Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bill before the Senate at this time, S. 735, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995. Mr. President, let me say first how pleased I am that the leadership of both parties has reached agreement on so much in this bill and met President Clinton's challenge to reach a prompt and bipartisan consensus on counterterrorism legislation in the aftermath of the tragedy in Oklahoma City. Most of the key provisions of the President's counterterrorism bill, offered earlier in the year by Senator Biden and others, are included in the measure before us. And I thank the majority leadership of the committee for doing so. But, as Senator Biden mentioned last night, there are a few provisions that have not been included. That is why this morning I will offer two amendments which would restore two provisions from the original bill to this genuinely bipartisan effort, and I am hopeful that there is an opportunity here for bipartisan support for these two law enforcement measures, as well. Mr. President, in my view, and in the view of those I have spoken to in the Federal and State law enforcement communities who are involved in the daily, difficult business of pursuing terrorists, these two provisions, which would increase law enforcement's capacity to be involved in surveillance through wiretapping of terrorists, would be extremely helpful to the law enforcement community's efforts to penetrate the highly secretive world of [[Page S7600]] terrorists. Indeed, I can imagine a number of situations where the power granted by these two amendments would provide exactly the kinds of tools that could make a difference in stopping terrorists before they strike. Mr. President, since joining the Senate, I have spent a fair amount of time and effort considering how we, as a nation, can best prepare ourselves to counter and stop terrorists' threats because of my fear that, though America domestically has been relatively spared, at least was when I began these inquiries, from the pain of terrorist attack, certainly more so than other nations in the world, that because of political events in the world, it was inevitable that unless we directed, created some defense there, we would suffer. And, unfortunately, we have. As I look back, the first hearing I ever chaired as a Senator concerned the coordination of our antiterrorism efforts. And in every presentation on hearings that I have been involved in since, whether as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee or involved in the ad hoc task force on terrorism, which I was privileged to organize, witness after witness, whether they were from the State Department or the FBI or the U.S. attorney's offices, or think tanks around this city or country, emphasized the special importance of surveillance and infiltration to preventing and prosecuting terrorist attacks. Mr. President, this says the obvious, but it needs to be said: Terrorists are cowards. Terrorists are cowards because they strike at undefended targets. And while we are quite logically now, in the aftermath of Oklahoma City, attempting to rebuild our defenses around more likely targets, particularly public buildings affected, the terrorist group that wants to create panic in our society, wants to punish our society, wants to strike at the sense of order and security in our society can, as we have seen in other settings, just as easily not strike at a governmental building, but go down the street and attack a large private building, an office building, or strike, as some have suggested, at the water supply in a community; so that we can never defend against all the potential targets of terrorists. The best defense is an offense. And the offense in this case, as this bill carries out in many ways, is to be watching people who indicate by their own behavior that they are capable of violent acts. I am not talking about inhibiting political freedoms here. We are not talking about prohibiting anybody from writing or speaking or demonstrating in a way that they believe, even if we find it abhorrent. But if they act in a way that indicates they may be capable of violent acts, criminal acts, then we, the people, should have our law enforcement agents there watching them, listening to them, infiltrating their groups to see to it that whenever possible we can stop them; we can strike before they strike at the heart of our society to prevent more death and destruction. The witnesses that spoke to committees that I have been on were commenting mostly on internationally inspired terrorism, but they focused again on the importance of electronic surveillance as a component of the overall approach of stopping terrorist acts whenever possible before they are committed, and electronic surveillance is part of that. I would argue that electronic surveillance may be more important with domestically based terrorists than with international terrorism. So far as we know, they are not generally reliant on outside State sponsors who, at some point, may be vulnerable to political or military pressure. Our weapons here are limited to effective law enforcement, including one of the most powerful tools law enforcement has, which is carefully circumscribed, legally authorized electronic surveillance, particularly in this high-technology communication age. Amendment No. 1200 to Amendment No. 1199 (Purpose: To amend the bill with respect to emergency wiretap authority)

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. So, Mr. President, the first amendment I am offering today would add the words ``domestic or international terrorism'' to the limited number of situations in which the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General can obtain an emergency 48-hour wiretap without having to go court in that first period of time. Under current law, those three Justice Department officials and no others may authorize emergency electronic surveillance where there is ``first, immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person; second, conspiratorial activities threatening the national security; and third, conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime.'' This all is when there is not, in the opinion of the law enforcement officials, time to get a court order. But the important condition in this law is that within 48 hours of that emergency authorization for electronic surveillance from within the Justice Department, law enforcement officers must obtain a court order for the wiretap under the normal proceedings for court orders. They must submit the same affidavits and documents establishing probable cause that are required for any other wiretap. The top three Justice Department officials who can make these emergency authorizations have a strong incentive to be cautious and correct in authorizing emergency wiretaps without a court order, because if a judge does not issue a court order supporting a wiretap within 48 hours, any information obtained via the emergency wiretap is inadmissible in court. Mr. President, this amendment, therefore, would simply add the words ``activities characteristic of domestic or international terrorism'' to the list of emergency situations where law enforcement has hours, and not days, to get the evidence needed to make an arrest, find a chemical weapon, diffuse a bomb or perhaps rapidly clear a building that may be the target of a terrorist attack. Given the devastating effects of these terrorist acts, which are assaults not only on individuals but on whole communities--in fact on our Nation and on the democratic processes and the liberties that we have--do we not want to give our law enforcement officials the same authority to obtain temporary emergency wiretaps they have under current law when pursuing organized crime cases? I think so, and I believe the American people would think so as well. Mr. President, I, therefore, have an amendment which I send to the desk at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to finally, before yielding the floor, indicate for the Record that the amendment does not change the underlying crimes for which an emergency wiretap can be authorized in title 18, United States Code, section 2516. It just says that if those crimes are part of a domestic terrorist plot, an emergency wiretap can be ordered. And these crimes include: Any offense punishable by death or imprisonment for more than 1 year, including violations of the Atomic Energy Act relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities and fuel or espionage and treason. Also, let me point out that the definition of ``terrorism'' covers violent acts or acts dangerous to human life. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, let me assure my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania that I am in no rush. I have been following this question of how we can best counter terrorism for a long time, and I have been working with people in the FBI, the U.S. attorney offices, and the Justice Department. They tell me that that is an expanded authority that will help them combat terrorism. I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about this amendment. I have concluded that it gives one more weapon to the folks that are fighting on our side against the terrorists. Mr. President, I must say I am a little bit surprised by some of the objections which suggest that this authority, limited as it is, as the Senator from Delaware made clear, 48-hour emergency wiretap, three officials at the Justice Department, can authorize on a showing of necessity the same [[Page S7603]] grounds that a court would use if a court does not similarly authorize the wiretap within 48 hours, it is over, and the evidence seized in between is inadmissible. Let me go to the concern about whether this authority might be used against domestic political groups compromising their civil liberties. There is nowhere in the language of the proposal, let alone the underlying law which it amends, to suggest that that is possible. It is certainly not my intention. The term ``domestic terrorism'' which as Senator Biden has indicated is what this is about, we take the language here, conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime, which an emergency wiretap can be grounded, and add conspiratorial activities characteristic of domestic terrorism. How do we define ``domestic terrorism?'' It means any activities that involve violent acts, or acts dangerous to human life, that are criminal--that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State; and on top of that, which appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of the Government by intimidation and coercion. It takes more than the intention to intimidate or coerce the Government or the American people, one must be contemplating or involved in violent acts or criminal acts with that purpose. Now, there is no mainstream or out of the mainstream political group that just is expressing points of view that is by any stretch of the imagination going to be subject to an emergency wiretap under this provision. There is a general point, and I will make it as my final point. It does cover international terrorism as well. We are not talking just domestic political groups, but people or agents of foreign governments, agents of foreign groups that may be on our soil, moving around, attempting or planning acts of violence against us. The general point in terms of the concern of civil liberties. As is true in so many of these questions of law and order and maintaining that basic order that is the precondition of our liberties, the question is, who do we give the benefit of the doubt? Are we going to side with the potential victims of a terrorist act? Are we going to stretch over so far backward in our concern about civil liberties that we give the benefit of the doubt to the would-be terrorists? To me there ought to be a simple answer to that equation. It is, in another sense, do we trust those in positions of authority? I have had the privilege of working in law enforcement. The U.S. attorneys, the FBI, the Secret Service--they are not perfect. They are just people. But by and large these are people who are out there every day, as we have seen too often, putting their lives on the line for Government to maintain the order that does protect our liberty. Give me a choice of giving them another narrowly circumscribed authority to use to stop terrorism, I am going to give it to them with the confidence that in almost every case I can think of, they will use it in an appropriate way. If for some reason they do not, within 48 hours a judge is going to come along and say ``That is it, take the wiretap off.'' And not only that, everything that has been gathered in the 48 hours is inadmissible in court. This power, incidentally, that has existed under this statute regarding national security and organized crime cases, has rarely been used because of the standard set up in the law and because of the deterrent that if a judge does not confirm the original authorization by the Justice Department, evidence is inadmissible. Mr. President, I think this is just one smart tool, another smart tool, to give the folks who are out there fighting terrorists on our side to make sure we stop the terrorists before they stop us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Bond in introducing the Health Information Modernization and Security Act. The bill will reduce the cost and paperwork associated with processing health care transactions by speeding the transition from a paper-based system to a system where claims are processed electronically. We worked together on similar legislation in the last Congress in the context of comprehensive health care reform. I thank Senator Bond for his leadership on the bill. Mr. President, virtually everyone agrees that simplifying the administrative processes in our health care system will have important benefits. Administrative overhead costs can be cut dramatically by standardizing claims forms and converting as many paper claims as possible to electronic transactions. In a hearing I chaired last year before the Regulation and Government Information Subcommittee of the Government Affairs Committee, Linda Ryan, director of the New York State demonstration project, testified that participating hospitals in New York were saving over $8 a claim by filing electronically. Even more money could be saved by improving the so-called coordination of benefits process whereby insurers determined who should pay first, and who should cover only the remainder of the bill. This process could be automated and completed electronically. At times, however, it is still done with telephone calls. We need to give our administrative systems a dose of high-technology medicine. Reducing paperwork burdens and costs for doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and patients will free up time and money so that more of our health care resources can go to delivering health care. The Government will also benefit, particularly from improved coordination of benefits. Since Medicare is often the second payer, better coordination of benefits will save the Medicare program--and taxpayers that fund it--millions, perhaps billions, of dollars. Experience counsels caution in building or imposing new information requirements in health care. The legislation we are introducing today imposes minimal burdens on the private and public sectors and will produce substantial savings throughout the health care industry. Under the bill, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services will develop standards, rules and procedures to facilitate the electronic exchange of data. Health plans will be required to use standard data formats. The Secretary will also establish standards to ensure the security and privacy of medical information. The bill establishes a Health Information Advisory Committee to provide private sector input to the Secretary in developing standards for electronic claims submittal. The committee will also study the feasibility of adopting uniform data standards for patient medical record information, a challenging objective that, if achieved, will greatly reduce paperwork and improve the information available for health care research. The bill also authorizes the Secretary to provide grants for demonstration projects to promote the development and use of electronically integrated clinical information systems and computerized patient medical records. Finally, the bill repeals an ineffective and burdensome law Congress passed as part of the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. That bill established the Medicare data bank to improve coordination of benefits. The law requires employers to annually provide to the Federal Government the names, social security numbers, and dates of coverage for all employees, spouses and dependents receiving health coverage. Last year in a Government Affairs Committee hearing the General Accounting Office testified that the Medicare data bank will not even add significantly to Medicare or Medicaid's ability to collect mistaken payments. The bill we are introducing today will improve Medicare coordination of benefits without imposing an unnecessary burden on employers. Mr. President, health care information processing is, to be frank, a dry and complicated subject. But by addressing this ``below the horizon'' issue we can significantly reduce the cost of our health care system and improve its effectiveness. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Bond and I in our effort to do just that by supporting the Health Information Modernization and Security Act.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I support this amendment because I believe that at least a substantial part of the fiscal dividend in the budget before us is set aside for family tax relief, incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic growth. Getting our fiscal house in order by balancing the budget represents a significant investment in our economic future. At the same time, I very much believe that providing family tax relief and savings and investment incentives is a significant investment in our collective and individual futures as well. The budget will inevitably require some painful adjustments. If we are asking the American people to make some of these adjustments, to share in this sacrifice, there should also be a light at the end of the tunnel. We should provide much-needed tax relief to the working families of this country, and tax incentives to the businesses of this country so that people will continue to have jobs at which they can work. As I understand it, the family tax relief envisioned by this amendment could embrace not only a middle-class child credit but a deduction for college and vocational training, much like the $10,000 education deduction proposed earlier this year by President Clinton. In my travels across Connecticut, I have found that the level of anxiety among parents over how to pay for the higher education of their children is very high. Even those parents who have scrupulously saved over the years are wondering how they can ever foot education bills that run up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. And it is important to point out that while an education deduction will make it easier for families to invest in the future of their children, an education deduction also represents a collective investment in the future of this country. We are all aware of two additional facts. First, savings and investment are critical to our future economic well-being, and second, we are not doing enough of either. At present, our budget deficit eats up our national savings by borrowing from our national savings pool to pay for our current spending. Our national savings rate, which has been hovering between 3 and 4 percent of national income is not only historically low for us but three to four times lower than competitor countries such as Japan. This is a national crisis which the balanced budget before us attempts to address. That is one side of the equation. The other side is to jump start savings and investment in this country by providing tax incentives for savings and investment. Short of a complete overhaul of the Tax Code, along the lines of the thoughtful proposal that has been put forth by Senators Nunn and Domenici, I believe we should act now to reverse the downward savings trend in this country. The initiatives outlined above, combined with a steady path toward a balanced budget, will take us up to a higher plateau of savings and investment which will translate into new jobs and new growth in this country. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I commend the United Nations for its May 25 air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs. It is about time the United Nations took an assertive, instead of a passive, approach to carrying out its mandated responsibilities to defend Bosnian safe areas and the Sarajevo weapons exclusion zone. Even before the formal expiration of the January-April cessation of hostilities in Bosnia, Bosnian Serbs were violating their commitment to refrain from violence. The Bosnian Government has defended itself, and apologists within the U.N. have mistakenly treated as equal the cease-fire transgressions of the Serb aggressors and the Bosnian victims. This has been wrong. Today's decision, finally, to use force, which has long been authorized, against those violating the weapons exclusion zone is a step in the right direction. But it is only a small step. I was not surprised to learn of the failure of the [[Page S7577]] latest effort to appease Serbian leader Milosevic by offering to lift sanctions in exchange for his recognition of Bosnia and Croatia. The United States participated in this contact group offer despite the fact that Milosevic has repeatedly and blatantly violated his commitments to prevent shipments of arms to the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs. The U.N. eased sanctions on Serbia in November with the understanding that Milosevic would stop supplies to the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs. Faced with clear evidence that Serbia violated this commitment, the U.N. Security Council nevertheless extended the easing of sanctions for a second period in April. In Milosevic's experience, aggression, false promises and delay pay dividends. No one has given him any reason to expect that serious consequences will follow his failure to live up to his commitments. Similarly, the Bosnian Serbs have every reason to doubt the resolve of the international community--represented by UNPROFOR--in carrying out its commitments to protect safe areas, enforce weapons exclusion zones, or deliver humanitarian assistance to starving communities. The Bosnian Serbs have demanded and received from the U.N. treatment equal to that of their victims, the Bosnian Government. The U.N. has thus become a passive contributor to Bosnia's tragedy just as a witness who does not intervene to assist a victim can be judged to be an accessory to a crime. U.N. peacekeeping is truly at a crossroads in Bosnia--the largest and most expensive U.N. peacekeeping mission in history. While UNPROFOR may have contributed to stability and delivery of humanitarian supplies in the first year of its deployment, its compliant approach to resurgent Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia since then has called into question the U.N.'s capability to effectively carry out peacekeeping responsibilities in the future. We must make no mistake about the origins of the war in Bosnia. As Warren Zimmerman, the last U.S. Ambassador to Yugoslavia, made clear in a recent Foreign Affairs article, the Serbs initiated the war in Bosnia even before the country declared its independence from Yugoslavia. It is said by some that Bosnia's fate will have little impact on U.S. national security. They are wrong. I believe that tolerance of visible genocide and aggression in the heart of Europe cannot help but make more probable the recurrence of these crimes in other places in the future. If that is the case, then the post-cold war world is likely to be a Hobbesian one where independence for small democracies will all too often be painful and short-lived. We must not let our desire to stop the killing in the Balkans lead us to blame the victims instead of the aggressor. We cannot let our aversion to war obscure our vision of right and wrong. Is the post-cold war era going to be known as the no-fault era, when strong countries used their influence merely to contain the bad things that happened to weak countries but with no blame assigned? Surely the United States, which was founded on the principles of freedom and ``certain inalienable rights'' will not participate indefinitely in a policy of denying the pursuit and defense of basic human rights for Bosnians? Appeasement is never an honorable or effective course in foreign policy. Appeasement of a ragtag band of former Communists and war criminals--the Bosnian Serbs--is a dishonorable course which we should have no part in. I applaud the U.N.'s decision--supported by President Clinton--to use air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs May 25 in an effort to enforce the weapons exclusion zone around Sarajevo. I hope this is the beginning of a more assertive U.N. approach in Bosnia which will be sustained and expanded as necessary even if, as Bosnian Serb leader Karadjic has promised, his forces retaliate. The only way to avoid a larger Balkan war and to bring the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table is to stop Serbian aggression. Regrettably, talk alone will not do the job.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, by voting for the amendment offered by Senator Conrad, I voted to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. I was pleased to work with Senator Conrad in recent days on his amendment, and I am particularly pleased that it restored funds for education, economic growth, job training, and environmental protection. Senator Conrad's amendment would have balanced the budget by making tough choices: it drastically slowed the increase in spending on Medicare and Medicaid; it froze discretionary spending, meaning no real growth in spending over the next 7 years; it closed tax loopholes and eliminated wasteful subsidies. I did not agree with every detail of this amendment, but it came closest to my priorities in terms of what we need to preserve and what we need to reduce or get rid of to reach the goal of a balanced budget. It balanced the budget without harming our Nation's defense or reducing our fight against crime. It did so without slashing Government's commitment to helping businesses create jobs, helping children receive a good education, and helping protect our environment from pollution. I am sorry that the amendment did not pass, but I do not regret my decision to support it, because I believe achieving a balanced budget is essential if we are to keep our economy strong and keep hope for a brighter future alive for our children. After careful consideration of the budget offered by Senator Domenici, I decided to vote against it. I have great admiration for what he has done: he brought a serious balanced budget to the floor and shaped a historic debate over the direction of our country. Senator Domenici deserves much credit for putting us on the path toward a balanced budget. But I concluded the path his budget takes to achieve that goal is too strewn with policies that I do not support. The worthy end does not justify the harsh means. I decided to oppose the Budget Committee's budget because it: reduces government's key role in promoting education, research, technology, and trade promotion, all of which are crucial to our children's economic future; turns back the clock on environmental protection, threatening to foul our waters and beaches and pollute our lands; and increases the tax burden on working families by canceling the expansion of the earned income tax credit. I could not reconcile the Budget Committee's balanced budget with the other way to achieve a balanced budget, I would have had no choice. But the Conrad Amendment proved that there is a better way. One final point: this has been, for the most part, a sober, substantive debate over a serious, precedent-setting budget resolution. But too much politics was being played by both parties. Unfortunately, some Democrats used this occasion too frivolously by simply sniping at the Budget Committee's plan for short-term, partisan gain. As a consequence, they have helped reinforce an image of our party as reflexively committed to spending and the status quo. I also regret that the leadership of the Republican party failed to reach out to those of us on the other side of the aisle who share a genuine commitment to a balanced budget to fashion a budget that could have won substantial bipartisan support. By acting alone, I believe they have gone too far. This is the first step of a long process, however, and I hope we can begin to work together so that, in the end, we can pass a bipartisan balanced budget. the budget resolution

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], the one on the fair share budget; and the one offered by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. arctic national wildlife refuge amendment

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to speak briefly on the amendment I am pleased to cosponsor with Senators Bingaman and Rockefeller on technology research and training. The Federal Government, since the Second World War, by its investments in research and support of technology, has really driven this economy. This budget begins to dismantle the apparatus that has created so much wealth, growth, and jobs, and we desperately need to compete in the world today. It is the beginning of kind of an economic disarmament as the world becomes more competitive. In this budget, while other nations are increasing their relative investment in research and development and training and technology, we actually decrease the investment that America is making. In Japan and Germany, and other industrialized nations, the investments that are made in research and training and technology are beyond partisan and political debate. They stand up there with national defense. Those [[Page S7329]] folks in Japan and Germany are probably the ones who will not only find this debate shocking but will get a big laugh out of the fact that we are cutting some of these programs. The Commerce Department, the agency that has finally brought together our effort to take the research from the laboratories, convert it into technologies that create jobs and then have an aggressive export promotion program that sells those products abroad is actually being dismantled in the budget before us. While I support the bottom line that the budget achieves, these are the wrong priorities, and I hope through the sense of the Senate that we will express our support for different priorities. I find it ironic that the budget resolution, by cutting critical investments in science, technology and trade, depletes future sources of revenues for the national budget, and ultimately weakens our economy rather than strengthens it. In trying to save dollars today, we are throwing away the investments with the biggest payoffs tomorrow. We are stealing from our own pockets tomorrow, and from our children to pay for budget cuts today. The strategy simply makes no sense. Research and development, applied research, export promotion, and trade law enforcement. These efforts are the fuel of our economy. Traditionally, the Government has played an important role in stoking our economic furnace with selected, well-defined R&D programs that stimulate the economy and protect and promote our interests abroad. They have been a critical engine for economic growth in the United States and are one of its major competitive advantages. The budget resolution's deep cuts into research and development have the potential to devastate our research institutions, institutions that have international reputations for excellence. These institutions spawn the new ideas that form the basis for innovation in the marketplace. No major research institution is left unscathed--the Department of Commerce trade and technology programs, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy Labs, NASA, and even the premiere basic research institution, the National Science Foundation. The lack of judgment in cutting these programs is obvious when one notes that the direct return on investment to our economy, from research and development is 30 percent. This figure does not even take into account indirect social benefits from research and development. Currently, our Federal investment is research and development is 1.1 percent of GDP, split almost evenly between defense and civilian R&D. If we remove the defense component and add on the investment by the private sector, we find that our investment, as a nation, in civilian R&D is 2.1 percent of GDP. We can compare the R&D investment trends in the United States with those of other industrialized nations. Today, we are behind Japan and Germany in this critical factor. This historic pattern relative to Japan and Germany has had a direct impact on our economies. Since the 1950's, our per capita GDP has risen an average of 1.8 percent per year, while in Japan the rate has been 5.2 percent per year, and in Germany, 3.1 percent per year. R&D means new products and new technologies. The correlation between R&D investment and economic growth is real. While other nations are increasing their relative investment in R&D, the current budget resolution would decrease our R&D investment. It marks a historic reversal in U.S. policy toward science and R&D. By the year 2002, the budget resolution would decrease our Federal investment in R&D by approximately 40 percent. The result would be to decrease our national investment in R&D from 1.1 percent of GDP to 0.68 percent of GDP. Even if other nation's R&D investments remain constant, and do not grow, as is the trend, we fall behind countries like France and the United Kingdom. The lead that Japan and Germany have over us grows substantially. This graph does not consider the multitude of rapidly growing emerging nations, who are rapidly becoming fierce competitors in the global marketplace. These conservative estimates of the results of the decrease is investment in R&D have major implications for our ability to compete in the global marketplace with products that incorporate the innovations conceived by our R&D efforts. It is not sufficient to just conceive of good ideas. These ideas must become products and then be brought to market, at home and abroad. Our success in the global marketplace is directly reflected in our standard of living and our quality of life. The budget resolution completely dissolves the agency that has been the most effective in technology development and trade promotion, the Department of Commerce, ending its programs in these areas up front. The effort to get our creative ideas to market, to feed our economy, has had a bipartisan history. Landmark legislation by Senator Dole and then Senator Bayh led to a Federal initiative in technology transfer from the federal laboratory bench to industry. I applaud the forward- looking, innovative thinking that was pioneered by our current majority leader. The Advanced Technology Program was crafted by congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle during the Bush administration. These programs are leading us into the 21st century, with significant potential for enormous returns on investment. For example, the Manufacturing Extension Program, out of the Department of Commerce, was designed to help some 370,000 small- and medium-sized manufacturers, raise their performance to world standards. This program has returned $8 to the economy for every dollar the Federal Government has invested. These technology programs account for less than 2 percent of total Federal R&D investment but are critical to our ability to capitalize on our innovations. We must not cede to other nations the economic benefits of American ingenuity. Along with the elimination of the Department of Commerce, these programs are either slated for deep cuts or elimination. Getting our products into markets around the world has been one of the real achievements of the Department of Commerce in recent years. The Department of Commerce has worked aggressively to increase exports. In the last 18 months, the Commerce Department successfully advocated, on behalf of U.S. companies, contracts with a total U.S. export content of $25 billion. In other words, for every dollar spent on the Department of Commerce, $6 have been generated in the economy. Commerce has eliminated unnecessary and outmoded regulations on more than $32 billion in exports, allowing domestic companies the freedom to succeed in overseas markets. And, these accomplishments have been made with the smallest Cabinet budget. The advocacy for U.S. trade will be even more critical in coming years as the global marketplace becomes a larger and larger component of our economy. There are new international competitiveness issues on our horizon and we will need to be effective and efficient in our responsiveness to the rapidly changing global economy. 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. During a time when we will need increased emphasis on international trade we are contemplating eliminating the only agency that advocates for American business, in the Cabinet and abroad. The United States has a large share of imports in big emerging markets. We are doing well, but much of our edge is due to our large share in Latin America. Vigorous efforts are necessary in other parts of the world, particularly Asia, where Japan heavily out-invests the United States. These markets combined, make up the largest component of United States exports, and these markets are growing rapidly. But, with the cuts in the budget resolution, we cannot maintain these efforts. We will forfeit the money they bring into our country. We will lose their impetus to our economy. Instead, we are cutting the most critical programs in the smallest Cabinet budget, in the name of decreasing the deficit. It just does not make sense to cut these revenue producing functions. Cutting these trade functions, and the Department of Commerce, will ultimately increase the deficit, not decrease it. I often lament the near-sightedness of a corporate America forced to focus on the next quarter's [[Page S7330]] profits. I hate to see my Senate colleagues succumb to a similar narrow focus. In conclusion, I support this amendment in order to assure that when we cut government spending, which I strongly support, we cut wisely, and we do not cut government investments that build our economy. We must maintain our investments in research, technology and trade promotion to ensure our future economic strength and international competitiveness. This amendment stands for exactly that point. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter to Senator Bingaman from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of Senator Roth's amendment to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas development. The budget resolution before us directs the Energy Committee to authorize the lease of 1.5 million acres of this internationally significant refuge to oil companies. If this happens, it will virtually destroy one of the world's crown jewels of nature for a small supply of oil. Yet, only last week in Senate debate, oil from wilderness areas of Alaska's North Slope was characterized as a surplus that should be made available for export. Clearly, oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not a vital energy need for the United States. The social and environmental cost of developing the refuge would be huge. It would severely impact major calving grounds and disrupt migration for one of the largest caribou herds on Earth. The Porcupine herd, estimated recently at over 152,000 caribou, uses the coastal plain of this refuge where development is targeted, to raise their calves and prepare for the incredibly harsh winter migration. It is one of the few areas hospitable enough for calving and summer habitation. The Canadian government provided permanent protection for their portion of this habitat in recognition of its importance and highly threatened status. Development of this refuge will eliminate a significant amount of habitat for other wildlife, including den-ning and feeding areas for polar bears and Arctic wolves. Forty three percent of all polar bear dens in and around the refuge occur in this area. It will destroy a major habitat of musk oxen, and threaten staging grounds for millions of migratory birds. It has the potential to contaminate water supplies for vast areas of wilderness so pristine that they define the very term itself. It will degrade one of the last scrapes of Arctic wilderness with each of the elements of the Arctic North Slope ecosystem preserved intact. Ninety percent of this system is already open to oil and gas development. Without question, oil development will result in major environmental damages to this unique wilderness. It also has the potential to destroy the economic and social basis for Indian cultures that have depended on these herds for thousands of years. We know them as the Gwich'in, the Inuvialuit, the Aklavik and others. We have heard their songs of the caribou. They remind us of Native Americans who once followed vast herds of bison on the Great Plains, and sang to their future as well. In the words of these Alaskan Natives, ``Our Arctic way of [[Page S7328]] life has endured for 20,000 years. Why should it die now for 6 months of oil?'' As a result of Senate action to lift the oil export ban last week, it is no longer clear whose 6-month supply of oil this might be. Repeatedly, we were told during Senate debate that a glut of North Slope oil exists. So much so, that we need to export this surplus to more profitable locations, such as Japan. Oil from the refuge, in all probability, will not fill American gas pumps. Therefore, the whole energy independence rationale for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is now clearly without any foundation. We would be drilling for oil company profits, not energy independence. In the process, we will deplete our domestic oil reserves and destroy one of our most valuable environmental assets. I think this is a very bad tradeoff, and I think most Americans will agree. The plan to develop the refuge is a bad idea for another very big reason: it doesn't make budget sense. Senator Roth offers a replacement offset that more than covers the projected revenues from oil leases, the closure of the tax break for expatriate millionaires. This tax break is for people who renounce their U.S. citizenship to shield their enormous wealth from the taxes every hard-working American must pay. It should not be preserved at the expense of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or any other significant resource of this Nation. The deficit reduction value of the proposed Arctic National Wildlife Refuge lease is clouded by several unresolved issues. First, the $1.4 billion figure scored by CBO assumes a 50-percent State share, even though State law calls for a 90-percent share. Second, there are uncertainties about the ownership of submerged lands within the refuge. If it is determined that these lands belong to Alaska, it reduces the lease value of the refuge further. Third, the most recent offshore State lease near the refuge yielded only $48.41 per acre, compared to the estimated $1,533.00 per acre assumed by CBO--a huge discrepancy. Finally, the budget process itself is simply the wrong place to authorize major, irreversible actions of this kind because it limits normal debate, testimony, and public input. The current budget rule on public asset sales, which this budget resolution seeks to change, prohibits the scoring of these sales for deficit reduction for good reason. It was created in 1985 during the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to avoid bogus, shortsighted asset sales in the name of deficit reduction. Nothing has changed to reduce the need for this rule today as we debate the fate of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Much has been said since last November about the views of the American people on protecting the environment. So often we hear the presumption that Americans care less. But, this past week a national poll by ABC and the Washington Post found quite the opposite, as has every national poll since the election. Seventy percent of Americans feel the Federal Government has not done enough to protect the environment. In the case of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and many other treasured public lands across this Nation, I can only agree. We should not transfer public refuges, parks, forests or energy reserves without extensive hearings, informed testimony, and debate, particularly when they are so near and dear to the American people. I want read a few words from some of the many letters I have received urging me to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The Ambassador of Canada, Mr. Raymond Chretien, wrote: Canada believes that opening the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas development will lead to major disruptions in the sensitive calving grounds and will affect migratory patterns of the Porcupine Caribou Herd on which thousands of Canadian and American Aboriginal people depend. In signing the 1987 Canada-United States Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, the United States and Canada both recognized the transboundary nature of these wildlife resources and our joint responsibility for protecting them. In 1984, Canada gave wilderness protection to its portion of the caribou calving grounds by creating the Northern Yukon National Park. The critical calving grounds in the United States, however, do not have formal protection and remain vulnerable to development, as evidenced by the recent budgetary proposals. Canada believes that the best way to ensure the future of the shared wildlife population of the Arctic Coastal Plain is to designate the ``1002'' lands as wilderness, thereby providing equal protection on both sides of this border to this irreplaceable living resource. Gwich'in Tribe, Renewable Resource Board, Mr. Robert Charlie, wrote: Opening up the Arctic Refuge to (oil and gas) development would have a drastic negative impact on the Porcupine Caribou Herd which calves in the area. In turn, the decline of the herd would devastate the aboriginal cultures in Yukon and Northwest Territories which rely on caribou for cultural and economic survival . . . Both President Clinton and Prime Minister Chretien oppose drilling in the refuge. Oil development is opposed by all First Nations in Canada and Alaska, with exception of the Inupiat who have financial interests there. The calving grounds in the ``1002'' lands are recognized by the International Porcupine Caribou Board as the most sensitive habitat of the herd. A study released last week by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game links the drop in growth rate of the Central Arctic Herd at Prudhoe Bay to eviction of cows and calves by oil development. Other department reports in preparation collaborate on the negative impacts of development on caribou calving. Wildlife Management Advisory Council of the North Slope, Mr. Lindsay Staples, wrote: Allowing oil development in the Arctic Refuge would severely impact on the Porcupine Caribou herd. A decline in the herd would mean social and economic ruin for the indigenous peoples who rely on the herd. The Inuvialuit of Aklavik, Northwest Territories are among those whose lifestyle and culture would be at risk. President Jimmy Carter, op-ed to the New York Times, wrote: The new Congress must be reawakened to protecting the interests of all Americans by protecting public lands in Alaska. For what is at stake is an unparalleled system of Federal reserves protecting wildlife, fish and wilderness. Polar bears, musk ox, wolves and a herd of 150,000 caribou roam the remote Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the far north--a place often called ``America's Serengeti . . . November's election was not a mandate to damage Alaska's environmental treasures. Poll after poll has shown that the American people remain fully committed to the protection that makes the unspoiled reaches of our Nation the envy of the world. Mr. President, I believe it is essential for this Nation to balance its budget. I salute the budget committee for taking bold and concrete steps to reach this goal. This is a very difficult, complicated task that requires sacrifice by all of us. I believe Senator Roth's amendment provides a better way to reach this goal than the proposed development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It trades something we do not need, a tax break for rich people who do not care about our country enough to maintain their citizenship, for something we do need and are willing to take care of, one of or most precious natural resources. In 1991, I was 1 of 44 Senators who voted against a motion to proceed with an energy bill that contained a plan to develop oil on this refuge. Today, we must renew this commitment to safeguarding this national treasure. We must continue our stewardship of our natural resources and natural heritage. I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join Senator Roth, me and the many other Senators supporting this amendment today. We may not have a second chance. technology research and training

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment to restore a portion of the cuts to the earned income tax credit envisioned by this budget. This program is such a great example of the kinds of public policies we should be pursuing. We have spent countless hours in this Chamber trying to figure out ways to get people to work and get them off the welfare rolls. That debate is sure to continue. But in the meantime, our Tax Code always contains the incentive for the working poor in this country to keep on working. It helps these people stay above the poverty line and off the welfare rolls which is just where each and every one of us in this Chamber would like them to be. And as if all of that were not enough, in a time when Americans demand less Government, the EITC accomplishes all of this without a new Government agency, without an elaborate bureaucracy, without creating a new payroll for a new program. I have made it clear that I believe the Senator from New Mexico has engaged in a noble and honest effort in presenting the budget we have before us today. While I do not agree with all of the priorities represented by the budget before us, I very much appreciate the effort and admire the bottom line. Which is why I am so puzzled by the EITC cuts. In the quest for a leaner, more efficient Government, I believe that cutting the EITC is an odd choice. The budget before us proposes to reduce the EITC by $13 billion by the year 2000 and by an additional $2 billion by the year 2002. These rollbacks in the program will come from repealing the final phase of the 1993 expansion of the EITC and the repeal of the EITC for workers without children. In practical terms, this rollback of the EITC will mean an increased tax burden of $21 billion over the next 7 years on more than 12 million American households. In my home State of Connecticut alone, this would mean an average tax increase of $1,408 over 7 years on 67,660 working families. This increased tax burden on the very sector of the population that can least afford to sustain it, the working family, just does not make sense. It is a policy that takes us further from, not closer to, our goal of encouraging work and self-sufficiency. The EITC encourages people to work toward a higher standard of living. Specifically, it supplements the earnings of eligible lower- and moderate-income workers and families with a Federal income tax credit that increases their disposable income. Families move off welfare dependence to full-time work because EITC makes work pay. Thus, parents who work full time are not forced to raise children in poverty. And I know that one of the stated purposes of these cuts is to eliminate fraud in the EITC program. That is a noble goal but I am afraid, that like the news of Mark Twain's death, fraud in this program may be greatly exaggerated. The President has proposed denying the EITC credit to illegal aliens and I am pleased that the proposal before us incorporates that idea. It also makes sense to require a Social Security number in order to qualify for the credit. The IRS is making a good faith effort to ensure that this credit is going to the people who need it the most. I also think it is wise to adopt the President's proposal to deny the EITC to otherwise eligible tax filers with interest and dividend income exceeding $2,500. If your investments are generating that much income, it is hard to argue that you really need the EITC. For that reason, I am pleased that we moved forward with this proposal as a way to offset part of the cost of reinstating the self-employed health insurance deduction. Historically, the EITC has enjoyed bipartisan support. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had many positive things to say about the EITC. They have described the program as a key means of helping low-income workers with dependent children get off and stay off welfare and a great way to help low-income families with the cost of raising their children. It sends assistance to those in need; to those who work hard and yet struggle to make a living and provide for their children. Jack Kemp, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan have all been strong advocates of the EITC. President Reagan described the EITC as ``The best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of the Congress.'' The Republicans other budget proposals regarding the EITC are identical to those in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget. They include a proposal to roll back the EITC by denying the credit to illegal aliens, and the denial of the EITC to otherwise eligible tax filers whose interest and dividend income exceeds $2,500. I strongly support these two proposals. First, I agree that with the President that compliance measures must be strengthened. A prerequisite to EITC eligibility should be the possession of a valid Social Security number. This would create a simple and efficient screening process which would allow the IRS to deny the credit in the absence of a valid Social Security number. The Republicans second proposal to deny the EITC to eligible tax filers is another Clinton administration proposal. I agree with the President's position that taxpayers with $2,500 of taxable interest and dividends do not need the EITC. Indeed, this proposal has already been included in H.R. 831 to offset a portion of the cost of reinstating the income tax deduction for health insurance premiums paid by the self employed. In closing I'd like to take a few moments to stress the emphasis that the EITC places on work. The EITC is a work incentive and by law it is only available to working families. If you are not working, you are not eligible for the EITC. It is just that simple. Additionally, for those in the lowest income levels, the EITC increases with each dollar of earnings. Therefore, if an individual in the eligible income bracket works longer hours, he will receive a larger EITC. This is tax fairness. I urge my colleagues to vote against any rollbacks in the EITC by supporting this amendment. Mr. President, the debate on this amendment is about priorities since this amendment does not affect the bottom line of this budget resolution. The amendment leaves intact the substantial, I would say, historic, feat of balancing the budget by the year 2002. This amendment says we do not want the earned income tax credit funds cut. The reason is that this is a program that rewards work. It is a low-bureaucracy, low-overhead program. It has worked by rewarding work and it is a program that has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. The Democratic Leadership Council, which I am pleased to chair, has long supported this program as has former Presidents Reagan and Bush as well as Jack Kemp. The budget before us has an impact on the program. It would reduce tax relief for 12 million American families by $21 billion. In my home State of Connecticut, this would mean a reduction in tax relief over the next 7 years of $1,400 for more than 67,000 working families. As a matter of priority, I do not want the bulk of these reductions. Mr. President, the cost of this program has grown. But that is not because it is out of control. The cost of this program has grown because we in Congress have directed that it grow because we believe in this program. My friend from Oklahoma says that the EITC is costing more annually than the AFDC. I say that is good [[Page S7156]] news. That means we are finally spending more to reward work than to reward those who do not work. I hope the gap between these two programs continues to grow as time goes by. Mr. President, it is important to note here, finally, that the increase in the program in recent years is not by fraud and deviousness in the program, it is by congressional design and congressional intent. When the changes we made to the program in 1993 are fully phased in at the end of fiscal year 1996, this program, the EITC, will actually grow by a very modest rate of 4.5 percent a year. So as a matter of priority, as a matter of sustaining a bipartisan consensus on supporting those who are poor and work and need our help and encouragement so they not go onto welfare, I support this amendment. Finally, I would like to quote former President Reagan who described the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best profamily, the best job creation measure to come out of the Congress.'' That is absolutely right. That is why I support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment that is offered by my colleagues from West Virginia and New Jersey, Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg, and in doing so, as the debate here in this Chamber goes from side to side, I want to point out what may be missed in all of this, which is that there is remarkable--some might say historic; I would say necessary and appropriate--agreement between and among the various parties to this debate about the problems we face and the need to take action. The Budget Committee proposal brought up under the chairmanship of the Senator from New Mexico--we use the word cut but what we really mean here is slowing the growth in spending for Medicare and Medicaid by $431 billion. This amendment, offered by Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg, will diminish that slowing of the rate of increase in spending on these two health entitlements by $100 billion. The result, if the amendment should be passed, would be that the increase in spending on Medicare and Medicaid would be cut by $331 billion. Now, Mr. President, as the debate goes back and forth I think it is critically important that all Members stop and appreciate the consensus that is found here. I would guess that very few in this Chamber would have predicted a year ago that we would be here debating whether to cut $331 billion from the increase in growth of Medicare and Medicaid, or $431 billion. Those are numbers well beyond what was thought to be politically possible. But not well beyond what most experts and what most Members in this Chamber certainly acknowledged privately was fiscally and governmentally responsible if we were to save the Medicare and Medicaid programs, certainly save Medicare from the bankruptcy that has been predicted, in 2002, by the fund's own trustees. And in that sense, to protect the Medicare benefits of millions of Americans, including about half a million that live in the State of Connecticut. I give the Senator from New Mexico, the Budget Committee chairman, a lot of credit for shaping this debate both on the question of the need to take hold of the Medicare program, to save it; and second, on the overall national imperative to bring our books into balance by a date certain. It is interesting that all of the amendments put in by the Democrats here still accept the goal of a balanced budget by a date certain, which in this case is 2002. Mr. President, it is not only fiscal necessity and the desire to avoid the bankruptcy of the Medicare trust fund, certainly part A, and the deprivation of health insurance benefits for all those who benefit from that fund, but it is the acknowledgment--and I need not speak at length on this but just to note--the acknowledgment that the health entitlements are growing out of proportion to the rest of our public spending, have experienced double-digit increases in spending. In a very real way, they are threatening to swallow up--if we let this growth go unchecked--so much of what we consider to be the Federal Government, and not just to swallow it up but to make it impossible for Members and those who follow the debate here in Congress and the White House to deal effectively with the Nation's problems, and putting in jeopardy--because we simply will not have the money--our adequate defense abroad, and a decent, tough, and comprehensive war against crime here at home. Making it impossible to invest in our future through programs of education, basic research, child development, training, job creation. Making it ultimately very difficult, if not impossible, to reform the welfare system, because most people who have looked at this acknowledge we cannot do that without investing a little money in getting people off of welfare. This growing bipartisan consensus, which may be lost as the debate shifts back and forth on these amendments, is real and is based on a bipartisan understanding that unless we grab ahold of entitlement spending we are not only going to lose the benefits that these programs provide, we will lose our ability to provide for the future of our country, the future of our children, and the future of our work force. However, Mr. President, I think it is very important, acknowledging the historic steps that we have taken on both sides to try to control the growth in Medicare spending, to say that this simply cannot become a debate of numbers, a debate of accountants. If all we are talking about, and all we are arguing about, is how much we are going to cut Medicare, the growth in Medicare spending, we will have not fully carried out our responsibility. If all we do is to cut the existing system, we will not have dealt fundamentally with our problem and we will, in fact, create severe difficulty for the beneficiaries of these programs and for the providers. People have talked about three ways to achieve reductions in increases in the Medicare program: increase payments for the fund by, for example, increasing premium contribution for wealthier Americans; we can decrease payments to providers for their services; or we can reform the basic structure of the Medicare system so that it delivers care more cost effectively. That, Mr. President--reforming the basic structure--is what I hope the majority in this Chamber will be committed to. That is the road to truly protecting and saving the Medicare system and saving the rest of the Federal Government that will be eaten up by health entitlements, as will the future of our children and our Nation. There are interesting ideas around about reform. Some, for example, have suggested that we make preferred provider plans available to Medicare recipients and that such plans can deliver care more efficiently while maintaining choice. Others are discussing more dramatic changes. I must say these are the ones that appeal to me most, such as moving toward a voucher system in which the Government provides a fixed amount of money by way of a voucher to those who are eligible for Medicare, enabling them to go out into the private markets and purchase their own health care coverage. That is the way to truly empower the recipients, to break them free from a lot of the complexities of the current system and to bring competition into the Medicare Program, which is so significant a part of our health care apparatus, just as competition is coming in so effectively to the rest of our health care system. The pace of change to the Medicare Program should be determined by our ability to maintain: confidence in the program; the credibility of the program financially; and, the quality of the services delivered under the program to those who are the beneficiaries. Let me talk briefly about two comments that have been offered, two positions taken, as to how to proceed down the road to reform. The Budget Committee majority has proposed establishing a bipartisan commission to advise Congress on how best to meet the level of cuts set forth in the budget. Some of my colleagues, on the other hand, have argued that we simply should not pursue Medicare reform outside of the context of broad-based health care reform. I am not truly comfortable with either of these positions. It may be in the end that a commission is necessary to deal with these problems. But it takes time, and I believe we know what our options are now. I would sure like to see this Congress, led in this Chamber by our Finance Committee, take a first crack at seeing whether we can, not just cut Medicare spending increases, but whether we can reform the fundamentals of the program. When it comes to the argument that Medicare reform must be part of overall health care reform I would say this: in the best of all worlds that would be the way to proceed. But if we learned any lesson from the futile attempts to adopt universal and comprehensive health care last year, it is that if we wait to reform the Medicare system until we can have overall health care reform we will not have Medicare reform, and we will probably not have overall health care reform either. We simply should not postpone Medicare reform because the problems facing Medicare are too critical for us to delay. The fact is, recent innovations in health care delivery in the private market have created a revolution without governmental direction and paved the way for new approaches to deliver care to the elderly through Medicare reform. We should take advantage of those private sector innovations and try to apply them to the Medicare Program. The private sector reforms that are going on now are driving change. It would be a strange result indeed if the private markets reform themselves to more efficiently and cost-effectively deliver health care and the governmentally operated health care programs are left to run without the benefit of competition and without the benefit of reform. So it is with these thoughts in mind that I will be supporting the amendment offered by Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg, acknowledging and expressing some appreciation for the consensus that is here beneath the debate. We are on the road to a balanced budget by a date certain. We all acknowledge that we have to limit the growth in health entitlement spending to save those programs for the beneficiaries. Finally, I hope we will come to a similar consensus that cutting the growth just in dollar accounting terms is not enough. We have to reform the fundaments of the program to save it, empower the beneficiaries of the program, and take full advantage of the marketplace competition that is being so productive and beneficial to people in the private sector today. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address the amendment and I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes from the time controlled by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon].

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I recently came across a copy of a homily delivered last year by the Most Rev. Edward M. Egan, bishop of Bridgeport, that I believe is worthy of inclusion in the Record. With so much debate of late about the quality of public discourse in this country, the words of Bishop Egan remind us of the need to be respectful of the heartfelt opinions of others, no matter how strongly we might disagree with their point of view. The bishop's homily was delivered at the red Mass at Saint Matthew's Cathedral here in Washington on October 2, 1994. The red Mass is an annual Mass celebrated for people involved in the legal profession and the bishop urges lawyers, as ``protectors of thought and its free expression,'' to do all they can to protect the speech of those who utter unpopular beliefs and to ensure that all people in our society are allowed to enter the national dialogue over the issues that govern our fate. Speaking to leaders of the legal community, including the Attorney General, and members of the Supreme Court, Bishop Egan cautioned that lawyers must ``insist that the unapproved point of view be heard and explored.'' Bishop Egan has provided wonderful leadership in his time in Connecticut in so many different ways. I am proud to consider him a friend. Whether my colleagues agree or disagree with all of Bishop Egan's words and examples regarding political correctness, I know they will find his homily to be eloquent and thought-providing. It is in that spirit that I ask that it be printed in the Record. The homily follows: Homily of the Most Rev. Edward M. Egan, Bishop of Bridgeport Your Excellency, Archbishop Cacciavillan, Reverend Clergy, Members of the John Carroll Society, Distinguished Representatives of the Bench and Bar, and Friends All: This past summer, in Canton in the South of China, I sat in a hotel restaurant with a Chinese tour-guide who spoke English quite well. He had brought a busload of tourists to a store that sold porcelain and silk; and once they were safely inside, he invited me to join him for a cup of tea. He was forty-five years of age, he told me. In his youth he had dreamed of mastering the English language and French as well. However, in the second year of his university studies, the so-called Cultural Revolution had intervened. His eyes flashed as he described that decade of madness in China. He and dozens of his fellow students had been forced to watch two of their professors killed in a public square by a government-inspired mob. He had stood at attention for hours on several occasions as thousands of books from the university library were destroyed in bonfires. And in due course, he had been taken to the West of China to labor for three years on collective farms, his whereabouts unknown to family and friends. ``What,'' I asked him, ``were the leaders of the Cultural Revolution hoping to achieve with all of this?'' ``They wanted the people to stop having unapproved thoughts,'' he replied. ``They felt that the nation could prosper only if all were thinking in the same way--their way, the approved way.'' He winced a bit as he offered this explanation but was clearly convinced that his analysis was correct. For he repeated it word for word as he stared into his empty teacup: ``They felt that the nation could prosper only if all were thinking in the same way--their way, the approved way.'' You and I, my dear friends, are privileged to live in a land in which the imposition of thought by government is rejected out of hand. And in no small measure we have the legal profession to thank for this blessing. It was lawyers like Montesquieu and Montaigne who were crucial in developing the basic political ideas of our free society. Twenty-five of the fifty-six who signed the Declaration of Independence, with its cry for justice and equality, were practicing attorneys. Even more, the fundamental charters of our nation, such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with their uncompromising commitments to freedom of thought, were largely the work of legal experts with names like Jefferson, Adams, Wilson, Jay, Wythe, and Marshall. Still, there are in our country today rumblings in many quarters about thoughts that are approved and thoughts that are not. Thus, the expression, ``politically correct,'' has become a staple in our vocabularies. Indeed, over the past year or two it has graduated to the level of a familiar abbreviation. Few there are who do not know the meaning of ``p.c.'' One is politically correct, we understand, when one agrees with the ``important'' newspapers, the ``quoted'' professors, the ``best'' commentators, the ``most influential'' personalities. Nor can there be any doubt that this understanding is operating with remarkable efficiency. From Atlantic to Pacific, the vast majority of adult Americans are able to identify with extraordinary ease and accuracy those ideas, positions, and thoughts which are today in our land ``correct'' or, if you prefer, ``approved.'' The Readings from Sacred Scripture in our Mass this morning remind us of two cases in point. The first of these Readings, from the Book of Genesis, is among the most familiar in all of Holy Writ. It speaks of the mind of the Divinity as regards the basics of the human condition. The male, we read, was from the time of creation not to be left alone. Rather, he was to be joined by a companion, a partner, a wife, so that together they might live out their years, two in fact but one in heart and love. And from that love was to result a miracle within the wife, a miracle before which every generation since creation has stood in awe. In our time, however, the miracle has become as well a source of controversy. Simply put, the matter under discussion is this: May society stand idly by while a private party puts a violent end to the miracle? Those who have embraced the ``approved'' thinking, the ``correct'' thinking, answer with a resounding ``yes.'' The miracle, they allege, may be killed with impunity. Others, however, dare to sing outside the chorus. Their reasoning should not be difficult to understand. The being within the mother, they note, gives strong indications of being a human being, a person with an inalienable right to live. Certainly, no one has ever been able to prove the contrary. Hence, they conclude, society has no choice but to fulfill its most fundamental duty as regards the being in question. It must protect it against attack. There is no hint of religion in any of this unapproved thinking, though many religious people, for a multitude of religious reasons, support it. There is no mention of doctrine, dogma, sacred writings, or anything of the sort. At issue are only matters which are properly and strictly matters of the law: the meaning of personhood, the basic rights of individuals, the power of legal presumptions, and the most elementary and essential duties of society. These and nothing more. Still, there is a tactic abroad in our land to characterize the unapproved thinking as exclusively religious and to refuse to allow it a fair hearing on this score. The tactic is clever, widespread, and effective. It should also be frightening to all who cherish the free and honorable exchange of ideas, positions, and thoughts--lawyers first and foremost. The Gospel Reading, too, calls to mind a controversy of our time in which only certain thoughts appear to be approved. The Lord, in the lovely account of Saint Luke, instructs His closest followers not to keep children from Him. ``Let them come to Me, do not hinder them,'' He says, ``for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.'' Parents there are, to be sure, who would not be comfortable with having their children, the miracles of their love, accept such an invitation. And in this free land of ours their point of view is properly and vigorously protected. But other parents there are who firmly believe that the invitation of the Lord is most worthy, parents who wish their offspring to be educated according to the mind and will of the One Whom they call their God. The thought of this second group is, of course, unapproved; and the tactic for dismissing it is well-known. All monies that governments collect to support schools, it is announced, must go only to those institutions in which every mention of the Divinity is outlawed. For otherwise, the state would be sustaining religion. But when such a rule is implemented, the unapproved thinkers protest, is not irreligion being sustained? Why erect a wall only between religion and the state? Why not erect another, no less high, between the state and irreligion? Or more to the point: Why not simply concede to all parents equally the right to choose the schools of their children and to share in the funds gathered by society to support them. The plea is somehow ruled out of order. The ``important'' newspapers, the ``quoted'' professors, the ``best'' commentators, the ``most influential'' personalities have spoken. It remains, it would seem, for lawyers to insist that the unapproved point of view be heard and explored. For they are uniquely positioned to do this as counselors, judges, writers, thinkers, and legislators; and what is more: they have a long and noble tradition in this land of respecting and defending thought, even when it is ``unapproved.'' But the second Reading of our Mass this morning, from the Epistle to the Hebrews, provides yet another reason for lawyers to address the aforementioned issues of unapproved thinking and any others that come to mind. That reason is, I confess, plainly and exquisitely religious. It is simply this: We are all children of the one Father in heaven; hence, we have no choice but to listen to one another with attention, concern, and love. Many years ago I pastored a parish on the Southside of Chicago. The community was African-American. In fact, one of my parishioners often reminded me that I was very likely the only white voter in the precinct. My closest adviser was a retired army major who spent many an evening chatting with me about life in the distressed neighborhoods of the Windy City. ``Father,'' he used to tell me, ``we are never going to be the nation we should be as long as any of us are kept out of the national conversation. We've got to find some powerful folks to let us all in.'' This morning, thanks to the very kind invitation of the Archbishop of Washington, James Cardinal Hickey, I have the honor to speak to just such ``powerful folks.'' Over the past thirty years, we as a nation have learned that the Black community must be a respected participant in the ``national conversation.'' We are every day becoming more aware that the same is true of the Hispanic community. I pray that now is the time for the religious community as well. And I pray too that lawyers will lead the way in this regard, not only because of their historic position as protectors of thought and its free expression but also, and especially, because they realize, indeed, embrace in faith, that we are all children of one God, sisters and brothers who need--and have a right--to be heard.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Deputy Chief John F. Moriarty on his retirement from 50 years of service to the Stamford Police Department in Stamford, CT, where he was honored on April 29, 1995. Deputy Chief Moriarty was born and raised in Stamford, CT. Jack's career began as a special constable with the former town police department on June 15, 1944, and he served in this capacity until his appointment as a regular police officer 5 years later on November 17, 1949. Jack Moriarty served during the consolidation of the city of Stamford and the town of Stamford Police Departments into what has now become the Stamford Police Department. During his long and honorable tenure, he served with 8 police chiefs, 13 mayors and 1 first selectman. His dedication, intelligence, and foresight to duty, all contributed to Jack's many promotions throughout the years, including sergeant, lieutenant, captain, and ultimately deputy chief in November 1981. His final assignment was as commanding officer, administration and support services, where he served with distinction until his retirement on December 30, 1994. Jack continues to reside in Stamford, and is a life long member of Saint Mary's Roman Catholic Church where he is one of the two lay trustees and a member and past president of the church's Holy Name Society. He also has a membership to an assorted selection of groups including the Knights of Columbus, Saint Augustine Council No. 41, the board of directors of Saint Camillus Health Center, Stamford Police Association, Inc., and the Police Association of Connecticut. He and his beloved wife Jean, have four children and seven grandchildren, all with Irish first names. Jack's work and commitment to helping those in need has been an inspiration to those who know him. I salute Deputy Chief John Moriarty on his retirement for his never-ending energy and steadfast devotion to the Stamford Police Department.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the volunteers of Hospice Care and their longtime commitment to care for people with life-threatening illnesses. Founded in 1981, Hospice Care, Inc., of Connecticut has been providing patients and their families with medical care and other support services that are crucial during difficult times. For over a decade these highly trained volunteers, along with the organization's professionals, have provided more than 2,000 patients and their loved ones with home care, inpatient care, and assistance whenever needed. Volunteers are also involved in administrative work, public awareness, fundraising, and act on the board of directors. Many of the volunteers have been dedicated to the organization since its founding and will continue to give their time and energy to help their fellow residents of Connecticut. With their hard work and dedication they have provided important medical and moral support to those who are ill or suffer from the loss of a loved one. Through their selfless behavior the volunteers of Hospice Care Inc. have positively influenced the lives of many members of their communities. I am proud to acknowledge the success and commitment of Hospice Care's volunteers. They have shown what can be achieved with private initiative and have thereby contributed to the welfare of Connecticut.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, due to the death of a close family member, I am regrettably unable to be present on the Senate floor today to join my colleagues in passing product liability legislation. It is day long awaited by those of us who have been working on behalf of reform for years only to be denied, not only passage of a bill, but full and open debate. I was proud to be a cosponsor of past product liability bills, including this year's bill, S. 565. Credit for this remarkable turn of events is due to Senators Rockefeller and Gorton, who have labored long and hard on the Senate floor over the last 2 weeks and, quite literally, for years to produce a fair bill. It is their perseverance and fair treatment of all that is responsible for our success today. Their staffs have done extraordinary work on their behalf and deserve all of our thanks--Tamera Stanton, Ellen Doneski, Lance Bultena, Trent Erickson, and others. Were I present today, I would have voted to table Harkin amendment No. 749, to table Dorgan amendment No. 629 and, of course, I would have enthusiastically voted ``yes'' for final passage. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of the bill as passed by the Senate today. This is an important first step toward comprehensive reform of our legal system. It is incremental reform, but it's significance should be understated. It establishes some important principles for further reform: parties responsible for harm must be held fully accountable and parties who have caused no harm should not be bullied into settlements by a system that does more to compensate lawyers than to achieve justice for injured people.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, replying to my friend and colleague from Washington, I would appreciate the opportunity to speak for just 4 or 5 minutes, if I may at this time, on the Thompson amendment. Madam President, we have proceeded, now, for several days on the topic of product liability reform. Those of us who have sponsored the underlying bill, a bipartisan group, have argued that the current system of product liability litigation is costly, it is unfair, too much of the money put into the system goes to those who are operating it instead of the victims of actual negligence. We have proceeded and brought several important issues to votes, not only on product liability but on the general topic of medical malpractice, punitive damages--a creative approach offered and accepted by more than 60 of our colleagues, by the occupant of the chair, the distinguished Senator from Maine. I think we have a consistent pattern in which a majority of Members of the Chamber, of this Senate, have spoken in favor of reform, acknowledging that the status quo in the civil justice system, when it comes to tort law, is just not working as it should. It is not working in the interests of the American people. It is not working in the interests of the American consumer who is paying too much and getting too little. It is certainly not working in the interests of American business and American workers because it is denying us products. It is making us less competitive. It is denying employment opportunities. I say all of that as a preface to saying just a few brief words about the amendment offered by the Senators Simon and Cochran. With all respect to my three colleagues, the record will note that they have not been, generally speaking, among those who have voted for the reform effort, the tort reform effort. I would say, respectfully again, that a vote for this amendment will have the effect of making hollow the effort to achieve genuine product liability reform--genuine tort reform. It would make it hollow in taking unto itself the banner of federalism and States rights, as it were--but it does so in a way that is not true to the actual content of the bill before us and is not really true to federalism either. The fact is, the underlying bill leaves almost all of the fundamental questions of liability still with the States but it acknowledges that this area of our law has national implications. It is a national problem and it requires a national solution. By restricting the impact of these reforms to the Federal courts, this amendment essentially eviscerates--it guts the bill. It will not any longer be true reform. There are some who have described the underlying bill as too weak. We like to say it is moderate. It is balanced--I believe it is. It is the way it ought to go forward. But if this amendment is agreed to, there will be very little left and it will be much less than moderate. Madam President, let me just say specifically that the impact of this amendment would be to enable attorneys, plaintiff's attorneys, to shop for appropriate jurisdictions in which to, even more than under the current law, file their suits in State courts. But more significant and perhaps a point that has not been mentioned enough, plaintiff's attorneys here will be motivated to immediately add resident defendants to the complaint so as to avoid removal to Federal court. Under current legal practice, under current law, any time there is a defendant in a suit from the same State as plaintiff, diversity of jurisdiction, which is a prerequisite to obtaining Federal court jurisdiction, is defeated. Thus, plaintiffs can easily control here whether Federal law will apply and can frustrate the attempt to finally, after 18 years of attempts in this Senate, in this Congress, to reform. They can frustrate that attempt. It also means that more people will be sued, more small businesses will be sued, that lawsuits will cost even more. So we are trying to achieve a modest level of uniformity in the underlying amendment in an effort to reform the inequitable, costly, slow system we now have. The amendment offered by the Senator from Tennessee will doom any effort to achieve those moderate results, and, therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues, again a majority of whom have expressed their clear desire for reform, to be consistent with that expressed desire for reform and to vote against the amendment offered by the Senator from Tennessee. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we spent, now, 2 full days debating this underlying medical malpractice amendment and numerous second- degree amendments. I am privileged to be a cosponsor of the underlying first-degree amendment with the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. McConnell] and the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum]. I would like to take a few moments here to put this debate and the amendment in perspective. Surprisingly, to my knowledge this is the first time the full Senate has engaged in a real debate on medical malpractice reform, even though this issue has been the subject of countless debates in State legislatures throughout America going back to the 1970's, when I was part of the State Legislature of Connecticut. I am pleased the issue and the problem has finally come to this point, and I want to express my admiration to my colleagues on both sides of this issue for the thoughtful remarks they have made over the last days. We have heard a variety of views expressed, of course, but I am pleased to note there is broad agreement that our present system for compensating patients who have been injured by medical malpractice is ineffective, inefficient, and in many respects unfair. The system promotes the overuse of medical tests and procedures and simply diverts too much money away from victims. I know we have heard a lot of numbers in the past couple of days, but to me the most important one is this: Less than half of the money spent on medical malpractice in this country goes to the victims of malpractice. Less than 50 cents of every dollar that goes into the medical malpractice system in this country goes to those who are injured as a result of malpractice. So the aim of the amendment is not to protect doctors who are guilty or health professionals who are guilty of negligence that injures patients. Quite the contrary, the aim of the amendment is to make sure that more, rather than less than half a dollar of every dollar that goes into this system, goes to the patients who are injured and not to those, including the attorneys, who are churning, moving the current system. We can argue about the numbers, obviously, but I hope most of my colleagues will agree that the existing medical malpractice system does contribute to the high cost of health care. The cost of liability insurance has been estimated, the most recent number I could find, at $9 billion in 1992. That is not money that just comes out of the air or is printed by the Government; that is money that comes from everybody who is paying premiums for insurance for health care. The respected health care consulting firm Lewin-VHI has estimated conservatively the cost of defensive medicine--this is beyond the $9 billion in premiums--but the cost of defensive medicine, which is to say medicine practiced by health professionals not for what they take to be the medical needs of their patients but defensively because they are worried about lawsuits, is $25 billion a year. Again, that is $25 billion coming out of the pockets of everybody who is paying health care costs. That number may seem to some who look at the big picture of health care spending somehow small. If it does, they have perhaps lost touch with reality, because $25 billion is a lot of money. It is not small in any sense. We can and should do something to reduce that number. Taxpayers and health care consumers bear the financial burden of those costs. I say taxpayers because we are paying for it in Medicare and Medicaid and every other Government-supported health care program. Tens of billions of dollars every year is not a trivial amount of money to taxpayers and consumers in this country. The underlying amendment we will vote on today will begin to address the inefficiencies and perverse effect of our current malpractice system by directing a greater proportion of malpractice awards to victims, by discouraging frivolous lawsuits, and by enhancing programs that are aimed at improving the quality of medical practice, which is what this is all about. The amendment will also improve consumer information, a key part of preventing malpractice, by establishing an advisory panel to improve quality assurance programs and consumer information. The panel will also look at ways to strengthen the national practitioner data bank. My colleague, Senator Wellstone, has offered an amendment that would open the data bank without this review. I respectfully suggest that this amendment goes too far too quickly, though I am sympathetic to the goal. I believe the underlying amendment sponsored by Senators McConnell, Kassebaum, and myself will lead us appropriately down the path but will do it with some also appropriate caution. Mr. President, the underlying amendment is not new. It is not radical. It is a very moderate proposal which contains provisions from health care reform bills reported out of committees during the last Congress with the exception of the statute of limitations. With the exception of the statute of limitations, the 2-year time limit does not include a statute of repose and a cap on punitive damages which is identical to the cap in the underlying product liability bill. Every provision in the pending first-degree amendment was contained either in President Clinton's health care reform proposal, the bill reported out of the Senate Labor Committee, or the bill reported out of the Senate Finance Committee last year. I agree with my colleagues who have argued that medical liability reform is only a small part of health care reform. But it is a substantial and important beginning. As both Democrats and Republicans concluded last year, malpractice reform is an important part of health care reform. Today we have an opportunity to take a modest and reasonable proconsumer step forward on this problem. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues, and I urge them to vote for the underlying amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this week we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide--the death of over 1.5 million Armenians and their exile from their homeland. This terrible tragedy marked the beginning of an ugly period in human history where there have been attempts to systematically liquidate certain ethnic groups. The Nazi Holocaust, the extermination of the Kulaks by Stalin, and the ruthless murders of innocent Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge are all further examples of brutality against fellow human beings. Today, people are being killed in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Burundi once again because they are members of a different ethnic group. What can we learn from all these tragedies and especially the one we commemorate today? The first and foremost lesson is to acknowledge that a tragedy occurred and admit that it is a crime against all of humanity. Then we must never allow the world to forget what happened here and the fate of these people. This is why we mark this date in history--and why we must continue to do so. In 1915, the Ottoman Empire was in a state of collapse. The Empire was exhausting its last strength in fighting World War I. The economy was in tatters and the Government was in a state of confusion. The victims of this time of upheaval were the Armenian people who were either killed or forced to flee their homelands. and with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Nation of Armenia was born. This birth has been a troubled one. The tragic 7-year conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has cost thousands of lives and displaced over a million people. I am very encouraged, however, by the cease-fire which has been in place in Nagorno-Karabakh for 1 year this month. I am also encouraged that Russia decided this past December to work with the Minsk Group of the OSCE to seek a peaceful solution in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Minsk Group, cochaired by Russia and Finland, has been meeting regularly to address the needs of all the concerned parties. The process is moving along slowly, but there is hope that a peacekeeping unit may soon be in Nagorno-Karabakh to ensure the safety of all people. The United States is eager to see a lifting of the blockade of Armenia and to see a return to the free flow of humanitarian aid in this region. We share the aspirations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the other members of the OSCE Minsk Group for a peaceful solution to this troubling problem. We must do whatever we can to solve the situation in Nagorno- Karabakh. We must use all available resources to see that the tragedy which befell Armenians in the first part of this century is not repeated--either in Armenia or anywhere else in the world. On this, the 80th anniversary of a terrible genocide, we must learn from the past and make sure that such a tragedy is never repeated.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of my friend from Minnesota. It may sound a little strange, but if he is prepared to speak at length, I would be happy to allow him to go forward.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes. I appreciate the Senator's kindness.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to speak first on the underlying bill, S. 565, and then to take the opportunity to say a few words on behalf of the underlying amendment offered by the distinguished occupant of the chair, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. Mr. President, I want to first discuss the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995 and particularly congratulate Senators Gorton and Rockefeller for producing a product liability bill that really has garnered broad bipartisan support. I am hopeful, finally, after all these years of effort, that this bill will, in fact, not only be a good bill but will become a very good law. Thanks are also due to Senator Pressler and others on the Commerce Committee for enabling us to take this bill up so early in this session, all of us having seen similar bills supported by a majority of Members of the Senate nonetheless go down to defeat because of gridlock caused by a clock that was running out. Mr. President, this debate is now a few days old. Perhaps what has surprised me most in the debate are those arguments that have been made on behalf of the status quo in our civil justice system. There is certainly room for disagreement about how best to make our civil justice system fairer and more rational, but, frankly, it is hard for me to understand how anyone can say that our current system does not need substantial reform. It is inefficient, unpredictable, costly, slow, and unfair. Its lottery-like nature costs everyone too much-- plaintiffs, defendants, manufacturers, product sellers, and consumers. justice system to the list of fundamental institutions in our country that are broken and in need of repair. For me, repair begins with remembering what may be lost in the debate and the reality of the system today, which is that the purpose of the system is first to compensate people who are injured as a result of someone else's negligence; that compensation is at the heart of the system. And, second, and in doing so, to deter future negligence by that or other parties. In our time, unfortunately, the civil justice system has too often become a game of legalistic sophistry, of bullying, of bluffing, a game which overcompensates lawyers, undercompensates victims, particularly seriously injured victims, and costs all the rest of us an awful lot of money in higher prices for consumer products, for health care, higher premiums for insurance, fewer jobs, and fewer new products to improve and protect our lives. And, of course, all of that, in sum, contributes to the cynicism and mistrust of our legal system felt by average Americans, no matter what the participants in the system feel about it, and that cynicism and mistrust is profoundly corrosive and ultimately may be the most significant cost of our civil justice system in America today. Mr. President, opponents of this bill like to cast the debate in either/or terms--either you are pro-business or pro-consumer; either you are pro-innovation or pro-safety. But I respectfully suggest that sort of rhetoric misses the point and prevents us from discussing this issue in a fair and rational manner. The fact is that this bill, the underlying bill, S. 565, is both pro- business and pro-consumer, pro-innovation and pro-safety. It is aimed at putting liability back where it should be, on the parties who are actually responsible for any harm caused to an individual, and so best able to prevent that injury and compensate the victim. Mr. President, I did not always support a national or Federal approach to product liability reform or tort reform generally, and I can understand the hesitancy, particularly of some of the Members, to support Federal involvement in what traditionally has been a province of the States. In fact, in my previous public incarnation as attorney general of Connecticut, and a member of the National Association of Attorneys General, I had some real skepticism about some of the earlier Federal product liability legislation. It would have swept away virtually all State product liability laws and repealed the doctrine of strict liability for product defects. This bill is not that extreme, but what changed my mind was listening to people in Connecticut. As I traveled the State, I kept finding that product liability laws were being raised as a major concern of business men and women from small and large manufacturing companies who were trying to make a living, who were trying to create jobs. They told me of problems they experienced with the product liability system, and of the expense of defending themselves, even when they win. They told me of the costs of settlement to avoid paying litigation costs--not because there was real negligence--and of the time and energy that product liability suits diverted away from the business of designing new products and bringing them to market. So I listened to those folks, and I came to understand the necessity of Federal action and, of course, to understand the reality and appreciate the reality that we are one country; that products travel from State to State; that people using them travel from State to State; and that there is a crying need out there in the interest of every State and our country, our economy, the equity of our society, to build a floor of fairness, a common system that will protect the rights of all. Mr. President, the debate really should center around users and consumers, because ultimately it is the consumers who suffer most from the status quo. Consumers are the ones who do have to pay the higher prices in order to cover product liability-related costs. If a ladder costs 20 percent more because of liability-related costs, it is consumers, not the businesses, who end up paying the 20 percent premiums. Consumers are the ones who suffer when valuable innovations do not occur or when needed products, like life-saving medical devices, do not come to market or are not available in our country any longer because no one will supply the necessary raw materials. The inadequacies and excesses of our product liability system are quite literally matters of life and death for some people whose lives depend on medical devices that may no longer be available in the United States. This is not a theoretical problem. Life-saving and life enhancing products are at risk today--now--and doctors and patients are justifiably worried because raw material suppliers have stopped selling their materials to medical device manufacturers. I am very proud to say that included in the underlying bill, S. 565, is a bill that I was privileged to introduce last year and again this year with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1995, which is intended to address this emerging crisis in the medical device sector of our economy, which is a lifesaving sector. I know there will be amendments addressed to that section of this bill, and I look forward to speaking in more detail at that time. Mr. President, even for its intended beneficiaries, people who are injured by defective products, the legal system hardly can be said to work well. The GAO, in a five-State survey, found that product liability cases took an average of 2\1/2\ years just to reach trial. If the case was appealed, it took on average another year to resolve. That is a very long time for an injured person to wait for compensation. The underlying bill, S. 565, will shorten that time. In some instances, too, our product liability laws have enacted barriers to a lawsuit that just do not make sense. For instance, in some States, the statute of limitations--that is the time within which a lawsuit can be brought--begins to run even though the injured person did not know they were injured and could not have known that the product was the cause. In those States, the time in which to bring a suit can expire before the person injured knows or could ever know there is a suit to bring. No one will argue that this bill will cure all the ills in our product liability system. That would require a truly gargantuan overhaul, and I doubt we could reach agreement as to what that would look like. But we can, I believe, work to enact a balanced package of reforms that work step by step to eliminate the worst aspects of the current system, to restore some balance to our product liability system. I am confident that S. 565 does just that. Mr. President, I want to speak now about the underlying amendment, which I have been pleased to offer with the occupant of the chair, Senator McConnell, and also Senator Kassebaum. This legislation was introduced in February and subsequently considered and reported out, though in slightly different form, by the Labor Committee. To put it simply, this bill is designed to reduce the inefficiencies and mitigate the unintended effects of our malpractice system. This amendment is aimed at trying to improve a series of problems in our medical malpractice system that are comparable to those which the underlying product liability bill attempts to resolve or improve in our basic product manufacturing system. And again, it is consumers who are paying the extra money to support the current inefficient system that overcompensates the less injured, undercompensates the more seriously injured, and gives an awful lot of money to those who are keeping the system going, particularly lawyers. Our present system for compensating patients who have been injured by medical malpractice is ineffective, inefficient and, again, in many respects, unfair. The system promotes the overuse of medical tests and procedures defensively by doctors who have told me, and I am sure told every other Member of this Chamber, they would not order this test, it is not medically necessary, but they do it to protect themselves from the fear of a possible lawsuit. The Rand Corp. has estimated the ways in which the current defensive practice of medicine actually costs the victims of malpractice. Rand has estimated that injured patients receive malpractice and medical product liability litigation. That is 43 cents out of every dollar, and victims often receive their awards only after many, many years of delay because of the ornate process, the bullying and bluffing that the current rules of malpractice encourage. In fact, I would say that our current medical malpractice system is a stealth contributor to the high cost of health care. It is why those of us who worked to adopt a bipartisan health care reform bill always felt that if we could do something about medical malpractice and the cost it adds to the system, we could reduce concretely, not speculatively, the cost of health care. The American Medical Association tells us liability insurance premiums have grown faster than any other physician practice expense. The cost of liability insurance is estimated at $9 billion--that is just for the insurance--$9 billion in 1992. Incidentally, my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, opposing the underlying amendment, said that the insurance companies are doing very well, making a lot of money in medical malpractice coverage. That is a strange argument to make against this amendment. This amendment was not put in for the benefit of the insurance industry. This amendment was put in for the benefit of patients, doctors, and all of us who pay health insurance premiums or pay the cost of doctor care, which is inflated because of the current system. So it is an interesting argument that the insurance companies are doing well at it. But it is not relevant to the purpose of this amendment. In fact, it may in some ways justify our amendment. It may suggest another reason why the current system needs to be shaken up. Let me go back to defensive medicine and try to detail briefly its impact on the current system because it is even greater than the direct cost of liability insurance. The Office of Technology Assessment--our own office here--has found that as high as 8 percent of diagnostic procedures are ordered primarily because of doctors' concerns about being sued. That does not sound like a high percentage, but it amounts to billions of dollars. These defensive practices alone--sometimes difficult to measure--present a hidden but very significant burden on our health care system. There is a well regarded consulting firm called Lewin-VHI. They have stated that hospital charges for defensive medicine were as high as $25 billion in 1991. That is an enormous figure. Basically what they are saying is that as much as $25 billion of the costs--this is not paid by strangers out there, this is paid by each of us in our health insurance premiums--is the result not of medical necessity but because of defensive practice occasioned by the existing medical malpractice legal system. Taxpayers and health care consumers bear the financial burden of these excessive costs. Liability insurance and defensive medicine insurance premiums also drive up the cost of Medicare and Medicaid and therefore exacerbate an increased Federal budget deficit. Further, in specialties such as obstetrics--the subject of the second degree amendment pending in the Senate--where malpractice premiums have skyrocketed, malpractice liability is reducing access to quality health care. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reports that malpractice costs for their professionals increased 350 percent between 1982 and 1988; and that by 1988, 41 percent of the obstetricians and gynecologists surveyed indicated that they had made changes in their practice patterns, including stopping seeing high-risk patients--the people who most need their care--because of their concerns about medical malpractice suits. I can mention a group of doctors I know in the greater New Haven area, where I am from in Connecticut, who have ceased delivering babies and have changed their practice exclusively to gynecology because of their concern about medical malpractice lawsuits. The amendment we are discussing today that Senator McConnell and I have put in will begin to address these problems--these perverse, unfair effects, inefficiencies of our current system, and they will do so by directing a greater proportion of malpractice awards to victims. That is what the system, as I said at the outset, was supposed to be all about. How can we compensate the victim of genuine malpractice? Let us be clear. There is nothing in this bill that would at all limit the liability of a physician who was guilty of malpractice and injured a patient. The whole aim is to put the burden of the law on that negligent physician so that that physician is being called upon to compensate the victim of that malpractice--not to impose a collective burden that results in everybody's premiums being raised and everybody's costs of health care being raised. The current system compels the practice of defensive medicine and in settling out lawsuits for fear of suffering greater liability in the current malpractice system, which too many people think is really a kind of lottery. The current bill also will discourage frivolous lawsuits and enhance the quality assurance programs we all want. Key provisions of the reform include, No. 1, establishing a uniform statute of limitations, 2 years; No. 2, allowing periodic payments for awards greater than $100,000; No. 3, applying several--not joint and several--liability for noneconomic damages, pain and suffering. There is a concept--joint and several liability started out in the law as a way of proportioning responsibility when an accident was caused by a number of different parties working together in a way that caused negligence, and often it was not clear which one actually caused it. So they said everybody could be held liable regardless of the percentage of negligence. It now has grown to a point where what it really means is that somebody who is not liable, or liable very little, if they happen to have deep pockets, they can be held fully liable. That is the wrong message to send. The whole idea of our civil justice system should be to establish a basic principle, which is, if you do something wrong, you have to pay. If you hurt somebody, you have to pay. If you do not, you should not have to pay. What kind of cynicism is developed when somebody who did little or no wrong ends up having to pay the whole bill because somebody else slipped away? Our amendment also adopts the basic proposal of the underlying bill that punitive damages--which have been much discussed here and are an essential part of the continued bullying and bluffing that goes on in our tort system--be limited to $250,000 or three times economic damages, whichever is greater. Attorneys fees will be limited in our amendment--contingency fees to 33\1/3\ percent of the first $150,000 award and 25 percent on anything above $150,000. As my mother would say, I suppose, do not worry about the lawyers, they are still going to be able to live pretty good lives. In medical malpractice cases, it would strengthen the standards for awarding punitive damages, strengthen State licensing boards and quality improvement programs by using 50 percent of punitive damage awards to fund investigations and disciplinary actions to prevent malpractice. That is a great section of this proposal. I am proud to have worked on it with Senator McConnell. As far as punitive damages are awarded, let us not take 50 percent of that money and throw it into the pot for a contingency legal fee, but let us use it to fund investigations by the States into the way medicine is being practiced, to ferret out those doctors who are practicing in a way that may be negligent, and to make sure they are subjected to disciplinary actions. Mr. President, the bill also provides Federal leadership to strengthen health care quality in another way. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] has helped improve this amendment and bill in committee in this regard--by requiring the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to convene an advisory panel to coordinate and evaluate methods, procedures, and data to enhance the safety and effectiveness of health care services. The panel will report on how to get better information into the hands of medical consumers, patients, so they can reward high-quality doctors and health plans with their business, let the market speak with full information and, of course, avoid risky practitioners or health plans that do not have adequate records in this regard. at ways to strengthen the national practitioner data bank. It is a very helpful data base the Federal Government keeps on penalties, such as license revocation, taken by State licensing boards and hospitals against doctors who have or might put patients at risk, particularly doctors that may move from State to State. The data bank contains data on malpractice awards. These data are now available to hospitals and group practices, and it helps them screen doctors. Ultimately, I think we ought to make it available to the public as well. This amendment would set that process into motion. Mr. President, many of the reform ideas in the Liability Reform and Quality Assurance Act were proposed and cosponsored by both Democrats and Republicans in the last Congress as part of a comprehensive health care reform effort. A number of those ideas were embraced last year by a group of us who participated in the bipartisan Senate so-called mainstream coalition. We did not have a chance to debate those issues here on the floor in the last Congress. I am delighted that we now have that opportunity, and I am very proud to again join with the occupant of the chair, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], in proposing this amendment, this underlying bill, which I believe is a genuinely moderate malpractice reform bill. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting this amendment. I yield the floor.