Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if I may, I would say that of the time we have, this side will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, and I thank him for coming over to speak.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Levin, Senator Udall of Colorado, and Senator Webb for their informed and informative remarks in support of the motion to concur with the House in regard to repealing the policy that has come to be known as don't ask, don't tell. I think that in considering this matter today we have an opportunity not just to right a wrong, not just to honor the service of a group of American patriots who happen to be gay and lesbian, not just to make our military more effective, but to advance the values that the Founders of our country articulated in our original American documents. I want to talk very briefly about that, because it is important to set what we are doing here in the context of history. From the beginning, America has been a different Nation. We did not define ourselves based on our borders. Our Founders defined America based on our values, and none stated more powerfully than those words in the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence that: There are self-evident truths. This is a political statement, a constitutional statement, but also a religious statement. There are self-evident truths, and one of them is that all of us are created equal and endowed by our Creator with those unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the second paragraph, our Founders say, in the Declaration, that they are forming this new government, America, in order to secure those rights to life and liberty. The sad fact is, at the moment they adopted the Declaration of Independence, these rights were not enjoyed for a lot of Americans, including, of course, the slaves, most of all, but women had no legal rights to speak of. One way I think I like to look at American history is as a journey to realize, generation after generation, in a more perfect way, to make ours a more perfect Union, the rights given in the Declaration of Independence, the rights promised in the Declaration of Independence and, of course, with a lot of pain and turmoil we have done that with regard to race in our country, certainly true with regard to women. We have created an ethic. It is the promise of America, but in some sense it is what we also call the American dream, that in this country you are judged not by who you are but how you perform. In this country, no matter where you were born or how you were born, the fact is you are able to go--if you play by the rules and you work hard, you should be able to go as far as your talents will take you, not any characteristic that one might associate with you, any adjective that one might put before the noun ``American'' whether it is White American, Black American, Christian, Jewish American, gay or straight American, Latino, or European American, that you should be entitled to go as far as your talents and your commitment to our country will take you. In our generation, it seems to me that the movement to realize the promise of the Declaration has been one of the places that has been most at the forefront and realized most significantly is in regard to gay and lesbian Americans, to promise that, in our time, we will guarantee, as a matter of law, that no one will be denied equal opportunity based on their sexual orientation. They will be judged by the way they live and the way they perform their jobs. That is why the existing don't ask, don't tell policy is, in my opinion, inconsistent with basic American values. It is not only bad for the military, it is inconsistent with our values. I want to say it is particularly bad for the military, because in our society, the American military is, in my opinion, the one institution that still commands the respect and trust of the American people, because it lives by American values. It fights for American values. It is committed to a larger cause and not divided by any division, including party. So to force this policy as the don't ask, don't tell does on our military is to force them to be less than they want to be, and less than they can be. Admiral Mullen, the No. 1 uniformed military officer in our country today, said very powerfully: We-- The military-- are an institution that values integrity, and then asks other people to join us, work with us, fight with us, die with us, and lie about who they are the whole time they are in the military. That, Admiral Mullin says, is what does not make any sense to me. I agree. The fact is this is not just a theory we are talking about. The fact is that under the don't ask, don't tell policy, more than 14,000 members of our military have been discharged since 1993, not because they performed their military responsibilities inadequately, not because they violated the very demanding code of personal conduct in the military, but simply because of their sexual orientation. I think if you view this as an issue, that can be controversial in the realm of rhetoric or theory. But if you face those 14,000--and I have talked to a lot of them--yesterday, an Air Force major, commanding more than 200 members of the Air Force--all sorts of commendations, tossed out simply because someone did not like him, found out he was gay, and he was pushed out. A student at one of the academies, at the top of his class, same thing. Because of his sexual orientation, tossed out. You know we spend, by one estimate, more than half a billion dollars training those 14,000 members of the American military that we discharged solely because of their sexual orientation. What a waste. These people simply want to serve their country. I know you, Mr. President, have probably had the same experience I have. When you talk to any of the 14,000, why are they lobbying, pleading with us to repeal don't ask, don't tell? They want to go back and serve our country. They want to put their lives on the line for our security and our freedoms. Does it make any sense to say no to them simply because of a private part of their person? In the survey that was done as part of the Pentagon report, there are some remarkable numbers. One of them is that of the gay and lesbian members of our military surveyed, only 15 percent said they would come out, that they would reveal their sexual orientation. One of them was quoted as saying, and I paraphrase: That is private. That is not part of my responsibility in the military. None of us do that in the military. And, incidentally, when, as I hope and pray don't ask, don't tell is repealed, gay and lesbian members of the military, just as straight members, will be held to the highest demands and standards of the military code of conduct. If they are involved in any inappropriate behavior, they will be disciplined. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes of the time we have.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I would yield myself up to 8 minutes of the time on our side.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The other significant number in the survey I thought was this: Well over two-thirds of the members of our military surveyed, 120-some-odd thousand surveyed, said that they thought the military was ready for this change. I know there has been talk about the marines. There is a fascinating number about the marines. A significant number of the marines are worried about this change in policy. But among those marines who have served in marine units with gay and lesbian marines, 84 percent say no problem. Why? Because we do not care, when we are out in combat, what somebody's race or gender or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation is; all we care is whether they have got our back and they are a good member of the unit. My friends have said that this simply--if, and I hope when this measure passes, and don't ask, don't tell is repealed, it authorizes the repeal, but it does not finish it. It starts a deliberative process in which, without time limit, the Secretary of Defense, the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have to decide that it is time for the repeal to occur. It is a very reasonable process. And it saves the military, as Secretary Gates has said over and over again, from facing an order from a court that forces the military to do this immediately. Bottom line, and I will speak personally here, I was privileged about 10 years ago--incidentally, thinking of the DREAM Act, I am a grandchild of four immigrants to America. Could they have ever dreamed that I would end up a Senator--2,000 have had the opportunity--to be the first Jewish American to run on a national ticket? I will never forget. Someone called me up that day and said how thrilled they were, a member of another minority group, and said: You know, Joe, here is what is significant. When a barrier falls for one group of Americans, the doors of opportunity open wider for all Americans. I think we have that opportunity today to make our great country even greater, and our best-in-the-world military even better. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle to support this cloture motion. The fact is that removing a form of legalized discrimination from our books, allowing people to serve our military regardless of sexual orientation, is not a liberal or conservative idea; it is not a Republican or Democratic idea; it is an American idea consistent with American values. We have come to a point in our history, I hope, where neither race nor religion, ethnicity nor gender nor sexual orientation should deprive Americans of serving our country as the patriots that they are. This measure would accomplish that result in an orderly way to be determined by the leaders of our military when they decide that the military is ready to implement the change, repeal don't ask, don't tell, without negative effect on military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military morale. It is time to right a wrong and put the military in line with the best of American values.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish today to bid farewell and express my special thanks to Kevin Landy for his 13 years of extraordinary service on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Kevin, presently the committee's chief counsel and my longest serving committee staff member, is leaving the Senate this month. But I am happy to say he will continue his career in public service as the Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of Detention and Policy Planning, an office responsible for formulating and implementing reforms at immigration detention facilities. As a Senator, I am privileged to work with dedicated Senate staffers like Kevin Landy, who want to take their talents, skills, and passions and put them to work for the American people. Thomas Jefferson once asked the question: ``What duty does a citizen owe to the government that secures the society in which he lives?'' Answering his own question, Jefferson said: ``A nation that rests on the will of the people must also depend on individuals to support its institutions if it is to flourish. Persons qualified for public service should feel an obligation to make that contribution.'' Kevin has answered his Nation's call and leaves the Senate with an exemplary record of achievement on behalf of the American people, on a wide range of issues. In particular, I'd like to highlight Kevin's role as my lead staff member on four bills that I count among my most important legislative accomplishments. In the 107th Congress, Kevin successfully and simultaneously stewarded to passage two very different pieces of legislation. One of those bills established a new framework for the government's uses of the Internet and passed after a great deal of careful consensus building; the other bill established the 9/11 Commission to independently investigate the circumstances of the terrorist attacks and was enacted after a vigorous and often contentious campaign to surmount the administration's resistance. First, Kevin drafted the E-Government Act, which I introduced in May of 2001, and which called for greater citizen access to government information, services, and regulatory proceedings over the Internet; better management of information technology; and greater protections for privacy and security. When Kevin began work on this initiative he was trained as a lawyer and had no government IT background. Yet he worked meticulously with every relevant group and constituency first to become fully informed and then to ensure their concerns were addressed. More importantly, Kevin spent months negotiating with OMB officials to overcome the administration's initial opposition. The work paid off when the legislation passed both the House and the Senate by unanimous consent on the same day, November 15, 2002, and was subsequently signed into law the next month. Some of Kevin's most significant work for our country was on legislation creating and reforming the institutions charged with the defense of our homeland from the terrorist threat. Soon after the tragic September 11 attacks, Senator McCain and I called for an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attacks and to provide recommendations designed to guard against future acts of terrorism. Kevin helped draft the legislation to establish the 9/11 Commission, which I introduced with Senator McCain on December 20, 2001. At first we had no other cosponsors, and faced the opposition of the administration. But over the next year Kevin worked closely with the families of the victims of 9/11, who lobbied arduously for our legislation both in the Halls of Congress and in the media, and the administration finally reversed its position the night before the Senate voted to approve the Commission by a vote of 90 to 8. Contentious negotiations with White House officials followed, but on November 27, 2002, the legislation establishing a 9/11 Commission was enacted. Kevin's effectiveness and his strong relations with 9/11 family members stood him in good stead when I asked him to lead an even greater challenge 2 years later: helping win enactment of legislation to implement the Commission's ambitious and wide-ranging recommendations. Following the release of the 9/11 Commission's report on July 22, 2004, Kevin led the combined efforts of the staffs of four Senators to quickly draft legislation, S. 2774, that implemented all of the Commission's recommendations, covering not only comprehensive reform of the intelligence community and the creation of a National Counterterrorism Center but also information sharing, terrorist travel, border security, and secure identification, among other topics. Because of the determined efforts of Kevin and his colleagues, I was able to join with Senators McCain, Bayh, and Specter in introducing the legislation on September 7, just 6 weeks after the Commission's recommendations had been released. Kevin continued to play a leadership role as I worked with the committee chairman and my close friend, Senator Susan Collins, to draft legislation that focused on the Commission's intelligence reform recommendations, S. 2845. On the Senate floor, provisions of the two bills were merged as we faced a blizzard of amendments and tough votes, before we won an overwhelming Senate victory. An arduous conference followed, as several House committee chairmen adamantly opposed the bill--through it all Kevin fought to uphold the principles laid down in our legislation. We prevailed, resulting in the historic enactment on December 17, 2004, of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, IRTPA. We faced even more complex procedural hurdles in 2007, when Senator Collins and I led the efforts of multiple Senate committees to assemble and enact provisions that built on what we had accomplished with IRTPA, mandating counterterrorism improvements in areas such as terrorist travel, communications interoperability, and aviation and maritime security. By then the committee's chief counsel, Kevin had demonstrated his skills at legislative maneuvering in a variety of circumstances. I called on him once again to help coordinate our team as we pushed through a difficult markup, a lively Senate debate, and a fiercely contested conference, at which approximately 15 Senate and House committees claimed jurisdiction and joined the fray. Our work resulted in ambitious legislation, known as the ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,'' enacted on August 3, 2007. I have described his biggest accomplishments in the areas of national security and good government, but through his entire career Kevin has also shown a passion for the pursuit of justice, including justice for the powerless. Upon graduating from Amherst College, Kevin went to work defending the rights of prisoners to humane conditions in the Texas penal system. Then after graduating from Yale Law School, one of Kevin's jobs took him to Cambodia, where he worked with that nation's judges and prosecutors in an effort to help improve the rule of law as that nation struggled to emerge from its brutal totalitarian past. On the committee, Kevin has worked tirelessly to improve the treatment of asylum-seekers who often languish in county jails and other immigrant detention facilities as they pursue their claims. He drafted the first bill to address immigration detention reform, the Secure and Safe Detention and Asylum Act, and in 2007 we won Senate passage of the bill as an amendment to ultimately unsuccessful immigration reform legislation. Although legislative progress in this area has proven elusive, Kevin's work helped to bring greater attention to the need for reforms. He has now embraced the opportunity to support the detention reform initiatives being undertaken at the Department of Homeland Security. I have benefited greatly from Kevin's commitment to my goals and to the pursuit of excellence while achieving them. I want to thank him again for his hard work, his long hours, and selfless persistence in pursuit of worthy legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the Kingman and Heritage Islands Act of 2010, H.R. 6278. In particular, I wish to describe the legislative history and intent of this act. Earlier this year, essentially identical legislation, H.R. 2092, passed the House and the Senate but has not been enacted for reasons that I will address in this statement. Therefore, the House and Senate committee reports describing H.R. 2092 should be referenced as applicable legislative history for H.R. 6278. D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced H.R. 2092, The Kingman and Heritage Islands Act of 2009, on April 23, 2009. The bill was considered by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on September 10, 2009, and ordered reported favorably with an amendment. On October 7, 2009, H.R. 2092 passed the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules and the subsequent day, H.R. 2092 was referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The committee considered the bill on May 17, 2010, and ordered the bill reported to the full Senate with one amendment. On September 27, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 2092 by unanimous consent. Due to a mistake, however, the version that the Senate passed on September 27 contained a few drafting errors and did not reflect all of the modifications that our committee had intended. Rather than seek the enactment of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2092, and in order to avoid any confusion among the government entities responsible for implementing the bill, Delegate Norton subsequently introduced H.R. 6278 with the support of the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H.R. 6278 consists of the text of H.R. 2092 as my committee had amended it and intended it to pass in the Senate. Delegate Norton introduced H.R. 6278 on September 29, 2010, and it passed the House of Representatives on November 16, 2010, under suspension of the rules. After being received in the Senate, the bill was held at the desk and today it will pass the Senate by unanimous consent. Because neither the relevant House nor Senate committee had the opportunity to file committee reports describing H.R. 6278, the committee reports describing H.R. 2092 should be considered as applicable legislative history for this bill. The report filed by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report is House Report 111-275 and the report filed by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is Senate Report 111-300. In the remainder of my statement I further describe the background and intent of the legislation. The Kingman and Heritage Islands Act of 2010 would allow the District of Columbia to use all of Heritage Island and portions of Kingman Island--the Islands--for recreational, environmental and educational uses. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers created Kingman and Heritage Islands in the District of Columbia from sediment dredged from the Anacostia River. Until the enactment in 1996 of the National Children's Island Act of 1995--the act--the National Park Service held administrative jurisdiction on both islands. The act required the Federal Government to transfer title of the islands to the District of Columbia for use as a children's recreational park. It also mandated that title to the islands would revert back to the Federal Government if the District did not use the land in a manner consistent with the purposes specified in the act. The Secretary of the Interior transferred title of the Islands to the District via quitclaim deed in January 1997. In 2000, the Secretary of Interior wrote the District a letter stating that the District had fully lived up to the letter and spirit of the act and that DC should retain title to the Islands. DC has not developed a children's recreational park on the Islands, and since that time, it has re-evaluated its needs and interests and no longer seeks to use the Islands for that purpose. In 2003, in accordance with a memorandum of understanding between DC and several Federal agencies, including the NPS, the District developed the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan--Waterfront Plan--to redevelop and revitalize the Anacostia waterfront. The Waterfront Plan envisions using the islands for nature-themed exhibitions and educational projects. The District also has developed a Comprehensive Plan to serve as a general policy document to provide overall guidance for future planning and development in DC. Recently, the District has taken steps toward implementing the Waterfront Plan. In the summer of 2007, the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation, now part of the DC Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, partnered with a number of other organizations to begin using the Islands to host environmental programs and cleanup. Since May 2008, Living Classrooms, a nonprofit educational organization with a focus on experiential learning, has been managing the islands and running programs there, including educational programming and volunteer events aimed at restoring the Islands. To ensure that the activities DC has authorized do not raise any questions about its title to the Islands, the District has asked Congress to amend the act to sanction the broader work now occurring on the Islands. H.R. 6278 would do just that, by amending the National Children's Island Act in order to allow the District to conduct recreational, environmental and educational activities on the Islands, consistent with the Waterfront Plan and the District's Comprehensive Plan. If any portion of the land is used for an activity that is not recreational, environmental or educational, the reversionary process as outlined in the bill could begin.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, I would like to celebrate the extraordinary career of newsman Tom Monahan, who, after 40 years of political reporting for NBC Connecticut, is semi-retiring. I first came to know Tom in the early seventies when he covered me in the Connecticut General Assembly, and I have greatly admired his work and personality ever since. Tom is a native of Bristol, CT, who began his career in broadcast radio. He started reporting sports when he first joined NBC CT, and then graduated through the ranks to eventually become the station's chief political reporter and one of Connecticut's very finest. Much can be said about Tom's skill as a journalist, but his integrity immediately comes to mind. Edward R. Murrow, the great television broadcaster, once said ``we cannot make good news out of bad practice,'' and Tom's career surely embodied that principle. At a time when journalism is increasingly defined by attacks and negativity, Tom represents something of the ``old guard'' fact-driven reporting meant to inform and educate. He was always interested in getting the story out, but not interested in ``getting'' the public official who was part of the story. For so many years, the people of Connecticut who watched him came to rely on him for his truthfulness, and in the end many of us who were privileged to be in public life during his career wanted to help him get the story because we had such respect for and confidence in him. I have so many memories from over the years with Tom, but one stands out above the others. I remember the morning in August 2000 when Vice President Gore announced that he had selected me to be his Vice Presidential running mate. I was in my house in New Haven, CT, and the number of satellite and TV trucks outside began to grow, in effect barricading me in. The Gore campaign team flew in from Nashville and my new press secretary said to me in my kitchen, ``Sir, the initial reaction to Vice President Gore's selecting you as his running mate has been tremendous and, if you speak to the press outside, you can only detract from the positive coverage we're getting.'' As we walk out the side door to head to the airport, who, of course, was standing right there but Tom Monahan. Needless to say, I went over and spoke to Tom--how was I not to? As I reflect on Tom's career, I cannot help but think how much he will be missed, and how grateful Connecticut should be for the invaluable service he provided us. We are undoubtedly better off for having had Tom Monahan as a reporter. I wish him and his wonderful family my very best as he moves on to an exciting new chapter in his life.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life and work of Robbins Barstow of Hartford, CT, a great filmmaker, conservationist, and dedicated member of the community. Robbins Barstow has come to hold a special place in the hearts and minds of thousands of families across the country through the tender and illuminating documentary films he produced over the years. Mr. Barstow captured the lives and aspirations of ordinary people in mid- century America, most famously in his film ``Disneyland Dream'' which the Library of Congress included in its National Film Registry for its cultural and artistic significance, calling it a ``priceless and authentic record of time and place.'' Mr. Barstow brought a similar sensitivity and talent to his professional work with the Connecticut Education Association, where he worked tirelessly on behalf of teachers and public schools across our state. Mr. Barstow believed deeply in the power of education to transform our country and the world, and he dedicated so much of his life to ensuring that our teachers got the respect and acknowledgement that they so greatly deserve. I also admired Mr. Barstow deeply for his extraordinary efforts as a conservationist. He held a special interest in whales and brought his interest and passion for the environment and natural world to founding Cetacean Society International, a conservation, education, and research organization with ties to over 25 nations. Mr. Barstow made a number of films about endangered species that will continue to inform us of the importance of conservation and inspire future conservationists for years to come. The State of Connecticut and our Nation more broadly are blessed to have leaders like Robbins Barstow in our communities. He will be deeply missed and his important contributions and unforgettable spirit will never fade from our memory. My thoughts and prayers are with the entire Barstow family: his wife Margaret, his children David, Dan, and Cedar, his grandchildren, and great-grandchild.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, for 22 years it has been a blessing for me to have served with Chris Dodd in the Senate as my colleague from Connecticut, as my dear friend, as my legislative partner. I am going to miss him a lot, as everybody in this Chamber will. I think when we listened to the words he spoke to us just a few moments ago--how full of wisdom and warmth they were--we knew how much we are going to miss him and how much we should consider what has made him not only our great friend but a truly great Senator. Chris mentioned Sherman and Ellsworth, whose pictures are out in the reception area just off the Senate, who crafted the Connecticut Compromise, really created the Senate. I think Chris Dodd, who is the 54th Senator from the State of Connecticut in our history, took this institution that Sherman and Ellsworth created in the Connecticut Compromise and made it work to the great benefit of the people of Connecticut and the people of America. To the great benefit of the people of Connecticut and the people of America, Chris Dodd was born to a legacy, an honorable legacy of public service, which he watched, as so many of us did in Connecticut, and, of course, learned from, from his father, Senator Thomas J. Dodd. I could say a lot about Senator Dodd, Sr. He was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, remarkably principled, skillful prosecutor, who became a Member of the Senate. I will tell you that as a young man in Connecticut, me, growing up, thinking about a political career, when I heard that Senator Tom Dodd was somewhere within range of where I lived or went to school, I went to listen to him speak. He was a classic orator, an extraordinarily principled man who had a great career in the Senate. As we know from the years we have served with Chris, the characteristics I have described of his father were taken and put to extraordinarily good use in the Senate. Chris's words were very important, and, as Senator McConnell said, should be studied by all of us and by anyone thinking about coming to the Senate. We all talk about this being an age of hyperpartisanship. But I think that misses the point because, as Chris said, he is a partisan in the best sense of the word. He is a principled partisan. He is passionate about what he believes in. But he knows we come to a point when partisanship ends, and you have to get something done for the public that was good enough to send you here. Over and over again, any of us on both sides of the aisle who have watched Chris work a bill know how persistent, how open, how anxious he was to try to find common ground, yes, to compromise because ultimately our work is the art of the possible. Somebody once said to me: The futility of the failure to compromise, there is no result from it. But if you have a goal, a principled goal, you know you can achieve a significant part of that goal if you can build enough support in this Chamber, and time and time again Chris Dodd did that. The other reason I think he did it is because of the truth that he spoke in his remarks, which is that beyond the great debates and the headlines and the sniping back and forth, the Senate, after all, is 100 people who go to work in the same place every day, and your ability to get things done in the Senate, as is true in offices and factories all over America and other places of work, your ability to get things done here is affected, in great measure, by the trust your colleagues have in you and even the extent to which they like you. I think, by those standards, Chris Dodd has been totally trustworthy. As we were taught when we grew up in Connecticut politics, his word has been his bond, and his personality has warmed each of us as we have gone through the labors we go through here. Chris Dodd has served longer in the Senate than any Senator from Connecticut. So on this day--and he will forgive me a little bit of hyperbole. I would guess, as a matter of friendship and faith, that he has probably accomplished more than any other Senator in the history of the State of Connecticut, and he has done it because he cares about people. When he takes something on, he simply does not quit. I just want to tell you one story. In 1989, Chris met a woman named Eva Bunnell at her church in East Haddam, CT. She told him her daughter had been born with a rare brain disease and was fighting for her life in the intensive care unit. But when her husband asked his employer for time off to be with his wife and critically sick infant, he was told to go home and never come back, leaving a family without income or health insurance. The story, all too common at the time, is the kind of injustice that has repeatedly moved Chris Dodd to action. He authored, as we know, the Family and Medical Leave Act. He worked, as I said before, on compromises that made it acceptable to a large number of people, stuck with it through two Presidential vetoes, and then finally saw it signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. Today, the records will show that more than 50 million people, 50 million people, have been able to take time off from work to care for a loved one or give birth to a child without fear of losing their jobs. That is a lifetime achievement, but it is only one of many such achievements Chris Dodd has had in the Senate. Senator Reid talked about this last session of his Senate career, extraordinary accomplishments: health care reform, Wall Street reform, the Iran sanctions bill which came out of the Banking Committee, which is, in my opinion, the strongest such bill we have ever passed and the last best hope to avoid the necessity to take military action against Iran. This is the kind of record Chris has built. Up until this time, I have been serious, and when you talk about Chris Dodd, it would be wrong to be totally serious because one of the things we are going to miss is that booming laugh and the extraordinary sense of humor. I have had many great laughs with colleagues here. I have probably given too many laughs to colleagues, as I think about it. But I have never laughed louder or more over the years than I have with Chris Dodd. Perhaps it is not totally appropriate on the Senate floor, but I have two of his comments, one about me, that I wish to share. I notice the former comedian is here. A while ago, only Chris Dodd would have told an audience here in Washington that he thought enough time had passed in my career that he could reveal that Joe Lieberman actually had not been born Jewish but was born a Baptist and raised a Baptist, and then when I got into politics and saw how many events I would have to go to on Friday night or Saturday, I converted to Judaism to take the Sabbath off. Then Chris said: And, you know, I am thinking of converting to Judaism myself but only for the weekends. Another quick quip. As my colleagues in the Senate know, it is our honor to walk our State colleagues down the center aisle in the Senate to be sworn in for a new term. The first time I did that, we walked arm in arm, as we always have. Chris turned to me and said: You know, Joe, there are people who are worried that you may be the only person I will ever walk down an aisle with. Well, fortunately, that was not true because, Chris and Jackie got married and had these two wonderful daughters, Grace and Christina, who have provided so much joy and satisfaction and hopefulness to Chris. We are going to miss you. I am going to miss you personally. I speak for myself, but I speak, I would bet, for just everybody in this Chamber in saying we feel so close to you that we know our friendship will go on. I would say Chris Dodd leaves, to sum up an extraordinary Senate career, having achieved a record of results that benefited the people of Connecticut and America in untold ways. He has a wonderful family with whom he looks forward to spending time, and he has oh so many great years ahead of him, including, I hope and believe, times when he will again be of service to our country. God bless you, Chris, and your family. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I regret having missed votes to suspend the rules and consider two amendments to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. I was unable to be present for these votes due to a family wedding. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to suspend the rules to consider Senator Baucus's amendment to repeal the form 1099 reporting requirement. This provision imposes an onerous compliance requirement on businesses of all sizes, and Congress should act quickly to remove that burden and allow businesses to direct their time, energy, and resources to growing their businesses and creating new jobs. I would have voted against the motion to suspend the rules to consider the Johanns amendment because it would have delegated Congress's constitutionally delegated responsibility to make spending decisions to the executive branch, also shifting accountability for making difficult and unpopular spending cuts from Congress to the President.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Race to the Top Act of 2010. Congressman Jared Polis is introducing companion legislation in the House today. The Race to the Top Act will authorize the continuation of the highly successful Race to the Top, RTTT, program which was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and expand that program to school districts. RTTT calls for competitive grants from states and school districts that invest in bold educational reforms designed to bring about significant improvement in academic outcomes for all students and significant reductions in achievement gaps. Our bill will authorize the act for 2011 and the succeeding 5 years. When No Child Left Behind, NCLB, was signed into law 9 years ago, we made a national commitment to fix our educational system--a system in which low-income minority students were performing significantly below their higher-income peers. We made a commitment to bring an end to unacceptable achievement gaps and to ensure that each and every child-- regardless of race, nationality or family income--could succeed in our public schools and graduate with the skills necessary for success in college or the workforce. Despite the commitments we made, unacceptable achievement gaps persist in our country today. Still today our public schools are not preparing our students to succeed in college and the workforce. Each year, 30 percent of American students fail to receive their high school diploma on time, and graduation rates are consistently lower for minority students. One-third of our students who do graduate from high school are not college ready, and in international standardized tests involving students from 30 nations, 14-year-olds in the United States rank 25th in mathematics and 21st in science. Improving public education and closing student achievement gaps remains one of the most important issues of our time. We have made some progress, but until we have equal and excellent educational opportunities for all of our children, regardless of ethnicity or income, we have not done our job. While, in many ways, NCLB moved us in the right direction, it needs to be updated. I believe the time is long overdue for Congress to tackle reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was the underlying law to NCLB, and continuing the Race to the Top program should be part of this debate. The positive impact of RTTT, in a very short period of time, is evident and impressive. We have engaged states, school districts, unions, teachers, parents, and students in the mission of a better education for all of our children. RTTT has without a doubt helped to focus the country's attention on school reform. The competition for RTTT money has already had a significant impact on state and local educational policies across the nation. It has incentivized states to implement high, internationally benchmarked, core standards and to create a positive climate for public charter schools. RTTT recognizes the essential role teachers play in education and has prompted states to get serious about teacher effectiveness, distribution, evaluation, and accountability. And RTTT has prompted states to improve policies aimed at turning around America's lowest performing schools. In sum, RTTT has encouraged states to make real progress towards closing the unacceptable achievement gaps that persist and to improve the state of public education for all students. Under Race to the Tops: 46 States and DC developed statewide reform plans; 15 States changed laws to increase their ability to intervene in their lowest performing schools; 22 States enacted laws to improve teacher quality, including alternative certification, effectiveness and evaluation systems; 36 States and DC have adopted high college- and career-ready standards; 15 States have altered laws or policies to create or expand the number of charter schools. RTTT is working. We know it is benefiting states that were successful in receiving funds but it is also working for states that did not receive funds, simply because those states have already enacted changes that will improve education. Many States remain committed to their new educational reforms regardless of their success in achieving RTTT funding. Students in many States will be better off because of the important policy changes enacted as a result of RTTT. Rarely have we witnessed so much change in educational policy in such a short period of time. I know some officials in my home state, Connecticut, were disappointed about not being selected as a RTTT winner. But I do believe the children in Connecticut were winners because we have strengthened our state laws, policies, and curriculum to lift our charter school caps, improve STEM education, and strengthen our teacher evaluation process. I commend the state and local leaders that collaborated in the process. If we continue the RTTT program, as our bill would do, more States, and now districts, will be winners and we can continue this movement towards important educational reform. RTTT has been an effective catalyst for educational reform and has encouraged all stakeholders in states to come together and work together to improve state agendas. It is essential that we keep the momentum of the first two waves of Race to the Top moving forward. Since our goal is to make all schools high quality schools, the real winner in the RTTT competition will be the students across America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objecion, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Race to the Top Act of 2010. Congressman Jared Polis is introducing companion legislation in the House today. The Race to the Top Act will authorize the continuation of the highly successful Race to the Top, RTTT, program which was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and expand that program to school districts. RTTT calls for competitive grants from states and school districts that invest in bold educational reforms designed to bring about significant improvement in academic outcomes for all students and significant reductions in achievement gaps. Our bill will authorize the act for 2011 and the succeeding 5 years. When No Child Left Behind, NCLB, was signed into law 9 years ago, we made a national commitment to fix our educational system--a system in which low-income minority students were performing significantly below their higher-income peers. We made a commitment to bring an end to unacceptable achievement gaps and to ensure that each and every child-- regardless of race, nationality or family income--could succeed in our public schools and graduate with the skills necessary for success in college or the workforce. Despite the commitments we made, unacceptable achievement gaps persist in our country today. Still today our public schools are not preparing our students to succeed in college and the workforce. Each year, 30 percent of American students fail to receive their high school diploma on time, and graduation rates are consistently lower for minority students. One-third of our students who do graduate from high school are not college ready, and in international standardized tests involving students from 30 nations, 14-year-olds in the United States rank 25th in mathematics and 21st in science. Improving public education and closing student achievement gaps remains one of the most important issues of our time. We have made some progress, but until we have equal and excellent educational opportunities for all of our children, regardless of ethnicity or income, we have not done our job. While, in many ways, NCLB moved us in the right direction, it needs to be updated. I believe the time is long overdue for Congress to tackle reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was the underlying law to NCLB, and continuing the Race to the Top program should be part of this debate. The positive impact of RTTT, in a very short period of time, is evident and impressive. We have engaged states, school districts, unions, teachers, parents, and students in the mission of a better education for all of our children. RTTT has without a doubt helped to focus the country's attention on school reform. The competition for RTTT money has already had a significant impact on state and local educational policies across the nation. It has incentivized states to implement high, internationally benchmarked, core standards and to create a positive climate for public charter schools. RTTT recognizes the essential role teachers play in education and has prompted states to get serious about teacher effectiveness, distribution, evaluation, and accountability. And RTTT has prompted states to improve policies aimed at turning around America's lowest performing schools. In sum, RTTT has encouraged states to make real progress towards closing the unacceptable achievement gaps that persist and to improve the state of public education for all students. Under Race to the Tops: 46 States and DC developed statewide reform plans; 15 States changed laws to increase their ability to intervene in their lowest performing schools; 22 States enacted laws to improve teacher quality, including alternative certification, effectiveness and evaluation systems; 36 States and DC have adopted high college- and career-ready standards; 15 States have altered laws or policies to create or expand the number of charter schools. RTTT is working. We know it is benefiting states that were successful in receiving funds but it is also working for states that did not receive funds, simply because those states have already enacted changes that will improve education. Many States remain committed to their new educational reforms regardless of their success in achieving RTTT funding. Students in many States will be better off because of the important policy changes enacted as a result of RTTT. Rarely have we witnessed so much change in educational policy in such a short period of time. I know some officials in my home state, Connecticut, were disappointed about not being selected as a RTTT winner. But I do believe the children in Connecticut were winners because we have strengthened our state laws, policies, and curriculum to lift our charter school caps, improve STEM education, and strengthen our teacher evaluation process. I commend the state and local leaders that collaborated in the process. If we continue the RTTT program, as our bill would do, more States, and now districts, will be winners and we can continue this movement towards important educational reform. RTTT has been an effective catalyst for educational reform and has encouraged all stakeholders in states to come together and work together to improve state agendas. It is essential that we keep the momentum of the first two waves of Race to the Top moving forward. Since our goal is to make all schools high quality schools, the real winner in the RTTT competition will be the students across America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objecion, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I regret that I have been held up in another event, that I could not get here until now. But I rise to speak in favor, of course, of the cloture motion and of taking up the National Defense Authorization Act. This is critically important legislation. I know the debate has been mostly about a couple of parts of it or one amendment or maybe two amendments that may be offered to it. But the National Defense Authorization Act has to be passed. It has been passed every year for more than half a century. Why? Because it authorizes increases in compensation and benefits for members of the military and their families. No matter what you think about any amendments that may or may not be put in, I do not think any of our colleagues truly want to stop that from happening, nor do they want to stop the authorization of the procurement of military equipment that our soldiers need to protect them and to continue to be the most effective fighting force in the world, nor do they want to stop the authorization for military construction in the United States and around the world that our troops and their families need to live decently. This is a motion to proceed. It is not a vote on the bill. To me, this ought to be an easy vote, no matter what you think about don't ask, don't tell or the DREAM Act or even what you think about the procedure adopted because, let's remember, at any point once we go to proceed, if people in the Chamber do not think Senator Reid has allowed enough amendments, they can begin a filibuster and stop it right there. This bill won't come to a final vote, regardless of what is in it, until there are 60 Members of the Senate who want it to come to a final vote. I wish to speak for a moment about don't ask, don't tell. Senator Levin has done an excellent job in the debate. I voted against the policy as a member of the Armed Services Committee in 1993, when it first came up. I was privileged to be an original cosponsor, with many others, of the legislation to repeal it this year, working with Senator Levin and others on the committee, including Senator Collins who, to her great credit, had the guts to join us because she believes don't ask, don't tell is un-American--my word--not fair and hurtful to military effectiveness. More than 14,000 members of the military have been put out of the services since 1993 under don't ask, don't tell, not because they weren't good soldiers, sailors, marines or airmen, not because they violated any military code of conduct but only because of their private sexual orientation. That number is the equivalent of an entire division of warfighters we need in places such as Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. It is also a waste of money to train those 14,000. Estimates are that taxpayers paid over $600 million. We waste that by tossing them out, not because they are bad soldiers but because of their private sexual orientation. I know some have said repealing don't ask, don't tell doesn't belong on this bill. Don't ask, don't tell was originally adopted as part of the Defense authorization bill. It is, frankly, the best and most logical place around which to repeal the policy. I know Senator Levin has talked about the process. There is a fundamental judgment that the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and those of us who have sponsored the amendment to repeal don't ask, don't tell have made, which is that it ought to go. It is un-American. It is inconsistent with our best values of equal opportunity, who can get the job done, not what one's private life is about. It is hurting our military. That judgment has been made. The study being done at the Pentagon is to determine how to implement this best without intervening in military effectiveness. Then we put in the amendment which is in the bill. This provision, as Senator Levin has pointed out, doesn't go into effect until 60 days after the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify in writing that repeal of don't ask, don't tell is consistent with standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unity, cohesion, recruiting, and retention. We couldn't ask for more in the way of due process. We don't direct the military exactly when and how and over what timeframe they actually go about pulling apart this unjust don't ask, don't tell policy. It will be a close vote today. It would be a shame if we don't get the 60 votes. If Members are against don't ask, don't tell being repealed, vote against it when the amendment comes up. Submit an amendment to strike it. But don't stop the whole bill which is so important to our military. If for some reason we don't get the 60 votes today, Senator Reid has made clear we are coming back, and we will do this in November or December. We have to pass this bill for all the reasons I have stated, for our military effectiveness when our troops are in combat. There will come a day before the end of this year when there will be a motion to strike the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. I don't think opponents of don't ask, don't tell have the votes to accomplish that. When that day comes, we will support our military and America's best values by ending this nonsensical, unfair policy. In America, we judge people by whether they can get the job done, not by any quality about them personally. I think we will get this job done before the end of this year. I hope we can do it beginning this afternoon. But if we don't, we will come back. I thank Senator Levin for his extraordinary leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. At some point, we are going to come to a vote on the bill and on don't ask, don't tell. I believe a majority of my colleagues in this Chamber--maybe more than that--are going to do what we need to do, which is to repeal don't ask, don't tell. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin. I rise to oppose the filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act and to say what is obvious--that this is a preelection campaign season. There are a lot of politics, partisan politics swirling around, everything going on here, including procedural matters such as those we are involved in right now. But there are two things I know and I believe, and I wish to express them about this vote coming up. One is, we have to proceed to consider the National Defense Authorization Act. If we do not do it today, I hope we will do it as soon after as we can because our military needs it. They are in combat. Without this legislation passing, we will not have the authorization to increase compensation and benefits for the military and their families, we will not have authorization for critical military construction, we will not have authorization for acquisition of critical military equipment that our troops need to fight safely on our behalf and to remain what they are--the bravest, most effective fighting force in the world. So it may be today, it may not be today, but it is going to be sometime before the end of the year that we have to take up this bill. It is our national, constitutional, moral responsibility. Second--and this is a controversial part, of course--I believe we have to repeal don't ask, don't tell, not only because it is not consistent with the American values of equal opportunity, of judging people by whether they can do a job or not, not by their nationality, their religion, their gender, their race, or their sexual orientation-- can you do a job, and if you can do it, then you can get that job in America. We have thousands of Americans who are patriotic who want to serve who happen to be gay or lesbian, and we are telling them: You cannot. Not only that, we kicked out 14,000 of them in the last 17 years under don't ask, don't tell.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Collins, Akaka, and Voinovich today to introduce the bipartisan SECURE Facilities Act of 2010--legislation that would modernize and reform an important but often overlooked agency within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS: the Federal Protective Service, FPS. FPS--with just 1,200 full time employees and approximately 15,000 contract guards--is responsible for security at 9,000 Federal buildings across the land. That mission, unfortunately, is in grave peril--due to severe budget shortfalls, mismanagement, and multiple operational challenges. That is why we are introducing legislation today to reform the agency, provide it with adequate resources, strengthen its management capabilities, and help it function at a higher level so it can protect visitors and employees at Federal buildings across this country more effectively. Let me provide some background. When FPS was folded into DHS in 2003, it lost access to supplemental funding from its previous parent agency--the General Services Administration. FPS immediately ran into trouble. It had difficulty paying its bills, budget cuts hurt employee training and other important functions, and personnel cuts negatively affected the agency's performance. All this occurred even as the agency was given more responsibilities, and the Administration was trying to downsize the FPS workforce by one-third. To assist us in our oversight of the agency, Senators Collins, Akaka, Voinovich, and I asked the Government Accountability Office, GAO, in February 2007 to initiate a comprehensive review of the FPS. GAO reported to Congress 8 times between 2004 and 2010 on the financial and management challenges at FPS, and made 32 recommendations for improvement, some of which FPS adopted. What did GAO find? Unfortunately, it found a seriously dysfunctional agency that lacked much, if any, focus or strategy for accomplishing its mission--where guards were caught sleeping on the job, and GAO investigators were able to successfully smuggle bomb-making ingredients past security to build an explosive device in a restroom and then stroll around the building undetected. GAO's review concluded that contract guards lacked adequate training, FPS personnel suffered from low morale, oversight of the contract guards was poor, and that many of the standards that guide Federal building security and guard behavior are outdated. The SECURE Facilities Act of 2010 addresses these shortcomings and incorporates recommendations from GAO. For the first time, we would formally authorize the Federal Protective Service and the interagency government body responsible for establishing security standards for all Federal facilities, the Interagency Security Committee. Our legislation also addresses four major challenges. First, the bill ensures that FPS has sufficient personnel to carry out its mission. Though the agency has assumed increased responsibilities since it joined DHS, it has done so with fewer personnel. Second, our legislation tackles deficiencies within the contract guard program. FPS contract guards are the first line of defense at Federal facilities, so we must ensure they are held to a high standard and are prepared and equipped to face the many different kinds of threats Federal buildings are vulnerable to. Third, the bill ensures the FPS is focused and prepared to address the threat of explosives. The 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City drew our attention to this threat, but FPS has been slow to deploy sufficient countermeasures to detect and deter this type of attack. Fourth, our bill is mindful of the delicate balance between public access and security. We have worked to ensure that the emphasis on securing Federal facilities remains on security but we also support avenues of appeal if a building tenant believes a security countermeasure unduly hinders public access. If the Federal Protective Service is to be held accountable--by Congress, the administration, and the American people--it should no longer be forced to defend Federal agencies that choose to implement less costly and potentially less effective security countermeasures for buildings. Our bill would provide additional funding for the agency by directing OMB to adjust the building security fees paid by other agencies to ensure adequate funding for FPS. We would provide sufficient resources so that FPS can hire 500 full time employees over the next 4 years. We would also ensure that FPS never employs fewer than 1,200 full time employees at any point--a conservative number that may well require an increase over time. While many of those additional 500 new employees will be law enforcement officers, the legislation also provides FPS with the flexibility to hire additional administrative and support personnel, allowing it to improve its overall management, strengthen its oversight of contract guards, monitor contractor performance, and share contract assessments throughout the agency. The legislation also provides Federal law enforcement retirement benefits to FPS officers, to help the agency recruit and retain quality personnel. The bill further would require the FPS to maintain overt and covert testing programs to assess the training of guards, the security of Federal facilities, and to establish procedures for retraining or terminating ineffective guards. The bill ensures the basic documents outlining a security guard's general and specific responsibilities, the Security Guard Information Manual, and their post orders, are up to date and periodically reviewed. We would require DHS to establish performance-based standards for checkpoint detection technologies for explosives and other threats at Federal facilities. It would allow FPS officers to carry firearms off duty, as most other Federal law enforcement officers can, allowing them to respond to incidents more quickly. Finally, the bill includes several reporting requirements, including one on agency personnel needs, one on retention rates of contract guards, and another looking at the feasibility of federalizing the contract guard workforce. We are deeply indebted to the excellent work of GAO which we highlighted in a July 8, 2009, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing. At the hearing, GAO unveiled the results of its year-long investigation conducted at the Committee's request. GAO visited 6 of 11 FPS regions throughout the country and observed the guard inspection process; interviewed regional managers, inspectors, guards and contract guard managers; met with representatives from security guard companies; analyzed guard contract requirements, guard training and certification requirements, and guard instruction documents. GAO found that the security provided at Federal buildings by FPS personnel and contract security guards fell well short of what we expect of them. Some guards lacked basic security or x-ray machine training. The FPS was hard pressed to identify which guards were qualified or effective, leading to several embarrassing incidents. One guard used a government computer to run an adult website during his shift, while another inattentive guard allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an X-ray machine. A third guard was photographed asleep at his station. GAO's special investigations unit conducted its own covert tests at ten high security Federal facilities in several different cities. Using readily available components to make a liquid-based improvised explosive device, they smuggled the components through security, manufactured a bomb in a public restroom, and then moved throughout the Federal building undetected. Some of the buildings tested by GAO investigators house district offices for our colleagues right here in the House and Senate. I note, however, that while the components were real, the actual explosive liquids were diluted to ensure the bomb was not functional. Based on the Committee's and GAO's oversight work over the past several years, it is clear that Congress must move quickly to address the remaining security vulnerabilities associated with our Federal buildings. I am confident that this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation will foster meaningful reform, modernize the Federal Protective Service, and improve the security of our Federal facilities across the country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I thank Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, Senator Voinovich and their hardworking staffs for all that they have done on this issue so we could introduce this bill today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I supported cloture this morning on the bill to extend and phase out increases in the Medicaid funding for States, including Connecticut, and to provide additional money to help local school districts in Connecticut keep teachers in the classroom during the upcoming school year. This funding, which was fully offset, is necessary as we continue to recover from the recession that began in 2007. However, I do have concerns with some of the rescissions from the Department of Defense budget that were used to pay for this funding, and I plan to work with Senator Reid and others to ensure that, as this bill moves forward, none of the offsets affects the ability of our men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan from carrying out their mission.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of our Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The power the Constitution gives the Senate to advise and consent to Presidential nominations is a very important one but never more significant than when we are called upon to respond to a President's nomination of a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court because this nomination is for a lifetime to the Court, from which there is no appeal. It is the final arbiter of justice in our system of justice, in our system of government. So these are important moments, when we are called upon to respond to a President's nomination to the Supreme Court. I remember once, early on, after I came to the Senate, during a controversial nomination to the Supreme Court, and our late and truly great colleague, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, said something I will never forget. He said that, normally, when we consider whether to advise and consent to a President's nomination to a Federal position, we give, understandably, the benefit of the doubt to the nominee, the person whom the President has nominated; when it comes to the Supreme Court--Senator Byrd said and counseled--the benefit of the doubt should go to the Supreme Court because of the lifetime tenure of Justices of the Supreme Court and their beyond-appeal role in our system of government. I have that in mind by way of saying, beyond any doubt, I feel certain Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, will serve the cause of justice and our Nation very well as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those either in the galleries or watching the debate on C-SPAN may wonder, occasionally, when they hear us refer to the nominee as ``general''--General Kagan. It reminds me of when I was privileged to be elected attorney general of Connecticut. I went to an orientation for new attorneys general and I walked in and somebody said, ``Hello, General.'' I turned around, thinking somebody was behind me. It was the first time I had been addressed that way. Solicitors General are referred to as ``general'' as well. So establishing the standard as I have, I would say General Elena Kagan possesses impressive academic and professional qualifications, with her broad range of experiences as a clerk for a Supreme Court Justice, a lawyer in private practice, a legal and policy adviser to President Clinton, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and then at Harvard, where she ultimately became dean, and most recently as Solicitor General of the United States, which will enable her to serve our Nation and the cause of justice well if--and I hope when--she is confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. General Kagan showed, on the day the President nominated her, that she understands the importance and unique importance of the Supreme Court. She said: The Court is an extraordinary institution in the work it does and in the work it can do for the American people by advancing the tenets of our Constitution, by upholding the rule of law, and by enabling all Americans, regardless of their background or their beliefs, to get a fair hearing and an equal chance at justice. General Kagan then continued by complimenting retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, whose seat she will fill if confirmed to this position, for the ``distinguished and exemplary role'' Justice Stevens has played on the Supreme Court for the last 35 years. I wish to say that, in my opinion, the most significant thing about Justice Stevens' service has been his independence of mind, his single- minded focus and commitment to the cause of justice because this is the branch of our government that must be beyond politics and even rigid ideology. The Founders, in all their genius, when they put together the form of the American Government, coming from England as so many of them did, worried about the autocratic power of the King, wanted to create a democracy and yet wanted to make sure there were checks and balances. The Supreme Court was set up as one of the three branches of our government that was not accountable to the people; its accountability was solely to the Constitution. I think Justice Stevens, whether you agreed with every decision he wrote or not--and I agreed with some but not others--always demonstrated an ability to transcend politics and ideology and put the requirements of justice and the law, as he saw them, above all else. I am confident General Kagan, as a Supreme Court Justice, will follow Justice Stevens' example. I predict today that, in the years ahead, if and when confirmed, Justice Kagan will surprise many people, including Senators who on this vote will vote for her and those who will vote against her. She will not be predictable. That is one of the best things I think we can say about a Supreme Court nominee. She will be judicial and independent-minded. She will serve the Constitution and the national interest, not any party or people or rigid ideology. I must say I have been encouraged in this view by the way in which General Kagan has carried out her duties as Solicitor General of the United States. She has consistently demonstrated her commitment to upholding the Constitution, as well as her understanding of and respect for the appropriate roles of Congress, the executive branch, and the courts. She has not shied away from difficult cases or taking difficult positions when she has come to the conclusion that those positions were demanded by the Nation's needs and by the law's requirements. I wish to cite one powerful example, to me, which I discussed with her when I met her on her rounds in the Senate; that is, her case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in the case of Al Maqaleh v. Gates. It was a Federal district court judgment, where the court ruled it had jurisdiction to consider the habeas petitions of prisoners of war being held by the U.S. military at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. In other words, the court said that if we captured an enemy terrorist or soldier in Afghanistan and put them in the U.S. prison facility or detention facility at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, that individual could file a habeas petition before the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington to have his or her detention reviewed by our highest Court. To me it is an unbelievable decision and a harmful decision. The Solicitor General typically represents our government only in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. I asked General Kagan why she got involved in this case. She told me that she felt so strongly about how harmful the District Court decision would be to our Nation's ability to succeed in the wars against radical Islamist extremism we are involved in now that she made this case the exception in which she felt it appropriate and necessary for her as Solicitor General to argue on behalf of the United States in the Court of Appeals, not just in the U.S. Supreme Court. I could not agree more with General Kagan's assessment of the importance of the case and wrongness of the District Court decision. I agree with her assessment of the merits of the case. I appreciate that she chose to get involved. And I was extremely pleased when the DC Court of Appeals agreed with the position argued by General Kagan and reversed the decision of the District Court. That, I think, tells us a lot about the independence of mind and commitment to the higher national interests of General Elena Kagan. In reviewing the respective backgrounds of Justice Stevens and General Kagan as his proposed replacement, I was pleased to see some similarities in their careers. I suppose it is true of many nominated to the Supreme Court. They both have impeccable academic credentials. They both clerked for Supreme Court Justices at the beginning of their legal careers. They both then served in private practice, followed by times in academia and then the government. The important point I am making and what I believe would be a similarity between these two great Americans is that General Kagan, like the jurist she will be replacing, will be viewed at the end of her career as a Justice who put partisanship, politics, and ideology aside and put justice first.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I, therefore, say in conclusion that I support Elena Kagan. I urge my colleagues to give her a strong vote of confirmation to be our next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rachel Fleischer, Marcus Lucero, and Megan Fenton of Senator Bingaman's office be given the privilege of the floor for this day, August 3, 2010.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications network for our nation's first responders that is secure, robust and resilient. As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has more capability than those of the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us each and every day and that's just wrong. Today we introduce the First Responders Protection Act of 2010, which will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate effectively in an emergency. I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40 organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big 7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association. Today public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions, and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for granted in today's commercial communications. Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it. I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission has proposed, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications that are not disrupted by commercial traffic. The First Responders Protection Act of 2010 will ensure that the D Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist with the costs of constructing networks and up to $5.5 billion for an operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance of networks. These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of a different band of spectrum to commercial carriers. Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. I urge my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by promptly passing the First Responders Protection Act of 2010.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications network for our nation's first responders that is secure, robust and resilient. As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has more capability than those of the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us each and every day and that's just wrong. Today we introduce the First Responders Protection Act of 2010, which will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate effectively in an emergency. I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40 organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big 7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association. Today public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions, and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for granted in today's commercial communications. Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it. I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission has proposed, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications that are not disrupted by commercial traffic. The First Responders Protection Act of 2010 will ensure that the D Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist with the costs of constructing networks and up to $5.5 billion for an operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance of networks. These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of a different band of spectrum to commercial carriers. Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. I urge my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by promptly passing the First Responders Protection Act of 2010.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Senate has now turned its attention to the conference report on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010. It is a very significant piece of legislation, an excellent conference report that holds some hope of being effective and as important as anything. It is totally bipartisan which, as we know, does not happen here every day. It speaks to the unity of Members of Congress and the American people on the threat represented by the nuclear weapons development program of Iran. More than a year ago, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, Senator Evan Bayh, and I joined to introduce the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. Over the course of last year, more than three-quarters of the Members of the Senate decided to cosponsor our bill. The core provisions of that legislation have now been incorporated into this conference report. To me that means that today, as a body, we have the opportunity to reaffirm the overwhelming bipartisan support for Iran sanctions that exists in Congress and, by doing so, send an unambiguous and united message of determination and strength to the fanatical anti-American regime in Tehran. It was my privilege to serve on the conference committee that produced the legislation that is before us. This bill, when enacted, will be the most powerful and comprehensive package of sanctions against the current regime in Iran that has ever been passed by Congress. I am tremendously grateful to the leadership of the conference cochairs, beginning with my senior colleague and dear friend for so long, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and, on the House side, a great legislator and leader, Congressman Howard Berman of California. These two guided this critically important legislation to the point we are at now, which is the verge of passage by both Houses of Congress. I also want to say how grateful I am to the majority and Republican leaders of the Senate, Senators Reid and McConnell, for their steadfast bipartisan leadership in ensuring we adopt this time-sensitive legislation as soon as possible. Particularly, the goal was before July 4. I hope and believe the Senate will pass this legislation today, and the House of Representatives will do the same shortly thereafter, maybe even before. I also hope and believe President Obama will then sign the bill into law. Just as importantly, it is critical that the Obama administration forcefully and proactively implement the provisions of this legislation once it becomes law. The measures imposed by this conference report, together with the sanctions adopted at the United Nations and by like-minded nations, including particularly our allies in Europe and around the world, offer our last best hope of peacefully preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and thereby making our world much more dangerous than it is today. The stakes for our security are great, and time is of the essence. It is also critical that the Obama administration quickly makes use of these new authorities provided by this legislation, particularly the new authority to cut off foreign banks from the U.S. financial system, if they continue doing business with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, its front companies, and designated Iranian banks. We are, in this legislation, when implemented, giving foreign banks a choice. Do they want to do business in the United States or do they want to continue to do business with the fanatical regime in Iran? Our government must investigate and then impose sanctions--and I will use Secretary Clinton's words, ``crippling sanctions''--on those foreign companies that prop up the Iranian regime by continuing to invest in its energy sector or by exporting refined petroleum products to Iran. This legislation gives the administration a strong new opportunity to make clear also that America is on the side of the Iranian people, the brave Iranian people who are struggling against the repressive regime in Tehran. What the administration can do is use the new authority it is given in this legislation to publicly identify those individuals in the Iranian Government responsible for perpetrating human rights violations in Iran since the June 12, 2009 election and holding those people accountable for those abuses through targeted sanctions. It is always important to remember--and we have seen this throughout history--that a nation that represses the rights of its own people is much more likely to be a nation that will be a danger to the people and countries in its neighborhood and, with modern weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, ultimately, the people of the entire world. I am pleased that this provision on human rights in Iran is in this sanctions legislation, because I believe history has shown that America's foreign policy is always at its best and most effective when we are true to the fundamental human values that defined our Nation at its birth and at our best ever since--the self-evident truth that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with those equal rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The people of Iran are denied those rights by their own government. We are saying in this legislation that that ought to be also, as well as the support of their nuclear weapons program, a sanctionable offense. I hope and pray the combined sanctions--U.N., EU, and now U.S.--will change the mindset, the calculations of the Iranian regime. But we must also recognize that every day that passes brings Iran closer to the point of nuclear no return and greatly increases the danger and insecurity throughout the Middle East and throughout the world. With every day that passes, the Iranians enrich more uranium and their stockpile of fissile material grows. Ultimately, we must do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Almost everybody--really everybody I have heard speak on this subject--regardless of party or position in the American Government, makes that statement. It is unacceptable to the United States and the world for Iran--this fanatical state, this rogue state--to acquire nuclear weapons capability, and we must do whatever is necessary to prevent this from happening--through peaceful and diplomatic means, if we possibly can; through military force, if we absolutely must. Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power. That is the bottom line. That is precisely why I am so grateful and proud and hopeful, as we take up and--I am confident--adopt this conference report and this legislation today. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, that will strengthen the content knowledge and instructional skills of our present K-12 teacher workforce and thus ultimately raise student achievement. The Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act would establish eight new Teachers Professional Development Institutes throughout the nation each year over the next 5 years based on the model which has been operating at Yale University for over 30 years. Every Teachers Institute would consist of a partnership between an institution of higher education and the local public school system in which a significant proportion of the students come from low-income households. These Institutes will strengthen the present teacher workforce by giving each participant an opportunity to gain more sophisticated content knowledge and a chance to develop curriculum units with other colleagues that can be directly applied in their classrooms. We know that teachers gain confidence and enthusiasm when they have a deeper understanding of the subject matter that they teach and this translates into higher expectations for their students and an increase in student achievement. The Teachers Professional Development Institutes are based on the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model that has been in existence since 1978. For over 30 years, the Institute has offered, 5 or 6 13- session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics that teachers have selected to enhance their mastery of the specific subject area that they teach. The subject selection process begins with representatives from the Institutes soliciting ideas from teachers throughout the school district for topics on which teachers feel they need to have additional preparation, topics that will assist them in preparing materials they need for their students, and topics that will assist them in addressing the standards that the school district requires. As a consensus emerges about desired seminar subjects, the Institute director identifies university faculty members with the appropriate expertise, interest and desire to lead the seminar. University faculty members, especially those who have led Institute seminars before, may sometimes suggest seminars they would like to lead, and these ideas are circulated by the representatives as well. The final decisions on which seminar topics are offered are ultimately made by the teachers who participate. In this way, the offerings are designed to respond to what teachers believe is needed and useful for both themselves and their students. The cooperative nature of the Institute seminar planning process ensures its success. Institutes offer seminars and relevant materials on topics teachers have identified and feel are needed for their own preparation, as well as what they know will motivate and engage their students. Teachers enthusiastically take part in rigorous seminars they have requested, and practice using the materials they have obtained and developed. This helps ensure that the experience not only increases their preparation in the subjects they are assigned to teach, but also their participation in an Institute seminar gives them immediate hands- on active learning materials that can be used in the classroom. In short, by allowing teachers to determine the seminar subjects and providing them the resources to develop relevant curricula for their classroom and their students, the Institutes empower teachers. The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute conducted a National Demonstration Project from 1999-2002 that showed that similar Institutes could be created rapidly at diverse sites with large concentrations of disadvantaged students. After 2 years of research and planning, and based on the success of that Project, the Institute in 2005 launched the Yale National Initiative to strengthen teaching in public schools, a long-term endeavor to assist with the establishment of Teachers Institutes of this specific type in most states. As a result, new Institutes already have been established in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Charlotte, North Carolina; and Institutes are currently being planned for New Castle County, Delaware, and San Francisco, California. The teachers surveyed for the National Demonstration Project reported that student motivation, student interest, and student mastery were higher during the Institute-developed unit than during other work. Subsequently, the findings of a 2009 Report on Teachers Institute Experiences found that teachers participated out of desires to obtain curricula which suited their needs, increased subject mastery, and motivated students. Mr. President, 96 percent of the teachers rated the Institute seminars as useful, partly due to the reported increase in knowledge and in raising expectations of their students. A retrospective study showed that over a 5-year period Teachers Institute participants were almost twice as likely as non-participants to remain teaching in the district five years later. Research has shown that longevity in a district is associated with teaching effectiveness. Many agree that teacher quality is the single most important school- related factor in determining student achievement. High-quality teacher professional development programs that focus on subject and pedagogy knowledge are a proven method for enhancing the effectiveness of a teacher in the classroom. A recent review of professional development studies by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences found that ``teachers who receive substantial professional development--an average of 49 hours in the nine studies--can boost their students' achievement by about 21 percentile points.'' The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model enhances teachers' basic writing, math, and presentation skills. It increases expectations of student achievement and enthusiasm for teaching while developing skills for motivating students. These are key features that research suggests are effective in producing gains in both teacher knowledge and practice and student achievement. The Teachers Institutes accomplish student achievement gains through a proven approach distinguished from both conventional professional development offerings of school districts and from traditional continuing education and outreach programs of colleges and universities. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said recently, ``The more we can provide high-quality professional development, so that teachers have deep content knowledge, there are huge benefits. . . . So whether it's partnerships with universities and higher ed institutions, to create those meaningful professional development opportunities and really create those content-rich environments that students desperately need, that is absolutely critically important.'' This is precisely what the Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act strives to accomplish. The need for effective teachers with deep content knowledge is most apparent and urgent in schools and school districts that enroll a high proportion of students from low- income families, exactly the schools and school districts that Teachers Institutes serve. The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute has already proven to be a successful model for teacher professional development as demonstrated by the high caliber curriculum unit plans that teacher participants have developed and placed on the web, and by the evaluations that support the conclusion that virtually all the teacher participants felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and their teaching skills. The finding that Institute participants were almost twice as likely as non-participants to remain in teaching in high-need schools is especially encouraging. Our proposal would open this opportunity to many more teachers in high-need schools throughout the Nation. I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.