Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I had guessed that.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mr. Harry Weinroth on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his liberation from concentration camp, April 30, 1995. Mr. Weinroth was born in Sosnowiec, Poland. At the age of 13 he voluntarily entered a concentration camp so that his father several different camps including Buchenwald, Gross Rosen, and Dachau. Mr. Weinroth lost both parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, three brothers, and one sister in the camps. Only he and one sister survived, whom he found after the war in Germany. Mr. Weinroth along with his sister came to Stamford, CT, in June 1949. He came to this country with nothing but his trade, watchmaking, and promptly started a small business repairing watches. Over the years Bedford Jewelers has grown into a family retail jewelry store--he works there today with his wife, daughter, and son. He still resides in Stamford, and is an active member in the community and his synagogue, Congregation Agudath Sholom. He married his wife, Luba, in 1952, whom he met at a displaced persons camp in Germany in 1948. They have two sons and a daughter, and three grandsons to carry on the family name. A 50th anniversary is worth celebrating, yet an anniversary that represents as much as this one should not and will not go unrecognized. I salute Mr. Weinroth for his courage and perseverance in the face of extreme hardship.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the original Iran-Iraq Non-Proliferation Act, I am pleased to join Senator McCain as well in this amendment to the 1992 act. Regrettably, Iran and Iraq have become no more law abiding during the past 2 years than they were when this law was first enacted. On the contrary, Iraq has attempted by persuasion or force to get the international community to lift economic sanctions while preserving as much as possible its catastrophic weapons capability. Iran, meanwhile, has continued its support for international terrorism. The United States must remain vigilant in its effort to inhibit the destructive capability of these two renegade states. We must do everything we can to prevent them from receiving assistance from any source to pursue international lawlessness. I believe this amendment will strengthen the current legislation and send a strong signal both to the renegade states and to other states which trade with Iran and Iraq that the United States remains committed to tight economic sanctions. There will be consequences for those who trade in embargoed goods with Iran and Iraq, just as there will be consequences for us all if renegade states are able to pursue their destructive objectives without hindrance. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment to strengthen Iran-Iraq sanctions.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from New Mexico. They have spent not weeks, not months, but years in developing this USA tax proposal. It should come as no surprise that this proposal was such a long time in the making since it replaces our current individual and business income tax system. This was an enormous task. But each year, American taxpayers face an enormous task of their own--trying to make sense of the dazzlingly unwieldy and frighteningly complex U.S. Tax Code. In addition to being complicated, our current Tax Code does little to encourage savings and investment and this is in a time when real incomes are down, making Americans even less certain about their economic futures. Our current Code discourages the savings that create the savings pool from which investments can be made. In fact, our Code penalizes savings not once, not twice but three times--first by taxing that money before it can be invested, second by taxing it again as corporate profits, and third by taxing that money when it is distributed as dividends to shareholders. By any yardstick, the savings rate in this country is at a near-crisis point. Our falling private savings combined with our rising deficits have left our net national saving--the amount available for investment in job-creating activities--at record lows. That net national savings has fallen from about 10 percent of GDP in 1973 to less than 2 percent in 1993. As the Senator from Georgia has said, ``by definition what we do as individuals to invest in the collective future of our country comes from our savings.'' I agree with that observation and I would add to that observation by saying that by definition what we should be doing as the creators of the Tax Code is to remove the disincentives in our Code that discourage that investment. The proposal that Senators Nunn and Domenici are introducing today clearly provides an incentive for that saving that we as individuals, and we as a country, so desperately need. This proposal imposes no taxes on savings-- important deductions like the home mortgage deduction and the charitable contribution deduction. In addition the proposal adds a critically important deduction to help families pay for the cost of higher education--as a way to encourage this all-important human investment. And it is significant to note that the proposal allows a full credit for the 7.65 percent of wages that workers pay into the Social Security system. This proposal also goes to great pains to ensure fairness and progressivity. It allows for a living allowance as well as the deductions and credits I have outlined--for a family of four, the living allowance would mean that over $17,000 a year in spending would be tax exempt. In addition, the figures that have been run on this proposal show that it would actually decrease the tax liability for a family making less than $50,000 and leave the tax liability for those making between $50,000 and $100,000 unchanged. In addition, the tax liability of those making between $100,000 and $200,000 would increase by 3 percent and would increase by 4 percent for those making over $200,000. It also ensures that the great majority of people who have been saving all along will not be penalized when they withdraw those savings in their retirement. On the business side, this proposal encourages capital investment by providing for unlimited expensing and encourages the reinvestment of capital gains by deferring taxes on those gains if those gains are reinvested. And while it increases the overall pool of what is subject to the business tax, the proposal also lowers the tax rate overall on businesses. This proposal holds out real promise and I am grateful that my colleagues from Georgia and New Mexico have devoted so much time and effort to ironing out the thousands of necessary details and putting this proposal into legislative form. I look forward to discussing the proposal in greater detail with them and, from what I have seen, their proposal certainly moves us a big step forward toward a tax system that is simpler and fairer as well as a system that increases our capacity as a country to grow and create new jobs.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of this amendment to S. 570, to create a defense export loan guarantee program. I believe the loan guarantee program will be critical to preserving our defense industrial base and is, therefore, an investment in America's long-term security. In the post-cold war period, the United States has rightly reduced its procurement of expensive weapons systems. This has resulted in cost savings to the U.S. Treasury, but it has undermined the financial security of many of the manufacturers. We have encouraged conversion of some of the defense industry into production of other products. However, in the long run, we cannot afford to have all defense manufacturers convert to nondefense production. Even if the world's current trouble spots do not erupt into conflict, prompting another round of rearmament, the U.S. military must maintain an up-to-date inventory of the world's most capable equipment. To do that, we must preserve a minimum threshold of defense production, lest we face either astronomical startup costs or the disappearance of one or more critical defense producers altogether. Current U.S. defense procurement is not sufficient to keep some of these industries going; we must help them in their own efforts to export abroad. I commend the administration for its recent review of arms export policy. That review concluded with the President's decision to preserve the current policy to discourage arms proliferation but to take into account as well U.S. domestic economic considerations in reaching a decision on applications for arms export licenses. I do not propose to change that policy in any respect. While we do not want to make arms export licenses any more freely available than they are under current policy, I believe we should do more to level the playing field for U.S. manufacturers once an export license has been approved. U.S. defense industries face extremely tough competition for arms exports in the current international environment. Not only the United States, but also most of Western Europe have cut defense spending and military procurement budgets. In this shrinking market, U.S. defense manufacturers must compete against European and Canadian manufacturers who benefit from the extensive support--in some cases, including subsidies--of their governments. Buyers have the advantage in the current, competitive international arms market. Having the best product, track record and support network is often not enough to win a competition. In many cases, one must also provide financing for the sale. At present, the only source of financing for U.S. weapons systems exports are commercial banks, whose loan rates often make the price for U.S. weapons exports uncompetitive. French, German, British, Italian and Canadian defense manufacturers can get government-subsidized or guaranteed loans for weapons exports. These governments are prepared to pay [[Page S5514]] a high price to preserve their defense industries and keep jobs at home. In my own State of Connecticut, Norden, a corporation which produces advanced electronic systems for military vehicles, was forced to move some of its production to Canada in order to qualify for the Canadian export loan program essential to Norden's winning a contract for an export sale. Seventy-two Norden workers in Connecticut lost their jobs, good, skilled jobs, as a result. And they are not alone; defense industry workers in Rhode Island, Colorado and elsewhere have had their jobs exported for similar reasons. In the current tight budgetary environment, we cannot afford a new subsidy for the defense industry, but neither can we afford to export highly-skilled, good-paying jobs abroad in order to keep our defense industries alive. This draft legislation fits within those constraints. In many ways, it could serve as a model for the 104th Congress. It is not foreign aid and does not require appropriated funds, yet it leverages the credit of the United States to help a sector of America's manufacturing and high-technology industry compete in the world market. This program is entirely self-financing; exporters and buyers together would provide money to cover the exposure fees and administrative costs associated with each loan. Furthermore, this program could not be used by poor countries to purchase arms they can ill afford; it would only be available to NATO allies, Central European countries moving toward democracy and members of the organization for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. Although limited in scope and requiring financial contributions from participating corporations, this program would be significant for U.S. defense manufacturers. A similar program operated by the State of California since 1985 has produced a steadily growing business in exports of defense equipment to Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand at a consistent 1-percent default rate. By supporting economic competitiveness at very modest cost to the U.S. Treasury, this program could be a model for the 104th Congress. Although I am persuaded that this program will make a significant contribution to U.S. defense manufacturers' competitiveness, I would like to see proof. That is why we have included in the legislation the requirement for a report from the administration on the program's impact after 2 years. It if does not prove to be constructive contribution to the viability of the defense industry that I expect it to be, it should be ended. However, I expect the administration will report that this program has made a big difference in keeping these industries in production and keeping good jobs at home. I invite my colleagues to join us in working for adoption of this legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, very briefly I just wanted to respond to my friend from Mississippi and say we are at a time when, obviously, we have to make some tough choices, a lot of tough choices. There are a lot of rescissions in this bill to cut spending and I am going to support most of them. But it seems to me this is one that does not make sense because of the numbers I cited, which is $8 in economic growth for every $1 we spend in this program. I have to tell my colleague, I know we all hear different messages from our people back home. When I am in Connecticut there is one question that I think is most on people's minds, resonating throughout the State, and I think, throughout the country. The question is: ``Can you do something in Washington to protect my job, to keep my job secure?'' se If people have lost a job, as too many people in my State have, because of manufacturing downsizing, the question becomes: ``What can you do to help me get a new job?'' I know some of the old industries in our State which have downsized, some have even closed, are not going to expand in the near future. The only answer here is to grow the economy. There are tax policies I will look forward to supporting that will encourage capital formation and help make that possible. But it seems to me one of the best things we can do is to create manufacturing extension centers that will reach out to the small- and mid-size companies to help them grow and help them create jobs. This is a program where I feel we make a mistake by cutting a single dollar because this is a program that gives a lot of people out there--people who are worried about their futures--some hope that there is a new and a good job, a high-paying job, around the corner.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the state of manufacturing in this country is mixed. On the one hand our manufacturing productivity is increasing, but on the other hand we are losing manufacturing jobs by the millions. Manufacturing which once was the life blood of our economy is bleeding jobs overseas. We need to provide the infrastructure that insures that manufacturing flourishes. Some kinds of manufacturing have been experiencing a resurgence in the last decade. This resurgence has been dominated by big business, not by small and mid-sized businesses. I am worried about the 381,000 manufacturing companies of less than 500 workers, representing nearly 12 million employees. Taken as a group, these small and mid-sized manufacturers are the source of the largest number of new manufacturing jobs, and, they represent real growth for our economy. Perhaps most importantly, small and mid-sized manufacturers have become the foundation of our manufacturing industry. Larger manufacturers are no longer self-sufficient. Outsourcing is more and more often the most efficient and competitive way to manufacture. Take the example of a Chrysler car. Typically 70 percent of the final product is manufactured by Chrysler itself, the rest is manufactured by a myriad of smaller suppliers. This web of smaller manufacturers have become the core of the manufacturing industry. When U.S. small manufacturers thrive, our manufacturing industry as a whole thrives, and our economy thrives. If our smaller suppliers are not competitive, they compromise the quality of the final product, or more realistically, they lose out to more qualified suppliers abroad. We have to decide how, as a nation, we are going to build our manufacturing infrastructure so that we do not lose these jobs and this potential for economic growth. As I look at our manufacturing competitors, I am struck by how little we do to support this critical component of our economy. American big manufacturers have had the resources to undergo something of a long and painful rebirth. They have learned from their competitors how to modernize their manufacturing processes as well as their products. At one time, it was sufficient to provide new products in a wide variety. Then as more companies had products, being the company with the best price was the order winner. Then, all competitive companies had low prices, and the company with the highest quality products started winning the orders. Now, a company must supply high quality, low cost products, in a wide variety and deliver it exactly when the customer needs it. These demands are tremendous challenges for manufacturing, and unless you have state-of-the-art manufacturing practices, you cannot compete. In the United States we are used to being the leaders in technologies of all kinds. Historically, English words have crept into foreign languages, because we were the inventors of new scientific concepts, technology, and products. Now when you describe the state-of-the-art manufacturing practices you use words like ``kanban'' (pronounced kahn' bahn) and ``pokaoke" (pronounced po kai oke'). These are Japanese words that are known to production workers all over the United States. Kanban is a word which describes an efficient method of inventory management, and pokaoke is a method of making part of a production process immune from error or mistake proof thereby increasing the quality of the end product. We have learned these techniques from the Japanese, in order to compete with them. In a global economy, there is no choice, a company must become state- of-the-art or it will go under. We must recognize that our policies must change with the marketplace and adapt our manufacturing strategy to compete in this new global marketplace. The Manufacturing Extension Program [MEP] is a big step forward in reforming the role of government in manufacturing. This forward looking program was begun under President Reagan, and has received growing support from Congress since 1989. The focus of the MEP is one that historically has been accepted as a proper role of government: education. The MEP strives to educate small and mid-sized manufacturers in the best practices that are available for their manufacturing processes. With the MEP we have the opportunity to play a constructive role in keeping our companies competitive in a fiercely competitive, rapidly changing field. When manufacturing practices change so rapidly, it is the small and mid-sized companies that suffer. They cannot afford to invest the necessary time and capital to explore all new trends to determine which practices to adopt and then to train their workers, invest in new equipment, and restructure their factories to accommodate the changes. The MEPs act as a library of manufacturing practices, staying current on the latest innovations, and educating companies on how to get the best results. At the heart of the MEP is a team of teachers, engineers and experts with strong private sector experience ready to reach small firms and their workers about the latest manufacturing advances. Another benefit of the MEP is that it brings its clients into contact with other manufacturers, universities, national labs and any other institutions Facilitating these contacts incorporates small manufacturers into a manufacturing network, and this networking among manufacturers is a powerful competitive advantage. With close connections, suppliers begin working with customers at early stages of design and engineering. When suppliers and customers work together on product design, suppliers can provide the input that makes manufacturing more efficient, customers can communicate their specifications and timetables more effectively, and long term productive relationships are forged. These supplier/ customer networks are common practice in other countries, and lead to more efficient and therefore more competitive, design and production practices. The MEP is our important tool in keeping our small manufacturers competitive. We are staying competitive in markets that have become hotbeds of global competition, and we are beginning to capture some new markets. More importantly, companies that have made use of MEP are generating new jobs rather than laying off workers or moving jobs overseas. These companies are growing and contributing to real growth in the U.S. economy. For each Federal dollar invested in a small or midsized manufacturer through the MEP, there has been $8 of economic growth. This is a program that is paying for itself by growing our economy. Let me share with you some examples of success stories from the MEP. When the Boeing Co. told Manufacturing Development Inc. or, MDI, it needed to meet Boeing's stringent D1-9000 quality standards, or risk losing Boeing's business, MDI Vice President Michael Castor knew the company needed help. The 30-person sheet metal fabricator located in Cheney, KS, depended on its work with Boeing, its largest customer. The company called the Mid-America Manufacturing Technology Center, an extension center in Kansas, which provided MDI employees on-site training in statistical process control and helped MDI secure a State job training grant that paid for half of the training costs. MDI not only received certification by Boeing and retained its largest customer, but it also estimates that it will achieve a 50 percent reduction in scrap, reduce rework by 25 percent, and realize an annual savings of $132,000. Another example is HJE Co. Inc., a 4-person manufacturer of gas atomization systems in Watervliet, NY. HJE produces ultrafine metal powders from molten metal. These powders are used, for example, in solder and braze pastes and dental alloys. When Joe Strauss, founder of HJE, first came to the New York MEP he had lots of good ideas and some sketches and rough drawings. The New York MEP helped him turn those ideas into blueprints of manufacturable parts, and helped him find machine shops to make the parts. Strauss spent 6 months getting assistance and learning how to become a world class manufacturer. After learning to use them with the help of the MEP, Strauss eventually purchased his own computer-aided design and manufacturing equipment and software. Now HJE is one of only four companies of its kind in the world and the only one in the United States. Joe is now used as a materials expert for others who seek help from the New York MEP. HJE, by the way, is expanding and moving into new areas in manufacturing. These are just a couple of examples. There are many others. Each MEP is funded after a competitive selection process, and currently there are 44 Manufacturing Technology Centers in 32 States. One requirement for the centers is that the States supply matching funds, ensuring that centers are going where there is a locally supported need. The appropriated funds for fiscal year 1995 would allow the Commerce Department to fund over 30 more centers, to further cover manufacturing areas in the country. The funds are required to grow the program and reach the States that still need them. Not only are the appropriated funds needed to grow the program, but to maintain the centers that were once covered by DOD funds. Historically, the DOD has covered the cost of some manufacturing extension centers because of its vested interest in maintaining a strong defense manufacturing base. DOD funding of the MEP has been a casualty of the defense cuts as defense dollars become tighter. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Manufacturing Extension Program. The MEP provides the arsenal of equipment, training, and expertise that our small and mid-sized manufacturers need to keep them in the new global economic battlefield. The investment is in our future economic health, in high wage jobs for our workers, in the American dream. Investment in the education of our small and mid-sized manufacturers is investment in our future. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici and other cosponsors of this resolution designating the week of October 15, 1995, as Character Counts Week. This is the second year I have worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to promote character education. Our goal is to support the many Americans who are working to strengthen the moral fiber of our children through character education. The resolution specifically embraces six ethical values common to this diverse group of Senators and, we believe, to all Americans-- trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. We are dedicated to instilling these six pillars of character in our youth. Too many forces in our society teach children to reject these values and too few individuals and institutions reinforce them. The media often glorifies deceitful, violent characters. The breakdown of the family has left many children without consistent caretakers and role models that can nourish their moral development. Even some government policies send the wrong message. Our current welfare system, for example, fosters dependency rather than responsibility and self- sufficiency. This resolution reflects our support for the education, community, and religious organizations that are working at the grassroots level to promote character education. As politicians we should reinforce their efforts wherever we can. Too often politicians are wary of using their position and the law to reinforce specific moral objectives for fear of weakening the separation of church and state. But the laws society enacts and observes are ultimately expressions of values. They serve as a moral structure for our civilization. We cannot and should not downplay this connection. This resolution will help reinforce the importance of developing our children's character and will add momentum to the many character education programs underway today. I am committed to working with my colleagues to find other ways to build character education into public and private programs through our political leadership and legislative work.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, for those who have followed NCAA basketball this year, not only through the sports pages and TV and radio coverage, but through the statements of various Members of this Chamber, I did not want to disappoint my colleagues by not rushing to the floor this morning to express my pride at the extraordinary victory of the University of Connecticut women's basketball team in defeating Tennessee yesterday and claiming the national championship. Mr. President, there is a part of me that wants to do a Dick Vitale impersonation here on the floor--raise the voice, shake the hands--but I am going to abide by the rules of appropriate discourse, at least in this Chamber, and simply say with quiet pride what a great season this has been for this University of Connecticut women's basketball team. How much they have taught us, not just in the fact that they had an undefeated season, which makes them only the second women's team in NCAA history to finish a championship season undefeated; not just that they won the championship yesterday against a very formidable Tennessee team, but for all they have done for our State of Connecticut to make us proud, to make us feel a little bigger than we normally feel in a relatively small State, not only helping us through the winter and raising our sights as we come out of the recession, but reminding us what sports is all about. Women's basketball at the collegiate level has reached the big time. It has not, obviously, at the professional level, and in some ways because of that inequity, this sport remains as pure as sport was meant to be. And in the midst of strikes and contract disputes in other sports, in the midst of extraordinary competition for enormous salaries and promotional contracts, it is great to see a sport, and in this case, to focus in on this team of UConn Huskies, that plays the game for the one another and to their coach. These are true scholar-athletes. The All American Player of the Year, Rebecca Lobo, has an extraordinary average, was considered for a Rhodes scholarship, and can make a contribution in whatever she has done. This team taught us something else about teamwork. Some of the other sports which we watch are focused on not only the extraordinary accomplishment of the performers, but the enormous egos of the athletes. Rebecca Lobo was criticized a while ago gently by her coach for being too selfless, for not shooting the ball enough, for being too focused on team play. And she still managed, in spite of all that, to be there yesterday at the critical moments to help turn the game around, and in the last 2 minutes, to take this team ahead. So, UConn Huskies women, your coach Geno Auriemma, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for bringing the championship back to Connecticut. And we thank you, too, for reminding us what American sports was meant to be, has traditionally been, and what you have made it again in our time. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, tomorrow marks the 174th anniversary of the opening of the struggle by the Greek people for independence from the Ottoman Empire. I am honored to be a sponsor of the resolution designating tomorrow, March 25, 1995, as Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy. Greek Independence Day celebrates the independence the Greek people achieved after almost 400 years of foreign control. In all those years of domination and repression, the people of Greece retained their passion for democracy. This passion is alive and well today. The United States and Greece have a long history of shared democratic ideals and beliefs, when our Founding Fathers designed the American form of government, they took inspiration from the democratic traditions of ancient Greece. Later, Greek patriots in the struggle against the Ottoman Sultan followed the example of the American Revolution in their fight for freedom and their efforts to design their new government. In this century, Greece has been an outstanding ally and leader in the fight for democracy; 9 percent of all Greeks, gave their lives to help stop the tyranny of Hitler. Together Greece and the United States fought against communism throughout the cold war and together we must work to solve the problems of the post-cold-war era. On this special occasion, it is fitting to pay tribute to all the contributions that the Greek people have made to American life, both as valuable members of our own society and as members of a nation that was the birthplace of democracy.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Coats today to introduce the Low-Income School Choice Demonstration Act. I know Senator Coats shares my deep commitment to improving education. All of our children deserve and need the best possible academic instruction. Increasing school choice will help give more children the opportunity they deserve. Our bill authorizes up to 20 demonstration projects to determine the effects on students and schools of providing education vouchers to low- income parents for their children. Parents would use the vouchers to choose the public or private school their child would attend. The demonstration programs will give participating children new opportunities, and will provide those participating children new opportunities, and will provide those of us seeking to strengthen education with a fair evaluation of private school choice programs. Education in America is in need of change. We are failing too many of our children. The performance of our kids lags behind that of children living in those countries we compete with in the global marketplace. While we have many fine schools, we have too many that do not give our children what they need to succeed. I have visited many excellent public schools in Connecticut, and have met countless dedicated and effective teachers and administrators. I command them for their work and am committed to supporting their efforts. At the same time, it is clear that the public schools are not working for all students, particularly in our poorest communities. We have a responsibility to seek more effective ways to address the needs of these children. School choice programs expand opportunity for low-income children. They provide low-income children with the same options other kids have. For some that may mean another public school, for others a private or parochial school. Private school choice opens doors for children in our poorest neighborhoods, where religious schools--particularly Catholic schools-- often have had better results than public schools. I have long believed what some research has shown--that the success of parochial schools is in part due to their students' and teachers' shared beliefs and strong moral values. Lower-income parents who want their kids to learn in a religious environment should have that chance, just as wealthier parents do. Some fear that school choice programs will hurt our public schools, but I think choice will help revitalize public education. A national panel of experts, the Panel on the Economics of Educational Reform, recently concluded that public schools have few incentives for innovation. Good, effective teachers are often not rewarded by greater pay. Programs are rarely evaluated systematically to see if they are working. Choice programs and charter school programs hold schools accountable for results. Voucher programs let parents and students reward good schools--public or private schools--with their business. That increased competition may help those students who stay put as well as those who choose to attend a new school. As a U.S. Senator I have worked to promote public and private school choice. Last year Congress passed legislation, which I had co-authored, to promote the establishment of charter schools--public schools that are freed from burdensome regulatory requirements and are instead held accountable for improving the performance of their students. I am pleased that Congress made a commitment to public school choice, and will work to ensure the new program the rapidly growing interest in charter schools. This year Senator Coats and I are introducing legislation that establishes demonstration programs that provide parents with the ability to choose private or public schools, including public charter schools and private parochial schools. The demonstrations will allow low-income children to attend the public or private school of their choice. The bill will also fund evaluations so that we can learn more about how voucher programs affect public and private schools, and how they affect our children's ability to learn. Improving public education is and must be our country's top priority. What we are trying to do is find new ways to accomplish that goal. School choice programs should be tested. They create competition for failing bureaucracies and failing schools. They reward public and private schools that work. And, most important, they give our poorest students the chance for a better education and a better life. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coats for his leadership on this bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to ensure our children have the education and opportunity they deserve.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of a broad-based line-item veto which would allow the President to strike spending as well as tax provisions. I am a relative newcomer to this institution. But in my time here I have observed that the system of rules we live under makes it far easier to spend money than to save money. Maybe that is just a fact of life. Most Americans would probably agree that spending is easier than saving. We have the same problem here in Congress. The line-item veto may not fix all of our budgetary problems; in fact, I am reasonably sure it will not do so. But I do believe it is worth a try to make a dent in those problems, and for that reason, I support giving the President greater authority to strike spending as well as tax expenditures, subject to a congressional override. And if the line-item veto does not work, I support getting rid of it--for that reason I am pleased that there is general agreement among both sides that any line-item veto provision ought to have a sunset provision. Certainly the current system has its flaws. Let me give you just one example, a $16 million urban tree-planting program at the Small Business Administration. I do not believe in governing by anecdote, but the repeated and unsuccessful attempts to kill this program are illustrative. The administration has tried to get rid of this program at least twice. The SBA does not want the money--tree planting is not their specialty. The House has tried on numerous occasions to get rid of this program because it simply makes no sense for the SBA to be in the business of planting trees. The Kerrey-Brown group, of which I was a participant, tried to get rid of this program. But it has proved to be the Freddy Krueger of Federal programs--no matter what you do to kill it, this program survives. I am hoping the line-item veto proposals before us will make it possible to finally get at programs like this tree-planting program. I happen to be a big fan of trees and I spend a lot of my time working to keep our air and water clean enough to keep those trees alive. I just do not think we can afford to have the SBA running a program like this, and I suspect most of my colleagues agree with me. I am also convinced that the reason we have had a tough time getting at this program is because it has been wrapped into larger bills. When I was in the State Senate in Connecticut, it was common wisdom that the way to pass the tough items was to bury them in the big bills and keep your fingers crossed that they would slip through unnoticed. Given our deficit, I just do not think we can afford this approach anymore. In addition, I am firmly convinced that tax expenditures should also be subject to any line-item veto passed by this Chamber. Put simply, new taxes should be put to the test in the same way as new spending. As a proponent of a capital gains cut as a way to increase needed investment and saving in this country, I am well aware that adding new tax expenditures to the line-item veto bill could put some tax investment incentives at risk. However, that is a risk I am willing to take if the end result will be more discipline, and fewer loopholes, in our Tax Code. We have heard a lot about possible abuses of the line-item veto by the executive branch. I come from one of the 43 States with a line-item veto in our State Constitution. It is a pretty tough provision-- allowing the Governor to ``disapprove any item or items of any bill making appropriations of money.'' And the provision has worked just fine--the legislative branch has not been overthrown, and no revolutions have occurred. By most accounts, the provision has been a success. Despite all of this, I do harbor some concerns that an Executive might use this provision for political ends. Surely we are not above politics. I have or appeared to target, programs which are priorities of this administration--programs like national service and the various technology programs like TRP and ATP. For this reason, I am pleased that there is general agreement that passage of a line-item veto should be something of an experiment--that it should sunset after a few years so that we can debate its effectiveness and, if it has been successful, pass it again. A sunset provision should help keep the executive branch away from abuses. Mr. President, I support a line-item veto which covers a broad range of spending and tax cuts, and I hope my colleagues will do so as well.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join a broad bipartisan group of eight Senators led by my distinguished colleagues, Senators Rockefeller and Gorton, in introducing a bill to address one of the most important issues facing this Congress--product liability reform. This is my third effort to pass much-needed changes to the product liability system and, after years of frustration, I believe we are finally going to succeed. This year's bill builds on last year's effort and is the fairest and strongest bill possible. No one should be praising the status quo. The current system is inefficient, unpredictable, costly, slow, and inequitable. And everyone pays: plaintiffs, defendants, manufacturers, product sellers, and consumers. This bill addresses these problems by making a number of balanced and limited changes intended to reduce transaction costs, provide greater certainty to everyone, and increasing the competitiveness of U.S. firms. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I did not join the fight for product liability reform until my second year in the Senate. I came here as a former State attorney general who had been active in consumer protection. I knew that some consumer groups opposed Federal product liability legislation, and as a former State official, I was hesitant to step into an area that had traditionally been the province of State law. In fact, as attorney general of Connecticut and a member of the National Association of Attorneys General, I voted for resolutions opposing earlier Federal product liability legislation that would have swept away virtually all State product liability laws and repealed the doctrine of strict liability for product defects. But as I traveled around the State of Connecticut, this problem-- product liability litigation--kept coming up in my discussions with small business men and women, with small and large manufacturing companies, and with plant managers. They told me of problems they had experienced with the product liability system, of the expense of defending yourself even when you win, of the cost of settlements to avoid paying litigation costs, and of the time and energy that product liability suits diverted away from the business of designing new products and bringing them to market. One of my favorite examples concerns an experience of Mr. Robert Lyons, who runs the Bilco Co. in New Haven, CT. Bilco, a small company, manufactures roof hatch doors. Several years ago, Mr. Lyons and his colleagues at Bilco invented an ingenious safety feature called the LadderUP Safety Post. This device attached to the ladder that led to the roof hatch. When the hatch was opened, the LadderUP Safety Post would automatically extend through the opening to a height several feet above the level of the roof. This allowed a person climbing out of the top of the hatch to hold on to the pole as he or she stepped up onto the roof. After Bilco put the LadderUP Safety Post on the market, Bilco was sued by a person who had fallen when using a Bilco hatch without the device. The plaintiff argued that Bilco should only have sold its roof hatch with a LadderUP device, and that Bilco should not have permitted its customers simply to buy a hatch. The plaintiff also argued that Bilco should have more widely advertised its product. Despite the fact that anyone who uses a ladder surely must know that you have to be careful when climbing on the top rungs, and the fact that the builder had chosen not to buy or retrofit the hatch with a LadderUP device, Bilco ended up paying $20,000 to settle this case out of court, judging that to be cheaper than going through full litigation. Now there are some people who will say, so what is wrong with that? After all, a person who was injured received $20,000 to help compensate for his injuries. But the flaw with the reasoning should be apparent. Private businesses cannot print money. A $20,000 payment here was $20,000 less to be invested in new plant equipment, in developing new products, or hiring new people. And what did Mr. Lyons and Bilco actually do to deserve having to pay $20,000? They invented and put on the market a new product, a new safety device. They did not build the building with the roof hatch, they did not install the hatch, they were not the ones who decided to forego purchasing a LadderUP Safety Post for use with the hatch. All they did was to build a better mousetrap. And for that, a lawyer beat a path to their door. The injustice of this case points out a fundamental problem with our product liability system. At a time when we need to be rebuilding our country's manufacturing base, to be promoting innovation in our manufacturing sector, to be designing, building and bringing to market the next generation of high-quality, high-value added products the world will need, our liability system chills innovation like a bucket of cold water. The debate should really center around consumers, because it is consumers who suffer because of this system, not simply businesses. Consumers are the ones who have to pay higher prices in order to cover product liability-related costs. If a ladder costs 20 consumers--not businesses--end up paying that 20 percent premium. Consumers are also the ones who suffer when valuable innovations do not occur, or when needed products like life-saving medical devices or earthquake shock absorbers do not come to market because no one will supply the necessary raw materials. Last term, at a hearing on product liability and sales of raw materials for medical devices, Mr. Mark Reily described what life would be like for his then 9-year-old son, Thomas Reily, if he could no longer obtain a replacement for the silicone shunt in Thomas' head: ``The fluid builds pressure inside the head, like steam building inside a locked pressure cooker. If left untreated, it is a well-documented fact that the patient will initially suffer severe brain damage, become comatose and ultimately die.'' Mr. Reily pleaded for us to reform our product liability laws to ensure that raw materials for Thomas' shunt will continue to be available to the shunt's makers. Mark and Thomas Reily are consumers who are being hurt, not helped, by our product liability system. The point that Mr. Reily and his son drove home is that the best interests of consumers as a whole are not always identical to the interests of people who are seeking compensation. The people who suffer or die because a new drug or medical device was never developed, or was delayed in its development, are hurt as surely as those who suffer because a device malfunctioned or a drug was improperly designed. These silent victims of our product liability system's chilling effect on innovation are consumers whose interests also deserve protection. Of course, even for its putative beneficiaries, people who are injured by defective products, the legal system hardly can be said to work well. GAO, in its 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. This is a very long time for an injured person to wait for compensation. In some instances too, our product liability laws have erected barriers to suit that just do not make sense. For example, in some States, the statute of limitations--the time within which a lawsuit can be brought--begins to run even though the injured person did not know they were injured and could not have known that the product was the cause. In those States, the time in which to bring a suit can expire before the claimant knows or could ever know there is a suite to bring. Mr. President, no one will argue that this bill will cure all the ills in our product liability system. That would require a gargantuan overhaul and I doubt we can reach agreement as to what that would look like. But we can, I believe, work to enact a balanced package of reforms that works incrementally to eliminate the worst aspects of our current system, to restore some balance to our product liability system. I believe this bill is just such a balanced package. For people injured by defective products, this bill makes a set of very important and beneficial changes. First, it enacts uniform, nationwide statute of limitations of 2 years from the date the claimant knew or should have discovered both the fact he or she was injured and the cause of the injury. Injured people will no longer lose the right to sue before they knew both that they were hurt and that a specific product caused their injury. Second, this bill will force defendants to enter alternative dispute resolution processes which can resolve a case in months rather than years. If the defendant unreasonably refuses to enter into ADR, it can be liable for all of claimant's costs and attorney's fees. On the other hand, if a plaintiff unreasonably refuses to enter ADR, she will suffer no penalty. For workers who face possible injury in the workplace, this bill will reform the product liability system to give employers a stronger incentive to provide a safe workplace. Under current law, an employer is often permitted to recoup the entire amount of workers compensation benefits paid to an employee who was injured by a defective machine, even if the employer contributed significantly to the injury by, for example, running the machine at excessive speeds or removing safety equipment. This essentially means that an employer can end up paying nothing despite the fact that their misconduct was a significant cause of the injury. This bill would change this. When an employer is found, by clear and convincing evidence, to be partly responsible for an injury, the employer loses recoupment in proportion to its contribution to the injury. This does not change the amount of money going to the injured person, but it makes the employer responsible for its conduct. For manufacturers, this bill reforms the product liability system to establish a nationwide standard for punitive damages of proof of conscious, flagrant indifference to public safety by clear and convincing evidence. The clear and convincing evidence standard is already the law in over 25 States. Punitive damages in these product liability cases would also be limited to the greater of $250,000 or three times the amount of economic damages. The American College of Trial Lawyers and ALI support this provision. It will bring some reasonable limits to what too often just results in windfalls to particular claimants instead of the original purpose--punishing defendant's wrongful behavior. Manufacturers of durable goods--goods with life expectancy over 3 years that are used in the workplace--will also be assured that they cannot be sued more than 20 years after they deliver a product. This will bring an end to suits such as the one in which Otis Elevator was sued over a 75-year-old elevator that had been modified and maintained by a number of different owners and repair persons through the decades. By the way, this same provision will not apply to household goods such as refrigerators, and is only intended to cover those workplace injuries that are already covered by workers compensation. Manufacturers will also have some protection against ``deep pocket'' liability. While the bill still permits States to hold all defendants jointly liable for economic damages such as lost wages, foregone future earnings, past and future medical bills, and cost of replacement services, noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering will be apportioned among codefendants on the basis of each defendant's contribution to the harm. In addition, if the plaintiff misused or altered a product, or used the product under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the manufacturers share of the damages will also be reduced. For wholesalers and retailers, they will, in the majority of cases, be relieved of the threat that they can be held liable for the actions of others. Under current law, for example, the owner of the corner hardware store could be sued for injuries resulting from a power saw just as if she was the manufacturer of a power saw, even if she had no input in the design or assembly of the power saw and had done nothing other than to inspect a sample to make sure there were no obvious flaws and to put the items on the shelf. For our American economy and industrial base, passage of this product liability reform legislation will move us back to promoting innovation and the development and commercialization of new products. Passing this bill will create and save jobs here, not overseas. After years of debate, this compromise bill balances important issues: It is pro-business and pro-consumer. It is pro-innovation and pro-safety. But most importantly, it finally balances the scales of justice properly to ensure that victims of defective products remain compensated while consumers receive the best products available. It is incremental reform. And it is a key component of any strategy for long- term economic growth, and for rebuilding our country's manufacturing base. Let me say finally, that in the upcoming months, this bill will be debated over and over. In that rhetoric and inevitable soundbites, one thing should not be lost. This bill does not absolve a company from making an unsafe product. If a company has made a defective product, it must be held fully accountable. Period. But when a company does follow the rules and makes a safe product, it should not have to settle frivolous claims simply to avoid the expense of litigation and protect will be awarded against it. The time has come for us to move forward, to give this balanced package a chance for full consideration by this body. We owe it to the American people to look beyond the rhetoric. We owe it to the American people to pass this bill. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support and enact these overdue reforms.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am really honored to have the opportunity to join in an expression of gratitude and tribute and, really, thanks to Chaplain Halverson. His presence has really enriched the 6 years that I have been privileged to be in the U.S. Senate--by the warmth and grace of his personality, by the strength of his faith, and by the profound depth of his humanity and kindliness, the spirit of kindliness which just emits from him all the time. He also has reminded us, by his daily public words as Chaplain, of the words that are over the door to the Chamber, which are ``In God We Trust.'' And he has reminded us, in the words of the Psalmist, that the honor that we have been given here comes from the Lord. With that recognition, I think he has helped us proceed with more of both a sense of humility and a sense of purpose than we would otherwise have had. Chaplain Halverson is a true student of both the Old and the New Testament. He is a son of both the Old and the New Testament. And I think in his life he has been an exemplar of the values that are contained in the aspirations that are expressed for those of us here in his daily life. So I cannot thank him enough. I cannot tell him how much I hope we have the opportunity to stay in touch. And I can benefit from his counsel and personal warmth and strength. I wish him all of God's blessings with his family in the years ahead. I thank the Chair. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. The Reverend Dr. Richard C. Halverson

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the proposed amendment. First, let me say that I am concerned that among our early acts in this 104th Congress we are about to cut $1.9 billion dollars out of our defense budget. Among the cuts proposed, are cuts to our critical technology development programs. Since technological superiority will win the battles of tommorow, we are stealing funds that will determine the readiness of future generations, to pay for defense emergencies today. I believe these actions are a clear and present danger to our defense capability. In our zeal to increase defense readiness and fund operations while we control spending, control Government proliferation, control the deficit we may be laying the groundwork for inevitable future inferiority in critical defense technologies. This amendment only increases the damage that is being done to this critical technology development effort. Military readiness is at the forefront of the defense agenda for both the administration and many of my colleagues here in Congress. I share their concern that our military must be fully prepared to insure national security. This is not an option, this is our responsibility. At the same time, some of my colleagues are proposing and voting for cuts in defense technology development programs that are critical to the defense readiness of tomorrow. ARPA and Dual Use Our current technological superiority has not evolved overnight. DOD's secretive Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), the preeminent technology development entity in the world, has been successfully researching and evolving new technology for military applications, in close alliance with the services, for the 37 years since President Eisenhower set it up. In retrospect, it was a truly visionary Presidential accomplishment. What has ARPA done? Most of its efforts are classified, and it has purposely never recorded its history. Let's just look at a list of technologies that we can talk about that ARPA helped evolve: Supercomputing; desktop computers; the internet (formerly ARPAnet); stealth; the entire field of materials science and composites; GPS--the global positioning system run by atomic clocks; laser technology including laser machining; high resolution digital imaging; advanced acoustics; smart weapons; and even the ubiquitous computer mouse. This is only a partial list, but this list alone has revolutionized not only the U.S. warfare machine, but U.S. civilian society. The Technology Programs at Issue: TRP The Technology Reinvestment Project [TRP] has been the first victim of the technology attack. It is designed to be a dual use effort in a program concept first developed by President Bush's Director of ARPA. TRP projects are cost-shared at least 50/50 with industry, competitively selected, industry-led and aimed at civilian and military needs. What are ARPA's TRP teams working on? Item: Head mounted displays. Infantrymen can't walk around with desktop computers. With light-weight, head-mounted displays they can retain full mobility but have a full computer display of the battlefield and real-time intelligence and targeting data before their eyes. Item: Advanced information flow. Military command and control must process an exploding amount of intelligence data immediately to the battlefield for response. But limited communications capacity now clogs our ability to transmit, process, and act on that data. A TRP team is developing digital communications command and control equipment to burst massive new amounts of data through the interpretation and response pipeline at 10 gigabits per second, a 400 percent improvement over today's best equipment. This will be the building block Item: Single chip motion detectors. By reducing motion detection to a single chip accelerometer which can withstand accelerations up to 30,000 times the force of gravity, weapons guidance and navigation systems can be made significantly lighter and more sensitive. This will be critical to the next generation of smart weapons. Item: Uncooled infrared sensors. Desert Storm was launched as a night attack using infrared sensors as the basis for high speed attack operations. Our military needs to own the night and a new generation of cheaper, much more portable uncooled infrared sensors are a crucial enabling technology being developed by a TRP team. Item: Autonomous all-weather aircraft landing. The efficiency of military aircraft is still limited by night and weather conditions. Operations at secondary fields are curtailed in these conditions if a full ground control system is absent, or if these facilities are disrupted or damaged at a primary site. Basing aircraft at a small number of primary bases, is not a good alternative, because our command of the air becomes more vulnerable. A TRP team is working on placing all-weather air traffic and landing control systems into every cockpit, making aircraft independent of ground control availability and weather conditions. Item: Turboalternator. Army gas-guzzling battle vehicles require a vast and vulnerable logistics chain and limit battlefield operations. The next war may not be fought next to Saudi oil refineries. A TRP team is developing a turboalternator so main engines can be switched off, but all equipment and sensors can continue to operate, during silent watch modes. This multiplies fuel efficiency and also makes detection through infrared emissions and engine noise much more difficult. Item: Composite bridging. Military operations continue to be controlled by terrain: every stream or ravine that must be crossed creates a potential strong point for enemy defenders and disrupts the mobility that gives U.S. forces much of their edge. Every time our engineer forces have to bring up cumbersome, heavy bridging equipment for a crossing, enemy defenders can rally and our mobility is disrupted. A TRP team is developing superlight, superstrong composites for superportable bridges to multiply the mobility of our battlefield forces. Item: Precision laser manufacturing. Precision laser machining technology, by making aircraft parts microscopically precise, can make aircraft engines much more efficient. A TRP team, working with higher power density, more focused laser beams and variable pulse formats, aim to double the life of military aircraft engines and sharply improve fuel efficiency and therefore range. Other beneficiaries include shipbuilders, airframe makers, engine makers, and a wide rang of other manufacturing technologies. These examples are the kinds of new technologies we need for future battlefield dominance. ARPA's TRP selection criteria emphasizes nine areas of established military need, from battlefield sensors, to mobility, to prompt casualty treatment, to command and control capability to advanced materials. TRP technology projects also must have civilian application to help cut military costs and link into emerging civilian technologies. TRP is a brand-new effort and many of its investments are high risk. There are no doubt fixes that will need to be applied to the program, and some of its military priorities may require clarification, as with any new program. But to decimate it without even holding a hearing about the cornucopia of technology advances it is spawning is rash, and dangerous to our military technology future. Given some of the other program cuts now on the table, the assault on TRP appears to be the beginning of a larger assault on technology R&D, in general. Given the dangers of the future battlefield, this assault can only provide comfort to future enemies. Conclusion At a time when we need to renew our commitment to defense technology, with an eye toward the necessary control of defense spending, we are cutting back on the very programs poised to solve the problem. We must take advantage of civilian-led technologies. We must control defense spending. We must remain sufficiently superior to our competitors to deter any threats to our national security. We have no choice. If we don't capture the power of technological innovations, we can be sure that our opponents will. This amendment restores $100 million of TRP money to insure that we will be the technological world leaders of tomorrow that we are today. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Laura Philips, who is an American Institute of Physics Fellow, be allowed floor privileges during morning business on this day.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arkansas. Mr. President, let me say first that this has been a remarkable debate, a serious, thoughtful and important debate as befits the subject. I must say personally that the result of it has been my own increased respect for my colleagues and pride in service in this institution. As this debate ends, I wanted to rise briefly to explain why I will vote against the balanced budget amendment. Our national books obviously are out of balance, and that should worry every American because it directly affects every American. We spend too much of our wealth each year on interest payments on the debt, money that could otherwise remain with taxpayers for them to save or invest. Because of the deficit, we jeopardize our capacity to fund vital programs that we need to enhance our security and our futures. We burden our children and their children with a debt that they must pay for obligations that we have incurred but not paid for. This is wrong and must be stopped. That is why I introduced a deficit reduction program during the last session of Congress which would have cut more than $150 billion from our projected debt. That is why I joined with a bipartisan group of colleagues, including Senators Kerrey and Brown, Robb, Gregg, and Graham in introducing another deficit reduction package that would have cut $91 billion from the deficit. That is why I will work with that same group this year to enact further spending cuts. And that is why I will support a line-item veto as a reasonable test of whether greater Presidential authority will be used responsibly to prune unnecessary spending from our Nation's budget. But, Mr. President, I will not support this balanced budget amendment because it freezes forever in our Constitution the response to a fiscal problem--that is budget deficits--that has been a serious problem for only a small part of our history, and it does so in a way that will alter the fundamental allocation of power in the Constitution from elected officials, the President and Congress to unelected judges who will inevitably end up interpreting and enforcing taxing and spending. Mr. President, we should have more respect for the wisdom of those who founded and formed our democracy, if not for our personal capacity to govern responsibly than as expressed in this amendment. I will also vote against this amendment because it takes our Government's responsibility to protect the American people and puts it in a straitjacket that will weaken the Government and make it difficult, if not impossible, for us to respond to serious military, economic or law enforcement threats to our Nation. Reducing the deficit is and must be accepted as a very important national goal and responsibility. But it is not our only national goal and responsibility. Passing this amendment will effectively make everything else the Federal Government may need to do subservient to balancing the budget, and that, in my opinion, is not a prescription for good and strong Government. In a given year, the elected leaders of the American people may decide that they need to spend more to protect our security or our health or our jobs than the balanced budget amendment will allow. They should be free to do that, subject to the will of the people as expressed at the next election. Our aim should be to continue to reduce the deficit each year, both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of our gross domestic product, as we have in the last 2 fiscal years and as we in Congress must for the next fiscal year, even though, sadly, the Administration has not sent us a budget that will do so. Mr. President, the best way to eliminate the deficit is not by forcing into the Constitution our promise to do so. The best way is the hard way--by doing so, by continuing the difficult work of reducing the size of the Federal Government and cutting its costs until we return to a balanced budget. Today, Mr. President, I renew my personal commitment to that work, as I cast my vote against this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join several of my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, although I have reservations concerning the trade sanctions included in the legislation. Fidel Castro's 36-year dictatorship has been catastrophic for Cuba's society and economy. Agricultural and industrial production have been stymied by authoritarian state control. Many of Cuba's most skilled and talented citizens have chosen to risk their lives to achieve freedom elsewhere, including the United States. Meanwhile, living standards for those who remained have fallen steadily. The backward direction of Cuba's development stands in sharp contrast to other states in Central and South America, who have flourished under policies of market and democratic liberalization. Castro is among the last adherents to the bankrupt philosophy of Communist authoritarianism. The Cuban people cannot move forward to the prosperity which their human and natural resources entitle them as long as Castro's authoritarian rule remains intact. The United States must continue to do what it can to help the Cuban people in their struggle for economic and political freedom and to reestablish the rule of law. We also have an obligation to American citizens, many of whom have unresolved property claims against the Castro government, to work for justice on their behalf. At the same time, I believe the United States must balance its goals in Cuba with other important foreign policy objectives, such as free trade and support for market and political reforms in other countries. Accordingly, I associate myself with the objectives of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act and look forward to working with my colleagues to improve the bill particularly in the consideration.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong disapproval at the latest developments in the administration's approach to Bosnia. The national press reported last week the administration's decision to concur with a Contact Group proposal to offer Serbia a complete lifting of U.N. sanctions if it would recognize the independence of Croatia and Bosnia and cut off arms to rebel Serbian armies in both countries. This might have been a reasonable proposal if, as the New York Times put it, ``Serbia's President, Slobodan Milosevic, had a record of honoring his commitments, or if the five-power group had a record of insisting on compliance with its deals. Neither is true.'' This latest step in United States compliance with the Contact Group's policy of appeasement followed the decision just 1 month ago to extend for another 100 days a partial easing of U.N. sanctions on Serbia with the understanding that it would deny assistance to rebel Serbs in both Croatia and Bosnia. During the previous 100-day, sanctions-easing period last fall, SAM 6 missiles mysteriously appeared at Serbian positions in Bosnia and regular soldiers of the Serbian army participated in the Serb attack on Bihac. But since there was no proof of Serbian complicity, the sanctions easing was extended. Two weeks ago, U.N. monitors were temporarily barred from a Serbian airfield during a time when U.N. troops in northern Bosnia observed helicopters travel from Serbia to Bosnian Serb positions in Bosnia. Once again, Serbia created a fact--continued assistance to the Bosnian Serbs--for which there was no documentary proof. Now it appears from press reports that Milosevic has rejected this latest Contact Group offer, just as the Serbs have refused earlier offers--in which the United States has concurred--to effectively legitimize Serbian gains from aggression in exchange for promises to cease fighting. But even if Milosevic were to agree, there is no reason to believe that he would honor a new pledge to cease supporting Serbian aggression in Bosnia now any more than he has any previous similar promise. And even if Milosevic were to accept the Contact Group offer, this would not necessarily persuade the Croatian or Bosnian Serbs to accept the peace plans. Both are well supplied at the moment. They need only wait for a few months until Milosevic finds a way to renew his support, as he has always done. The Contact Group's offer to Milosevic was objectionable from the weakness and indecision on the part of five of the strongest and most principled nations on Earth. It remains wrong on the grounds of realism and practicality, not just because Milosevic rejected it, but because it would not work even if he changed his mind. The further we go down the path of appeasement in the Balkans, the more obvious it becomes that not only does this policy offer no hope of resolving the Bosnian tragedy, it demeans the role of the United States in the world. I am more convinced than ever that we must abandon the policy of weakness and appeasement and return to the lift-and-strike policy President Clinton brought into the Oval Office in 1993.