV stations around the country. Mr. Kunkel concluded that the vaguely written law allows broadcasters to engage in what he describes as ``creative relabeling'' of programs with dubious educational value. And there he points to stations that have claimed that the beloved, but usually not educational, ``Yogi Bear'' is an educational television program according to the study, and the claim by one station as to ``The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.'' The researchers found that broadcasters reported airing an average of 3.4 hours per week of educational shows last year, exactly the same amount as reported after the law became effective. But he said that the averages have been inflated by such shows as ``Yogi Bear,'' ``Sonic the Hedgehog,'' ``X-Men'' and other shows, including a Pittsburgh station that put ``America's Funniest Home Videos,'' an enjoyable show but not educational by my standards, into the education category. Another in Portland, ME, claimed ``Woody Woodpecker'' and ``Bugs Bunny and Friends'' were educational, and five stations listed the ``Biker Mice From Mars'' as educational programs, obviously making a mockery of the intention of the act. To add insult to the mockery, I would offer this testimony, one recent report that said one station in Cincinnati went so far as to list two Phil Donahue shows as educational to improve its compliance with the Children's Television Act. And the content of those two shows were: The first one on ``Teen-Age Strippers and Their Moms'' and, second, ``Parents Who Allow Teenagers to Have Sex at Home,'' which is part of the normal fare on the daytime television talk shows, a subject for another series of comments in terms of the impact it is having on people who are watching and kids who watch, but surely not educational. Mr. President, this kind of callous disregard for kids is all too evident in what we are seeing coming over the television screen. As a study by the Center for Media Education detailed a couple years ago, the few educational programs that make it on the air have been too often ``ghettoized,'' you might say, in the early morning hours when few children are watching. Much of the programming that does see the light of day is largely used as a marketing vehicle for the greatest, latest toys. And a number of those action-oriented shows are tinged with what a recent study by the UCLA Center for Communication Policy called sinister combat violence, which as many parents can attest, study after study has shown, [[Page S 15155]] often translates into imitative aggressive behavior. So let us be painfully candid about what seems to be happening here. Rather than serving the public interests, the industry has too often been serving our kids garbage. And it has an effect on them in our society. We have given the broadcast networks, their affiliates and independent local stations, use of the public airwaves, and they have not used those airwaves well. Too often our children have been subjected to a diet featuring ever larger helpings of morally questionable programs meant for adults that are appearing at hours when children and families are watching, and children's shows, as my friend, Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a leader in this effort, recently said, offer the kids' minds the nutritional value of a twinkie. Congressman Markey is right. In pursuing this path, the broadcasters, I think, are not only ignoring their legal obligations but, in a broader sense, their moral obligations to the larger community to which they belong. Knowing how powerful a median television is and knowing that the average young viewer watches 27 hours a week of television, the people who are running the American television industry, which, in a sense, is our Nation's electronic village, must recognize that they have a greater responsibility to wield their power carefully and constructively. This all really comes down, Mr. President, to a question of values. What are we saying to our kids and about our kids when we allow them to be subjected to the kind of lowest common denominator trash that they, too often, are forced or choose to watch on television? How can we expect our kids to appreciate the importance of education which parents are trying to convey to them and to recognize the necessity for self- discipline, indeed, sometimes for sacrifice, in order to learn and to improve one's place in life when so much of what is on television treats knowledge as either irrelevant or worthy of disrespect? I stress the word ``we'' here, because our society, as a whole, I think, shares the blame for the status quo. We have ignored the warnings of people like Newt Minow, Peggy Charren, and dozens of other advocates for kids who have warned us about the impact of what is coming across television has on our children and our society. I have spoken about this subject before, Mr. President. No one is prepared to say violence on television and in the movies and music and video games is the cause of the ever greater violence in our society. No one is prepared to say that the way in which sexual behavior is treated so casually, without consequence, without warning, without awareness of a sense of responsibility, is the sole cause of some of the moral breakdown in our society, the moral breakdown of families, the outrageous epidemic of babies being born to women unmarried, particularly teenage women. But I cannot help but believe while the treatment of sex and violence on television is not the cause of those two fundamental problems our society is threatened with, it has been a contributor, and, in that sense, we all share some responsibility for making it better, including those at the Federal Communications Commission who have not done as much as they could have up until now and now have the opportunity, thanks to the proposal that Reed Hundt has made to begin a new era. This proposal would make significant changes in the rules implementing the Children's Television Act, which, taken as a whole, would guarantee that the broadcasters know exactly what is expected of them in terms of meeting their obligations to serve the needs of our kids. The demands are modest; some have even said too modest. They should not put an undue burden on the television industry. Indeed, the FCC proposal proves that this is not an either/or equation, that we can be both sensitive to the educational needs of our children and the economic needs of the broadcast industry. In drafting these proposals, Chairman Hundt has been guided by the precept that we should do whatever we can to enable the market to work more efficiently. For instance, the proposal would require that each identify what programs are deemed educational and to alert parents about the air time, time in which those shows would be on the air. Such a requirement should help stimulate demand for more and better children's programming, without putting a hardship on the industry. The new rules would also ask stations to enhance parental access to their children's television reports. This requirement would make it easier for parents rather than the Government to enforce compliance with the law. In the end, though, I must say that I share Reed Hundt's judgment that regardless of the changes, the market will probably continue to underserve children unless the FCC steps in and explicitly requires a commitment from the broadcast industry to provide some minimal amount of programming every week for our kids. The competitive pressures seem to be so great in the industry that one broadcast outlet will not unilaterally arm itself with educational programming and risk giving ground to a rival. So I think the best solution will be to guarantee a level playing field and assure that no broadcaster is put at a disadvantage by offering quality children's programming. This proposal, for a minimum of 3 hours a week educational programming for kids, I think will create that level playing field. The solution the Commission is considering is more than fair. As Peggy Charren has pointed out, the broadcasters claim they are already airing an average of more than 3 hours a week of educational programming. Assuming that is true, they should have no problem whatsoever in meeting the 3-hour obligation that Chairman Hundt is proposing. On the other side, if implemented, this proposal will present families, especially those without access to cable, with a real positive alternative to the growing level of offensive and vacuous programming on the air today. In other words, it will give families an oasis in what too often has been the intellectual and moral desert of contemporary television. That relief is something that parents want. I referred earlier to informal conversations I have had with parents in Connecticut, but to make it somewhat more scientific, in a recent poll, 82 percent of those surveyed said that there is not enough educational programming on television today, and nearly 60 percent supported a minimum requirement of broadcasters to show at least 1 hour a day of enriching programming, in effect, going well beyond the standard that Chairman Hundt is proposing at the FCC. Like those parents who answered that poll, it is my hope that these new rules will inspire more kids to become, if you will, power thinkers, power builders, power growers instead of Power Rangers. I was reminded of television's potential as an educational tool in a study released this spring by John Wright of Aletha Huston of the University of Kansas. After working with 250 low-income preschoolers, the researchers found that children who regularly viewed educational programming not only were better prepared for school but actually performed better on verbal and math tests, and that is what this is all about. The FCC will be making a decision on this proposal probably next month, and the outcome, unfortunately, is uncertain. I hope that my colleagues and members of the public, parents, advocates for children, will let the Federal Communications Commission know where they stand; that we remain in Congress committed to the Children's Television Act and the principle of serving the public interest; that our children deserve something better from television than a choice between ``Dumb and Dumber.'' Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. It strikes me, looking at the Presiding Officer, that I should make clear his years in television only contributed to the well-being and intellectual awareness of those who watched his shows. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senators Dole, Moynihan, Kyl and Inouye and most of my other colleagues in introducing the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act, S. 1322. I hope that this bill will gain the support of all of my colleagues in the Senate. Mr. President, Jerusalem is and always shall be the capital of Israel. Jerusalem is a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected. The Embassy of the United States of America to Israel should be in that country's capital, the city of Jerusalem. Earlier this year, I joined with many of my colleagues in sending a letter to the Secretary of State encouraging the administration to begin planning for relocation of the U.S. Embassy to the city of Jerusalem. This process must move forward. The bill we are introducing today establishes U.S. policy that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the state of Israel. The bill also establishes a timetable for construction and relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem by May 31, 1995. The Secretary of State is required to present an implementation plan to the Senate within 30 days of enactment and provide a progress report every 6 months. The bill allocates substantial initial funding for the project--$25 million in fiscal 1996 and $75 million in fiscal 1997. Like the President and many of my colleagues, I believe we can and should move forward to establish the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem in a manner consistent with the continued negotiation and implementation of the peace process which achieved another significant step last month. The modification to this legislation from the version earlier introduced, S. 770, will ensure that this can be accomplished. There is no change in the real result of the bill: The opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. Mr. President, the Jerusalem 3,000 celebration underway in Israel and throughout the world commemorates the 3,000th anniversary of King David's entry into Jerusalem. There could be no more fitting occasion than this celebration to commit America to finally establish our Embassy in Jerusalem by the end of the decade. With the adoption of the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act and continued progress in the peace process, we can enter the 21st century with the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, the capital of a safe and secure Israel, at peace with her Arab neighbors, in an economically prosperous Middle East.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the substitute Cuban [[Page S 15095]] Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of which I was privileged to be an original cosponsor, and intend, if I am not, to be a cosponsor of the substitute. Mr. President, for decades we in America faced down Fidel Castro's threats to our security, and his efforts to spread communism in our hemisphere. The worldwide struggle against communism is over, and democracy and market economies have won. It may be too easy in that global context to simply take Castro and his continued power in Cuba as a curiosity--a harmless relic of a bygone age. But it is much more than that. His continued governance of Cuba represents the continuation of dictatorship and denial of human rights to the people of Cuba. The valiant struggle of the Cuban people to liberate themselves from the yoke of Castro's Communist regime goes on. We in our turn owe it to them, and to our principles, to remain steadfast in support of their struggle. The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, of which I was a cosponsor, established a policy, now carried out by the Clinton administration, which is to maintain pressure on the Castro regime for peaceful democratic and market reform. Mr. President, it is pleasing to note that we are seeing progress as a result of that policy. Without Soviet aid, the Cuban economy continues to deteriorate. With freedom and democracy growing throughout the Western Hemisphere, Castro cannot long silence the voices of the Cuban people in an era marked by a growing wave of self-determination and democracy. The Cuban people will not long be stifled in their desire to realize for themselves the better life that millions and millions more people around the world have achieved within the last decade. So by any reasonable calculus, by any rational predictor of the course of history, the days of the Castro regime are numbered. The question that the substitute before us poses is should we now relent and allow the Cuban economy to expand? Should we give Castro thereby a new lease on life? Should we leave the Cuban people to suffer longer under what remains as an oppressive regime? Or instead, should we increase our economic pressure on Cuba which is working? Should we renew our commitment to a peaceful transition to democracy and political and economic freedom? That is the choice we now face. And my answer to the question is to choose the latter course; to increase the economic pressure, and to strongly renew our commitment to a peaceful transition for the Cuban people to economic opportunity and political freedom. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act builds on the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992. It is a continuation and a strengthening of a policy that is working. This bill extends the economic sanctions to keep economic pressure on the regime in Cuba. At the same time, it extends a message of hope to the Cuban people by establishing a basis for United States assistance to the democratic Cuba of the future. Mr. President, the triumph of freedom over communism--the worldwide triumph of freedom over communism--cannot be considered complete while the people of Cuba, our neighbors, remain oppressed by a dictator on their island in our hemisphere. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this substitute. Changes have been made which I think improve the measure from the original introduced, and which I hope will broaden the base of those in both parties who can support this proposal. Tonight, if that is when the vote on cloture occurs, I intend to vote for cloture. And I urge my colleagues of both parties to do likewise. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.