Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, thank you. I am very proud to join with my colleague from Iowa in cosponsoring and supporting this amendment. A new day has dawned here on Capitol Hill today. A new majority has come to power; but, hopefully, more than a new majority--a new sense of responsiveness to the public, a new understanding of what it means to do the public's business here in Congress, and a new openness to looking at some parts of the operation in Congress which we have previously either not questioned or felt it was inappropriate to question. I must say that over the last couple of years, as I watched the filibuster being used and, I think, in my respectful opinion, ultimately misused and overused, it seems to me that what had originally appeared to be a reasonable idea was being put to very unreasonable use. Therefore, I promised myself that if I was fortunate enough to be reelected by the people of Connecticut to return for the 104th Congress, I would do what I could to try to change this filibuster rule, which I am afraid has come to be a means of frustrating the will of a majority to do the public's business and respond to the public's needs. And so when I heard that Senator Harkin had put this program and plan together, I called him and I said, ``My distinguished colleague and friend, I admire you for what you are doing.'' There are those who undoubtedly will think this is a quixotic effort, that it is a kind of romantic but unfeasible effort. It is important now to make this effort to show that we have heard the message and that we are prepared to not only shake up the Federal Government but shake up the Congress. And not just for the sake of shaking it up, but because of a fundamental principle that is basic to our democracy, that is deep into the deliberations of the Framers of our Constitution and appears throughout the Federalist Papers, which is rule of the majority in the legislative body. It is this majority rule has been frustrated by the existing filibuster rule. So I am privileged to join as a cosponsor with my colleague from Iowa in this effort. Mr. President, whenever I explain to my constituents at home in Connecticut that a minority of Senators can by a mere threat of a filibuster--not even by the continuous debate, but by a mere threat of a filibuster--kill a bill on the Senate floor, they are incredulous. When I tell them that now as a matter of course a Senator needs to obtain 60 votes in order to pass a bill to which there is opposition, frankly, the folks back home are suspicious. When I explain how often the threat of a filibuster has been used to tie the Senate in knots and kill legislation that is actually favored by a majority of Senators--and the filibuster was used more times last year than in the first 108 years of the Senate combined--well, the folks back home honestly think I am exaggerating. Unfortunately, I am not. Those are the facts. Mr. President, when I entered the Senate 6 years ago, I asked to be briefed by a staff person at the Congressional Research Service on the Senate rules. I wanted to figure out how the place worked. I must say, after that briefing, I, like my constituents, was incredulous. I had been the majority leader of the Connecticut State Senate, so I had some familiarity with parliamentary procedures, but I must say I did not understand how the Senate's debate and amendment rules were being used to keep the Senate, presumably the greatest deliberative body in the world, from getting things done. Like many Americans of my generation, I remembered the dramatic filibuster battles of the 1950's and 1960's and assumed that filibusters were relatively uncommon and were employed only in the great issues of the time which divided a country. I assumed--like most Americans, I would guess, drawing from probably the broadest experience America has had with filibusters, which is mainly ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' when James Stewart stood in that magnificent portrayal and carried out a principled filibuster --that filibusters were to be reserved for only the most significant of legislative battles. While I quickly learned that while real filibusters are uncommon, current Senate rules allow the mere threat of a filibuster to rule the way we do or do not do business. The gentleman from the Congressional Research Service used a powerful analogy here. He said to me, ``Senator, you have to think of the Senate as if it were composed of 100 nations, each Senator representing a nation, and each nation has an atomic bomb and can blow up the place any time it wants. And that bomb is a filibuster.'' That may make us feel good about our power and our authority, but it is not the way to run the greatest deliberative body in the world. In fact, I state this with some humility because I do not remember the exact quote, I asked the gentleman from the Congressional Research Service, ``Is there any precedent for this kind of procedure in the history of legislative bodies?'' He said he thought the closest modern precedent was a Senate that sat in Poland in the 18th century which, because of unique historical circumstances that are not to the point, with approximately 700 members, the rule was that nothing could be done without unanimous consent. That, I hope, is not the model that we aspire to copy here. What was once an extraordinary remedy, used only in the rarest of instances, has unfortunately become a commonplace tactic to thwart the will of the majority. Just as insidiously, allowing legislation to be killed on procedural votes, as we so often have here in the Senate, protects us from having to confront the hard choices that we were sent here to make and, in that sense, makes us a less accountable body. Mr. President, this has to end and it will not end unless an effort begins to end it as we are attempting to do here today. As I believe Senator Harkin has indicated, the Senate filibuster rule has actually been changed five times in this century. In most cases, particularly when the changes were substantial, they did not occur the first time the proponents charged the fortress. Perhaps they will not occur on this occasion. But I know Senator Harkin and I are prepared to keep fighting until this change occurs because of what is on the line, which is the credibility and the productivity of the U.S. Senate. The change that we are proposing, as Senator Harkin has indicated, will absolutely stop, to block, to kill Senate action on legislation favored by a majority of the Senate, but it will still protect the ability of that minority to be heard before up or down majority votes on legislation are taken. It will give the minority opposed to what the majority wants to do the opportunity to educate and arouse the public as to what may be happening here to give the public the opportunity perhaps to change the inclination of the majority. The procedure of succeeding votes with 2-day intervals, 60 being required, first 57, 54 and finally a simple majority of Senators being able to work its will--our intent here is to give the minority a chance to make their case and to persuade others but not to continue to grant them an effective veto power which they now enjoy. We recognize that the opposition to this proposal is bipartisan, just as the use of the filibuster rule has been bipartisan. We also understand that as Members of the new minority, Senator Harkin and I perhaps are not the likeliest people to be proposing to limit the powers of the new Democratic minority, but we both firmly believe that regardless of how our resolution may limit our personal options as Members of the minority party in the Senate in the short-term, it is essential that this reform be undertaken now when the problem of filibuster-created gridlock is so fresh in all of our minds. For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate. The Framers of the Constitution, this great fundamental, organic American document considered on which kinds of votes, on which issues the will of the majority would not be enough, that a vote of more than a majority would be required, and the Constitution has spelled those instances out quite clearly. Only five areas: Ratification of a treaty requires more than a majority of the Senate; override by the Senate of a Presidential veto requires more than a majority; a vote of impeachment requires more than a majority; passage of a constitutional amendment requires more than a majority; and the expulsion of a Member of Congress requires more than a majority. The Framers actually considered the wisdom of requiring supermajorities for other matters and rejected them. So it seems to me to be inconsistent with the Constitution that this body, by its rules, has essentially amended the Constitution to require 60 votes to pass any issue on which Members choose to filibuster or threaten to filibuster. The Framers, I think, understood--more than understood--expressed through the Constitution and their deliberations and their writings, that the Congress was to be a body in which the majority would rule. I know that some of our colleagues will oppose the alteration, the amendment, that Senator Harkin and I are proposing on the grounds the filibuster is a very special prerogative that is necessary to protect the rights of a minority. But in doing so, and I say this respectfully, I believe they are not being true to the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, which is that the Congress was the institution in which the majority was to rule, not to be effectively tyrannized by a minority. And the Framers, Madison and the others, who thought so deeply and created this extraordinary instrument that has guided our country for more than 200 years now, developed the system in which the rights of the minority were to be protected by the republican form of government, by the checks and balances inherent in our Government and ultimately by the courts applying the great principles of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, to protect the rights of a minority that might be infringed by a wayward majority. So this procedure that has grown up over the years has turned the intention of the Framers, in my opinion, on its head, and in doing so has not only created gridlock but has given power to a minority as against the will of the majority. The majority in the Senate, as reflecting the majority of the people of the United States, has allowed that minority to frustrate the will of the majority improperly. So I think this is at the heart of the change for which the people have cried out. It is right, and it is fair. It is our belief in that most fundamental of democratic principles, majority rule, that motivates our introduction of this amendment. I am confident that if we ever put this issue, or could put this issue, before the American people for a vote, they would direct us to end the current filibuster practice. Majority rule is not and should not be a controversial proposition. Minority rights are protected by the checks and balances in our system. Mr. President, it is my pleasure as a Senator from Connecticut to welcome the occupant of the chair as a new Member of the Senate. Perhaps you have observed from your viewing of the Senate before you arrived here that our problem seems not to have been that things move through this institution too quickly, that we hastily trample upon the rights of the minority. The problem, if anything--and it is not a bad problem and it does carry out the intention and will of the Framers--is that there are a lot of checks and balances here, and it is often hard to do the people's business and respond to the people's needs, and the filibuster has made it even harder to do so. So I thank the Chair and the Senate for their indulgence. I congratulate again my colleague from Iowa for initiating this forthright and, in its way, courageous attempt to change the status quo, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would certainly yield the floor to my friend from Iowa.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. There is no better not only student but teacher of the rules who understands the rules better than the Senator from West Virginia. I respect him greatly for that. I would make this point and I do think the Senator has made an important point in saying that the problem of the filibuster, to use the term we have been using and perhaps in some measure agreeing on it, the misuse of the filibuster has arisen most frequently on the motion to proceed. I must say that if there was a way that the Chamber could limit or eliminate the opportunity to filibuster on the motion to proceed I would certainly consider that to be a step forward--to put it in a more clear way, if I may, a step toward diminishing the misuse of the power of the filibuster. But it does seem to me that the problem here has arisen most frequently on the motion to proceed but the problem remains the filibuster which is the ability in this Senator's opinion of a minority to frustrate the will of 51 Members of this Senate to represent their constituents and get something done. It has arisen most frequently on the motion to proceed because that is the first time it could arise. My friend and colleague from Iowa has talked about the six occasions in which in the consideration of a typical matter here in the Senate a filibuster could occur. In fact, if one considered amendments and the opportunity to filibuster amendments, there are even more than six. But let us talk about the six. It is as if there were six hurdles or six obstacles on the passage of a measure. And it is true that the first hurdle is the motion to proceed. So the filibuster has arisen most often on that because it is the first hurdle. If we eliminated that hurdle, I would say that would be a step toward eliminating or diminishing the misuse. But the fact other hurdles would remain and would be there is an opportunity to frustrate the will of the majority and to bring gridlock. I say that with great respect for my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. I thank him for yielding the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if I may respond to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, it is true--and I do not have the statistics in front of me, but my recollection tells me that a good number of the filibusters that have occurred have occurred on the motion to proceed. But it is my opinion that the fact that many filibusters occurred on the motion to proceed does not encourage or lead to the conclusion that the problem is the motion to proceed. The filibusters have occurred on the motion to proceed because that has generally been the first opportunity that opponents of a measure have had to filibuster. The fact that a measure can be blocked by conducting a filibuster of the motion to proceed, of course, makes it even more frustrating. The very attempt to proceed to a matter of legislation or a nomination can be filibustered before the Senate even gets to the substance of it, but breaking the filibuster of the motion to proceed does not eliminate the threat of a filibuster of the bill itself. This Senator can remember at least one example which makes the point that I am trying to make. On product liability reform, my recollection is that in the 102d Congress the filibuster occurred on the motion to proceed and cloture could not be obtained. In the 103d Congress, because of changes of attitude, because of changes of the membership of the Senate, because a number of Members of the Chamber had committed to at least let the Chamber get to the substance, it was apparent that the filibuster of the motion to proceed would be broken, that cloture would be granted. But then a filibuster did begin on the bill itself, after the motion to proceed was granted, and that filibuster was again successful in blocking the will of the majority. So I would most respectfully say to the Senator from West Virginia that it does seem to me that, though the filibuster has been more frequently a problem on the motion to proceed, the problem is the filibuster. And if once the opponents of a measure, a minority, are not successful and let the motion to proceed be agreed to, then this minority has the right to frustrate the will of the majority on the substance of the matter once it comes before the Chamber.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President. I rise to introduce a bill which will improve the quality of our information on persons and families in poverty, and which will make more equitable the distribution of Federal funds. The Poverty Data Correction Act of 1995 is cosponsored by Senators Jeffords, Moynihan, and Lautenberg. This bill requires the Bureau of the Census to adjust for differences in the cost of living, on a State-by-State basis, when providing information on persons or families in poverty. The current method for defining the poverty population is woefully antiquated. The definition was developed in the late 1960's based on data collected in the late 1950's and early 1960's. The assumptions used then about what proportion of a family's income is spent on food is no longer valid. The data used to calculate what it costs to provide for the minimum nutritional needs, not to mention what minimum nutritional needs are, no longer applies. Nearly everyone agrees that it is time for a new look at what constitutes poverty. And, I am pleased to be able to report that the National Academy of Science, through its Committee on National Statistics, is studying this issue. But there is a more serious problem with out information on poverty than old data and outdated assumptions. In calculating the number of families in poverty, the Census Bureau has never taken into account the dramatic differences in the cost of living from state to state. Recent calculations from the academic community show that the difference can be as much as 50 percent. Let me give you an example. Let's say that the poverty level is $15,000 for a family of four. That is, it takes $15,000 to provide the basic necessities for the family. In some States, where the cost of living is high, it really takes $18,750 to provide those basics. In other States, where the cost of living is low, it takes only $11,250 to provide those necessities. But when the Census Bureau counts the number of poor families, they don't take those differences into account. But this is more than just an academic problem of definition. These Census numbers are used to distribute millions of Federal dollars. Chapter 1 of the elementary and Secondary Act allocates Federal dollars to school districts based on the number of children in poverty. States like Connecticut, where the cost of living is high, get fewer Federal dollars than they deserve because cost differences are ignored. Other States, where the cost of living is low, get more funds than they deserve. It is important that we act now to correct this inequity. This bill provides a mechanism for that correction. Thank you Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be included in the record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Electronic Benefits Regulatory Relief Act of 1994. This bill is also cosponsored by Senators Breaux, Domenici, Feinstein, Pressler, and Hatfield. When passed, this bill will eliminate one of the major barriers to making the banking system more accessible to those receiving government benefits like Aid to Families with Dependent Children or Food Stamps. If this bill is not passed, we will have missed an opportunity to reduce the cost of government services, and an opportunity to make the delivery of government services, more efficient and humane. This legislation is necessary to reverse a regulation issued by the Federal Reserve Board. That ruling, issued last March, said that the Electronic Benefit Transfer [EBT] cards issued by States are subject to the same liability limits as ATM or credit cards. On the surface that seems reasonable--a card is a card and there seems little reason to differentiate between cards to withdraw government benefits from a bank and cards to withdraw earnings or savings from a bank. But, as is often the case with regulations, what appears on the surface isn't necessarily the whole story. With the simple extension of this regulation to EBT cards, the Federal Reserve has dramatically altered social benefits legislation, extended the Electronic Funds Transfer Act into a realm it was not intended to cover, and created for states a new liability of unpredictable size. This bill seeks to reestablish the legislative intent governing Funds Transfer Act, and at the same time limit a State's exposure to liability if they choose EBT over checks and coupons. Electronic Benefit Transfer Cards are simply an extension of current technology into the delivery of government benefits. Instead of receiving checks or coupons, recipients receive an EBT card. With that card they can access the cash benefits whenever and wherever they choose. They can withdraw as little as five dollars, or as much as the system will allow in a single transaction. Recipients can use their card at the supermarket instead of food stamps the way millions of Americans now use credit or debit cards to pay for food. EBT cards offer recipients greater protection from theft than current methods of payment. Without the associated pin number, the EBT card is useless. Checks are easily stolen and forged. Food Stamp coupons, once stolen, can be used by anyone and can even be used to buy drugs on the black market. EBT cards provide recipients access to a banking system that is frequently criticized for shunning them. It is often the case that the only way a recipient can get his or her check cashed is by paying an exorbitant fee to some nonbanking facility. Several Senators have introduced or supported bills requiring banks to cash government checks. Their goal was to provide these individuals access to the same services most Americans enjoy. Those bills will be unnecessary when EBT cards replace checks. EBT cards can be used at a number of locations at any hour of the day or night and no fee is charged to the recipient for transactions. The action by the Federal Reserve will stop all of these benefits from happening. State and local governments have indicated that if Regulation E is enforced they will not go forward with EBT. John Michaelson, the director of social services in San Bernardino County, CA, points out that while San Bernardino County was selected as the pilot site for the California EBT development, that project will not go forward as long as Regulation E applies. Similarly, Governor Carlson of Minnesota recently wrote to me indicating that the plans to expand EBT statewide in Minnesota will be halted by the application of Regulation E. Letters of support for this legislation have come from Governor Pete Wilson of California, Governor David Walters of Oklahoma, Governor Mike Sullivan of Wyoming, Governor Edwin W. Edwards of Louisiana, Governor Arne H. Carlson of Minnesota, the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, the American Public Welfare Association, the National Association of Counties the National Governors Association, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Association. I ask unanimous consent that these letters, along with the letter from Mr. Michaelson, be printed in the Record immediately following my statement. The dilemma that faces States is that simply switching from checks and coupons to EBT cards, because of Regulation E, creates a new liability. Stolen benefit checks and coupons are not replaced except in extreme circumstances. Regulation E requires that all but $50 of any benefits stolen through an EBT card must be replaced. The effect of the Federal Reserve's action is that the simple act of changing the method of delivery imposes on the States a liability of unknown magnitude. This action by the Federal Reserve is inconsistent with the legislative intent that created the benefit programs. The legislation for both Food Stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children--the two largest programs included in EBT--are quite clear in specifying that lost or stolen benefits will be replaced only in extreme circumstances. We should not allow that legislation to be changed through regulation. This action is also inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The EFTA is about the relationship between an individual and his or her bank. It is designed to protect the individual in that relationship because of the dramatic disparity in power between the individual and the bank. In EBT, any relationship between the bank and the individual is mediated by the State. The State sets up a single account which all recipients draw upon. If there is a mistake, either in the bank's favor or the recipient's, the bank goes to the State, and it is the State's responsibility to contact the individual. It is difficult to accept that the same disparity in bargaining power exists between the State and the bank. The differences between EBT and other electronic transfers were carefully documented in a letter from Dr. Alice Rivlin, deputy director of OMB, to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Rivlin's letter be included in the Record at this point. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, May 21, 1993. Mr. William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Wiles: This letter responds to the proposal, published for comment on February 8, 1993, to revise Regulation E to cover electronic benefit transfer (EBT) programs. Please refer to Docket No. R-0796. This letter contains our endorsement of the EBT Steering Committee proposal for modifying Reg E, our views on the differences between program beneficiaries and the consumers with bank accounts, and our recommendations for your consideration. ebt steering committee view We strongly support the recommendations of the Electronic Benefit Steering Committee, which were submitted to the Board on May 11, 1992. The EBT Steering Committee recommended that EBT be treated differently from other electronic fund transfers, that specific minimum standards be established for EBT programs, and that agencies be allowed to implement Regulation E fully on a voluntary basis, if appropriate. A copy of the Steering Committee recommendation is enclosed. In an analysis that is being prepared for the Steering Committee, preliminary data from a study for the Department of the Treasury indicate that the additional cost to government of compliance with Regulation E as proposed could be between $120 million to $826 million annually, with the most likely costs of $498 million. Such cost increases would preclude State and Federal expansion of current EBT programs an could cause termination of some, if not all, programs. We oppose implementation of Regulation E as proposed by the Board on February 16, 1993 based on the recommendations of the EBT Steering Committee which is composed of senior Federal program policy officials who have given a great deal of deliberation to the issue and who are accountable for the management of federal programs. We believe that the preliminary data shows that States and the Federal government would be exposed to an expense that will seriously limit the potential for EBT in the future. In addition we believe there are significant differences between program beneficiaries and a regular bank customer. OMB urges the Board to exercise its authority under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) to prescribe regulations that consider the economic impact on beneficiaries, State and Federal governments, and other participants. differences between beneficiaries and banked consumers The EFTA is intended to protect consumers when EFT services are made available to them. The plastic EBT card gives the beneficiary more choices on where and when to withdraw cash. However, they are not ``shopping'' for benefits as a customer would shop for a bank card. Benefits are only received from one payment source. Furthermore, regular banking EFT services are not necessarily being ``made available'' to them. In fact, these beneficiaries may be required to access benefits through EBT in the future. These differences make necessary protections that are different from, and in many ways, greater than, those afforded by Regulation E. The EFTA assumes a contractual relationship between the consumer and the bank, as evident in the provisions for disclosure of terms and conditions of electronic funds transfers (15 USC 1693c(a)). Under EBT, beneficiaries do not enter into contracts with either banks or agencies governing terms and conditions of transfers. EBT offers great potential benefits to recipients-- alleviating the stigma of welfare experienced in grocery checkout lines when presenting food coupons, eliminating check cashing fees, allowing beneficiaries to become proficient with a technology useful in the working world, and eliminating the hazard of carrying cash after cashing a check. Surveys of beneficiaries show overwhelming preference for EBT over checks. The desire to access benefits through this technology is so strong that in at least one locality individual beneficiaries and the private sector are working, without government assistance, to implement EBT. Individual benefit programs also offer significant protections to beneficiaries that are far greater than any protections afforded by financial institutions to consumers: Access to funds by eligible beneficiary is a right guaranteed by law and is not conditioned on any prior abuses. Eligibility is based on need. a way that protects economic interest of beneficiary. For example, reductions of future benefits are strictly limited to 10 percent per month in AFDC. If beneficiary contests an adverse action, extensive administrative apparatus supports the appeal at no cost to the beneficiary. omb recommendations The Federal Reserve Board has requested comment on whether modifications to Regulation E for EBT beyond those proposed should be considered. OMB specific recommendations are enclosed. We recommend that the Board create some exceptions in Regulation E for EBT programs. In summary, we believe the Board has authority under the EFTA to prescribe regulations that provide exceptions for any class of electronic funds transfer that would effectuate the purposes of the EFTA. We believe that the Steering Committee proposal, taken together with existing protections in individual program requirements, establish the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in EBT programs and are primarily directed to protecting and enhancing the rights of individual beneficiaries. OMB joins with the Federal Reserve Board in its commitment to protect the rights of individuals in this emerging technology. We look forward to continued progress on this governmentwide initiative. Sincerely, Alice M. Rivlin, Deputy Director. Opponents of this action argue that by exempting EBT cards from the electronic Funds Transfer Act discriminates against the poor. This argument misses two important differences between EBT and ATM cards. First, ATM access is a service that banks give with discretion, and can withdraw. States cannot deny recipients access to benefits. If there is abuse of the system, the State's only alternative is to operate dual systems, thus decreasing the efficiency gains of EBT. Second, EBT extends to recipients greater protection of their benefits than checks or coupons. If stolen, the card can't be used without the pin number. And, recipients are less likely to have all their cash stolen. With checks they must receive all the cash at once, and usually pay a fee for cashing the check. With EBT cards they can withdraw only what they need, and transaction costs are covered by the contract between the State and the bank. Others suggest that the concern with fraud if EBT is covered by Regulation E unfairly impugns the character of the recipients. That is not so. It only says that they are like everyone else--a small portion will participate in fraudulent activities to the expense of all the rest. One of the major criminal problems with ATM cards, according to the Secret Service, is fraud involving Regulation E protection. An individual can sell his or her ATM card, and as long as the price is greater than $50, everyone wins but the bank. The Secret Service knows this type of fraud occurs, but proving it is very difficult. States rightly fear that similar fraud will occur with EBT. Earlier this month the Vice President issued the first report from the EBT task force and called for nationwide implementation. Without passage of this legislation, that goal will never be reached. When the Federal Reserve was considering this issue, 40 governors wrote in opposition. The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers; The American Public Welfare Association, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors' Association wrote jointly to Vice President Gore and to Chairman Greenspan opposing the application of Regulation E to EBT. The Federal Reserve has made a mistake. We in Congress now need to act to ensure that benefits cards can become a reality. I urge my colleagues to enact this bill promptly. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina are in the midst of their third terrible winter of war. For most Bosnians, uncertain food supplies, running water, heat and fuel compound the misery of loss--of family members, and friends, personal security and their former multicultural identity. Bosnia, a United Nations member state, has been the victim of aggression from neighboring Serbia, has suffered genocide in the guise of ``ethnic cleansing,'' and has been effectively forced by the so-called ``Great Powers'' to trade sovereignty over more than half of its territory in exchange for unfulfilled promises of peace. Why did these terrible things happen to Bosnia? Has it blown up civilian aircraft? Assassinated policeman? Kidnapped diplomats? Built or exported nuclear weapons? No. Bosnia had the temerity to be one of four states to leave the former Yugoslavia pursuant to a vote by its citizens. When the remnants of the former Yugoslavia retaliated by invading Bosnia, how did the United Nations respond? It has not supported member state Bosnia's right of self-defense. It has not effectively defended the safe areas it persuaded Bosnia to agree to. It has assisted the Serbs with ethnic cleansing by moving populations out of contested areas and providing a share of fuel and humanitarian supplies to Serb forces--even while they shelled civilians and U.N. peacekeepers. The intention behind these misguided policies was to stop the fighting in Bosnia. It was thought that an evenhanded policy taking sides against the aggressor was the best way to restore peace. But the practical effect of this policy has been anything but evenhanded. The divisions rending the former Yugoslavia are not new since the end of the cold war. The emotions propelling the violence in that region festered invisibly for years but did not disappear under authoritarian communism. Similarly, they will not disappear under an unjust peace imposed under the United Nations. This is the post-cold war era, when democracy and human rights are supposed to be free to flower. It is inconsistent both with the opportunities presented by the end of the cold war and with the United States' commitment to human rights and democracy to participate in a policy which does not side with the victims against the aggressor and reward democratic leaders instead of authoritarian dictators. The United Nations asserts that lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia will lead to further violence in Bosnia, expansion of the conflict to neighboring Balkan States, the withdrawal of UNPROFOR and Serbian conquest of even more of Bosnia. Rather than risk these consequences, some argue the United States should continue to acquiesce in a peace process that has resulted in more and more concessions from the Bosnian side in exchange for more and more broken promises by the Serbs and the United Nations. But as the continued shelling of Sarajevo and strangling of supplies to the eastern areas shows, this process has not produced peace. The attack launched from Croatia into Bihac in November demonstrated that it has not prevented spillover to other Balkan States. And as President Izethegovic stated at the CSCE Summit in Budapest, and unjust peace will not prevent the outgunned Bosnians from continuing their fight for freedom. Evenhandedness between a victim and an aggressor is not only immoral; it is dangerous. If Serbian aggression and intransigence is successful in Bosnia, we can expect more of it, not only in the Balkans but elsewhere as well. No peace based on injustice will endure long in a democracy. In international relations as in medicine, an intervener should be sure first to do no harm. These should be the starting points of United States' and United Nations' policy in Bosnia. We should not presume a U.N. role first and then allow a preoccupation with the practicalities of it to obscure our purpose. I have heard warnings that if the United States unilaterally lifts the arms embargo on Bosnia, not only Bosnia but also the institutions of the United Nations and even NATO will be harmed. It do not see the consequences of the United States' correcting its policy in Bosnia in such stark terms. But I am prepared to live with the consequences that follow. To some, Bosnian sovereignty seems a small price to pay in order to preserve NATO and the U.N. But if NATO, which stood for a strong defense against potential aggression during the cold war, stands for timidity in the face of aggression in the New World, then it needs to be rethought. Similarly, if the United Nations, created as a forum to fairly resolve post-World War II disputes is not preoccupied with preserving the status quo at enormous cost and without regard to justice, then it too is in need of change. Of this much I am certain: the United States should turn away from acquiescence in a policy which immorally equates victim and aggressor, makes promises to the victims which it does not honor and establishes as a tenet of the new world order that determined aggression pays. During the current cessation of hostilities in Bosnia, the Bosnian Serbs have one more change to reach a peaceful settlement with the Bosnian Government. If they do not take advantage of this opportunity or violate the cessation of hostilities, the United States should lift the arms embargo, preferably with but if necessary without the concurrence of the United Nations.