Joseph Lieberman

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.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for her leadership in this matter. I rise to oppose the resolution offered by my friend from Alaska, and she is my friend. I rise to say that I think, though I oppose the resolution, that debate on the resolution has clarified the choices Members of the Senate have on this matter. I think it has illuminated the scientific consensus, and in the end, the defeat of this resolution, which I hope for and support, will actually increase momentum to adopt comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year which is the real alternative to executive action by EPA next January. I know several of my colleagues have argued today that this resolution is about stopping EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and preserving that role for Congress. But the resolution does, of course, much more than just offer an opinion about who should regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It rejects EPA's finding that ``six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations'' of Americans. It would also prevent EPA from reaching a similar conclusion in the future. To me, that means this resolution looks an awful lot like an attempt to impose political judgments on scientific judgments. That is wrong. There has been a lot of talk over the years of basing what we do on sound science. This resolution would lead us in exactly the opposite direction. Should the resolution become law, Congress would in effect be saying EPA was wrong when it reached its conclusion that global warming emissions harmed public health. Since that finding was the basis for EPA's tailpipe emissions standards, the Murkowski resolution would send EPA back to the drawing board on those rules, which are broadly supported by the business and environmental communities and significantly increase both our dependence on foreign oil and air pollution. Regardless of whether my colleagues believe Congress or the EPA should determine our national strategy for addressing the threat of global warming, I hope they can agree that unchecked carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health and welfare. Frankly, I thought that debate was over. Climate change is happening. The science is convincing. The current pattern of energy consumption is just making a bad problem worse. It is time to move past the debate about climate science and engage in an honest, productive, bipartisan conversation about what we can do as a nation, as a people privileged to be leaders of this Nation, to combat the problem, the challenge that science tells us is happening. The solution we come up with can and will create good jobs. It can and will ensure our role as a leader in the global clean energy economy. It can and will safeguard our national security by safeguarding our energy security. Last month, Senator Kerry and I presented the American Power Act, which I think achieves all of those goals I have stated and more. It is the product of months of discussions with Republicans and Democrats, the business community, and the environmental community. Together I think we came up with an innovative approach to addressing both our energy and climate challenges. It enjoys broader support than any similar proposal I have ever been involved in from the business and environmental communities. It is a coming together of the work of the Environment and Public Works Committee under Chairman Boxer and the Energy Committee under Chairman Bingaman.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would say, finally, there is a path forward that allows Congress to act but does not reject the science of climate change. That path forward is a ``no'' vote on the resolution and a ``yes'' vote on comprehensive energy and climate legislation like the American Power Act. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, which I believe would help secure the Nation's cyber networks against attack. The Internet may have started out as a communications oddity some 40 years ago but it is now a necessity of modern life and, sadly, one that is under constant attack. Today, Senators Collins, Carper, and I are introducing legislation which we believe would help secure the most critical cyber networks and therefore all Americans. For all of its ``user-friendly'' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets. Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies--cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyberterrorists and cyber- criminals. That risk may be as serious to our homeland security as anything we face today. Computer networks at the Departments of Defense are being probed hundreds of thousands of times a day, and networks at the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Commerce, as well as NASA and the National Defense University, have all suffered ``major intrusions by unknown foreign entities,'' according to reports. Key networks that control vital infrastructure, like the electric grid, have been probed, possibly giving our enemies information that could be used to plunge us into darkness at the press of a button from across an ocean. Banks have had millions and millions of dollars stolen from accounts by cyber-bandits who have never been anywhere near the banks themselves. In a report by McAfee--a computer security company, about 54 percent of the executives of critical infrastructure companies surveyed said their companies had been the victims of denial of service attacks or network infiltration by organized crime groups, terrorists, and other nation-states. The downtime to recover from these attacks can cost $6 million to $8 million a day. Our present efforts at securing these vital but sprawling government and private sector networks have been disjointed, understaffed and underfinanced. We have not operated with the sense of urgency that is necessary to protect Americans' cyberspace, which the President has correctly described as a ``strategic national asset.'' Our bill would bring these disjointed efforts together so that the federal government and the private sector can coordinate their activities and work off the same playbook. While President Obama's creation of a cyber-security coordinator inside the White House was a step in the right direction, we need to make that position permanent, transparent and accountable to Congress and the American people. So, our proposal would create a Senate-confirmed White House cyber- security coordinator whose job would be to lead all federal cyber- security efforts; develop a national strategy--that incorporates all elements of cyberspace policy, including military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic; give policy advice to the President; and resolve interagency disputes. The Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy would oversee all related federal cyberspace activities to ensure efficiency and coordination and would report regularly to Congress to ensure transparency and oversight. Our legislation also would create a National Center for Cybersecurity an Communications, NCCC, within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to elevate and strengthen the Department's cyber security capabilities and authorities. The NCCC would be run by a Senate- confirmed Director who would have the authority and resources to work with the rest of the Federal Government to protect public and private sector cyber networks. DHS has shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks-- like utilities and communications systems--could bring our economy to its knees if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber- terrorists. But other than pointing out a vulnerability, DHS has lacked the power to do anything about it. Our legislation would give DHS the authority to ensure that our nation's most critical infrastructure is protected from cyber attack. Defense of our cyber networks will only be successful if industry and government work together, so this legislation sets up a collaborative process where the best ideas of the private sector and the government can be used to meet a baseline set of security requirements that DHS would oversee. Specifically, the NCCC would work with the private sector to establish risk-based security requirements that strengthen the cyber security for the nation's most critical infrastructure, such as vital components of the electric grid, telecommunications networks, and financial sector that, if disrupted, would result in a national or regional catastrophe. Owners and operators of critical infrastructure covered under the act could choose which security measures to implement to meet these risk-based performance requirements. The act would provide some liability protections to owners/operators who demonstrate compliance with the new risk-based security requirements. Covered critical infrastructure must also report significant breaches to the NCCC to ensure the federal government has a complete picture of the security of these networks. In return, the NCCC would share information, including threat analysis, with owners and operators regarding risks to their networks. The NCCC would also produce and share useful warning, analysis, and threat information with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and international partners. To increase security across the private sector more broadly, the NCCC would collaborate with the private sector to develop best practices for cyber security. By promoting best practices and providing voluntary technical assistance as resources permit, the NCCC would help improve cyber security across the Nation. Information the private sector shares with the NCCC would be protected from public disclosure, and private sector owners and operators may obtain security clearances to access information necessary to protect the IT networks the American people depend upon. Thanks to great work by Senator Carper, our legislation would update the Federal Information Security Management Act--or FISMA--to require continuous monitoring and protection of our federal networks and do away with the paper-based reporting system that currently exists. The act also would codify and strengthen DHS authorities to establish 0 complete situational awareness for Federal networks and develop tools to improve resilience of Federal Government systems and networks. In the event of an attack--or threat of an attack--that could have catastrophic consequences to our economy, national security or public safety, our bill would give the President the authority to impose emergency measures on a select group of the most critical infrastructure to preserve their cyber networks and assets and protect our country and the American people. These emergency measures would automatically expire within 30 days unless the President ordered an extension. These measures would be developed in consultation with the private sector and would apply if the President has credible evidence a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited. If possible, the President must notify Congress in advance about the threat and the emergency measures that would be taken to mitigate it. Any emergency measures imposed must be the least disruptive necessary to respond to the threat. The bill does not authorize any new surveillance authorities, or permit the government to ``take over'' private networks. Of course, DHS would need a lot of talented people to accomplish these missions, and our bill gives it the flexibility to recruit, hire, and retain the experts it would need to be successful. Our bill would require the Office of Personal Management to reform the way cyber security personnel are recruited, hired, and trained and would provide DHS with temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the quick establishment of the NCCC. Finally, our legislation would require the Federal Government to develop and implement a strategy to ensure that almost $80 billion of the information technology products and services it purchases each year are secure and do not provide our adversaries with a backdoor into our networks. More specifically, the act would require development of a comprehensive supply chain risk management strategy to address risks and threats to the information technology products and services the federal government relies upon. This strategy would allow agencies to make informed decisions when purchasing IT products and services. This provision would be implemented through the Federal Acquisition Regulation, requiring contracting officers to consider the security risks inherent in agency IT procurements. The value of this approach is that once security features are developed to protect federal networks, private sector customers may be able to purchase that same level of security in the products they buy. The need for this legislation is both obvious and urgent. A report by the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, concluded that ``we face a long-term challenge in cyberspace from foreign intelligence agencies and militaries, criminals and others, and losing this struggle would wreak serious damage on the economic health and national security of the United States.'' Given these stakes, Senators Collins, Carper, and I are confident our colleagues will join with us and pass the ``Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act'' in the 110th Congress.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, which I believe would help secure the Nation's cyber networks against attack. The Internet may have started out as a communications oddity some 40 years ago but it is now a necessity of modern life and, sadly, one that is under constant attack. Today, Senators Collins, Carper, and I are introducing legislation which we believe would help secure the most critical cyber networks and therefore all Americans. For all of its ``user-friendly'' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets. Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies--cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyberterrorists and cyber- criminals. That risk may be as serious to our homeland security as anything we face today. Computer networks at the Departments of Defense are being probed hundreds of thousands of times a day, and networks at the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Commerce, as well as NASA and the National Defense University, have all suffered ``major intrusions by unknown foreign entities,'' according to reports. Key networks that control vital infrastructure, like the electric grid, have been probed, possibly giving our enemies information that could be used to plunge us into darkness at the press of a button from across an ocean. Banks have had millions and millions of dollars stolen from accounts by cyber-bandits who have never been anywhere near the banks themselves. In a report by McAfee--a computer security company, about 54 percent of the executives of critical infrastructure companies surveyed said their companies had been the victims of denial of service attacks or network infiltration by organized crime groups, terrorists, and other nation-states. The downtime to recover from these attacks can cost $6 million to $8 million a day. Our present efforts at securing these vital but sprawling government and private sector networks have been disjointed, understaffed and underfinanced. We have not operated with the sense of urgency that is necessary to protect Americans' cyberspace, which the President has correctly described as a ``strategic national asset.'' Our bill would bring these disjointed efforts together so that the federal government and the private sector can coordinate their activities and work off the same playbook. While President Obama's creation of a cyber-security coordinator inside the White House was a step in the right direction, we need to make that position permanent, transparent and accountable to Congress and the American people. So, our proposal would create a Senate-confirmed White House cyber- security coordinator whose job would be to lead all federal cyber- security efforts; develop a national strategy--that incorporates all elements of cyberspace policy, including military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic; give policy advice to the President; and resolve interagency disputes. The Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy would oversee all related federal cyberspace activities to ensure efficiency and coordination and would report regularly to Congress to ensure transparency and oversight. Our legislation also would create a National Center for Cybersecurity an Communications, NCCC, within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to elevate and strengthen the Department's cyber security capabilities and authorities. The NCCC would be run by a Senate- confirmed Director who would have the authority and resources to work with the rest of the Federal Government to protect public and private sector cyber networks. DHS has shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks-- like utilities and communications systems--could bring our economy to its knees if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber- terrorists. But other than pointing out a vulnerability, DHS has lacked the power to do anything about it. Our legislation would give DHS the authority to ensure that our nation's most critical infrastructure is protected from cyber attack. Defense of our cyber networks will only be successful if industry and government work together, so this legislation sets up a collaborative process where the best ideas of the private sector and the government can be used to meet a baseline set of security requirements that DHS would oversee. Specifically, the NCCC would work with the private sector to establish risk-based security requirements that strengthen the cyber security for the nation's most critical infrastructure, such as vital components of the electric grid, telecommunications networks, and financial sector that, if disrupted, would result in a national or regional catastrophe. Owners and operators of critical infrastructure covered under the act could choose which security measures to implement to meet these risk-based performance requirements. The act would provide some liability protections to owners/operators who demonstrate compliance with the new risk-based security requirements. Covered critical infrastructure must also report significant breaches to the NCCC to ensure the federal government has a complete picture of the security of these networks. In return, the NCCC would share information, including threat analysis, with owners and operators regarding risks to their networks. The NCCC would also produce and share useful warning, analysis, and threat information with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and international partners. To increase security across the private sector more broadly, the NCCC would collaborate with the private sector to develop best practices for cyber security. By promoting best practices and providing voluntary technical assistance as resources permit, the NCCC would help improve cyber security across the Nation. Information the private sector shares with the NCCC would be protected from public disclosure, and private sector owners and operators may obtain security clearances to access information necessary to protect the IT networks the American people depend upon. Thanks to great work by Senator Carper, our legislation would update the Federal Information Security Management Act--or FISMA--to require continuous monitoring and protection of our federal networks and do away with the paper-based reporting system that currently exists. The act also would codify and strengthen DHS authorities to establish 0 complete situational awareness for Federal networks and develop tools to improve resilience of Federal Government systems and networks. In the event of an attack--or threat of an attack--that could have catastrophic consequences to our economy, national security or public safety, our bill would give the President the authority to impose emergency measures on a select group of the most critical infrastructure to preserve their cyber networks and assets and protect our country and the American people. These emergency measures would automatically expire within 30 days unless the President ordered an extension. These measures would be developed in consultation with the private sector and would apply if the President has credible evidence a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited. If possible, the President must notify Congress in advance about the threat and the emergency measures that would be taken to mitigate it. Any emergency measures imposed must be the least disruptive necessary to respond to the threat. The bill does not authorize any new surveillance authorities, or permit the government to ``take over'' private networks. Of course, DHS would need a lot of talented people to accomplish these missions, and our bill gives it the flexibility to recruit, hire, and retain the experts it would need to be successful. Our bill would require the Office of Personal Management to reform the way cyber security personnel are recruited, hired, and trained and would provide DHS with temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the quick establishment of the NCCC. Finally, our legislation would require the Federal Government to develop and implement a strategy to ensure that almost $80 billion of the information technology products and services it purchases each year are secure and do not provide our adversaries with a backdoor into our networks. More specifically, the act would require development of a comprehensive supply chain risk management strategy to address risks and threats to the information technology products and services the federal government relies upon. This strategy would allow agencies to make informed decisions when purchasing IT products and services. This provision would be implemented through the Federal Acquisition Regulation, requiring contracting officers to consider the security risks inherent in agency IT procurements. The value of this approach is that once security features are developed to protect federal networks, private sector customers may be able to purchase that same level of security in the products they buy. The need for this legislation is both obvious and urgent. A report by the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, concluded that ``we face a long-term challenge in cyberspace from foreign intelligence agencies and militaries, criminals and others, and losing this struggle would wreak serious damage on the economic health and national security of the United States.'' Given these stakes, Senators Collins, Carper, and I are confident our colleagues will join with us and pass the ``Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act'' in the 110th Congress.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, recently the Obama administration asked the National Archives to speed up its already planned release of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's records from her time in the Clinton administration. I applaud the administration's openness. But this speedy release of documents is not required by the current Presidential Records Act and might have been impossible under an Executive order issued by former President George W. Bush. That order allowed former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and their heirs to withhold the release of documents indefinitely by claiming Executive privilege. On his first day in office, President Obama repealed the Bush Executive order, but a future President could just as easily change it back or add new impediments to the timely release of an administration's records. I have long championed legislation to make it clear that these documents are the property of the American people and therefore should be subject to timely release. But we cannot move forward with this legislation because my friend, colleague, and ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Jeff Sessions, has placed a hold on it. Regarding the release of the Kagan documents, Senator Sessions recently told the Washington Post: I think all the documents that are producible should be produced. The American people are entitled to know what kind of positions she took, and what kind of issues she was involved with during her past public service. I agree with Senator Sessions and hope he will now release his hold on my legislation so this kind of speedy release of documents and the right of the American people to view them will be the legal standard for all future Presidents. A little history will help explain how we got to where we are today. Securing Presidential documents is a problem as old as the Republic. George Washington had planned to build a library on his estate at Mount Vernon to house his Presidential papers. But Washington died before he could get his plan underway and his heirs were not always careful stewards of our Founding President's legacy. Some of the documents were so badly stored they were eaten by mice. Others were sold off or given away haphazardly. One of Washington's heirs even took to cutting the signature from Washington's correspondence and sending it to collectors. In a letter, this heir wrote: I am now cutting up fragments from old letters and accounts, some of 1760 . . . to supply the call for anything that bears the impress of his venerated hand. One of my correspondents says, ``Send me only the dot of an i or the cross of a t, made by his hand, and I will be content.'' Despite this inauspicious beginning in preserving our Nation's history, for nearly two centuries it was presumed that the papers of former Presidents were their personal property to be disposed of however they or their heirs saw fit. Think of all our national history that has been lost, destroyed or kept locked away far too long. The bulk of Andrew Jackson's papers were scattered among at least 100 collections. Jackson's successor, Martin Van Buren, destroyed correspondence he decided was--I quote--``of little value.'' The papers of Presidents Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Arthur, and Harding were destroyed in fires--sometimes by accident, sometimes intentional. President Lincoln's son Todd burned his father's Civil War correspondence and threatened to burn all of his father's Presidential papers until a compromise was reached with the Library of Congress that kept most of the papers sealed until 1947. This delay helped fuel conspiracy theories that the papers were kept hidden because they would show that members of Lincoln's Cabinet were part of the assassination plot--in effect, that Lincoln died in a coup. Of course, when the papers were finally released, they showed that wasn't true, but it took 82 unnecessary years to put the rumor to rest. These historical records are too valuable to be left to the judgment of former Presidents, the whims of their heirs, the caprice of nature or--as in George Washington's case--the appetite of rodents. This situation finally began to change under President Franklin Roosevelt who, on December 10, 1938, announced he would build a library on his estate in Hyde Park, NY, to house the papers and collections of his public life that stretched back to 1910, when he was elected to the State Senate of New York. Roosevelt set a standard for openness, asking his aides and Cabinet Secretaries to contribute to the collection, and almost every President who followed carried on in the spirit of Roosevelt--also building libraries to house their papers. But this system was voluntary and began to crumble with the resignation of our 37th President, Richard Nixon. Nixon had an agreement with the General Services Administration, GSA, which would have allowed him to keep all his records locked away, including the infamous Watergate tapes, and mandated many of them be destroyed. This put us right back where we started, with a former President choosing what historical records the public was entitled to. Congress passed legislation in 1974 specifically ordering that the Federal Government take control of Nixon's records and then in 1978 passed legislation declaring that Presidential papers were public property that must be turned over to the National Archives at the end of an administration and be open to the public after 5 years. Systems, however, were put in place to allow a former President to review documents--and challenge their release on the grounds of Executive privilege. But the presumption was in favor of openness unless the former President could show the court a compelling reason to withhold the documents. But then, as mentioned, President Bush weakened the law with Executive Order No. 13233, issued on November 1, 2001. Just to repeat, under this order, not only former Presidents and their heirs, but Vice Presidents and their heirs as well, could withhold the release of documents by claiming Executive privilege. The order also required those challenging claims of Executive privilege to prove in court that they have a ``demonstrated, specific need'' for the documents--an impossibly high standard since only the document's author can know precisely what a document contains. And since the Executive order also allowed for an indefinite review period, these records--housed in Presidential libraries maintained by the taxpayers--could be locked away for indefinite periods of time, making them about as useful as the ashes of Lincoln's letters. In reversing Bush's Executive order, President Obama made clear that only the sitting President can claim Executive privilege--not their heirs, and not their Vice Presidents or the Vice Presidents' heirs. In signing the new Executive order, President Obama said: Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution. This is wise public policy and should be the law of the land--subject to repeal only by Congress, not by Executive order. When President Roosevelt dedicated his library and began opening up his records and other artifacts to public view, he made it clear that this kind of openness is good for a democracy. ``The dedication of a library,'' Roosevelt said, ``is in itself an act of faith. To bring together the records of the past and to house them in buildings where they will be preserved for the use of men and women in the future, a Nation must believe in three things. It must believe in the past. It must believe in the future. It must, above all, believe in the capacity of its own people so to learn from the past that they can gain in judgment in creating their own future.'' This Congress can now reassert Roosevelt's faith in our democracy. That is why I urge my colleague, Senator Sessions, to release his hold on H.R. 35 so we can pass it, get it to the President, and make history now by preserving Presidential history as an open resource for Americans to learn from in the future.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, yesterday Senators Dodd, Collins, Carper, McCain, and I introduced the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2010. The bill we presented to the Senate is a bipartisan piece of legislation that provides support to our Nation's firefighters and emergency medical service responders. It reauthorizes the Assistance to Firefighters, AFG, program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response program, SAFER--two highly successful programs I worked to establish in 2000 and 2003, respectively. I think we are all aware of the great sacrifices first responders make for us. Since September 11 and the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, firefighters in communities large and small have assumed a greater role in overall national emergency preparedness. They are now the frontline of defense in most communities for disasters of all types. More than ever, firefighters need the training and equipment to deal not only with fires but also with hazardous materials, nuclear, radioactive and explosive devices, and other potential threats. The demands on firefighters have increased in other ways as well. As the New York Times reported last year, firefighters are responding more and more to medical emergencies--15.8 million in 2008, a 213 percent increase from 1980. Right here in Washington, DC, at Fire Engine Company 10--known as the ``House of Pain'' for its grueling schedule-- 80 percent of the calls are for medical emergencies. Our Nation's firefighters--like other first responders are the first to arrive and the last to leave whenever trouble hits. They deserve all the support we can give them. Regrettably, they do not always get it. Firefighters often lack the equipment and vehicles they need to do their jobs safely and effectively. The U.S. Fire Administration reported in 2006 that 60 percent of fire departments did not have enough breathing apparatuses to equip all firefighters on a shift, 65 percent did not have enough portable radios, and 49 percent of all fire engines were at least 15 years old. We can and should do more so that these brave men and women have what they need to protect their communities and themselves as they perform a very dangerous job. Our bill takes much-needed steps to ensure that they do. To start with, because career, volunteer, and combination fire departments all suffer from shortages in equipment, vehicles, and training, our bill requires that each type receives at least 25 percent of the available AFG grant funding. The remaining funds will be allocated based on factors such as risk and the needs of individual communities and the country as a whole. This creates an appropriate balance, ensuring that funds are directed at departments facing the most significant risks while guaranteeing that no department is left out. We have also taken a number of steps in our bill to help fire departments recover from the recession. Faced with economic difficulties, local governments have reduced spending on vital services, including fire departments. Among other things, these cuts have prevented many departments from replacing old equipment and forced them to lay off needed firefighters. To help departments rebuild, we have lowered the matching requirements for AFG and SAFER. Departments are still required to match some of their grant awards with funds of their own--ensuring they have some skin in the game--but the reduced amount will make it easier for them to accept awards. We have also created an economic hardship waiver for both grant programs that will allow FEMA to waive certain requirements, such as requiring that grantees provide matching funds, for departments in communities that have been especially hard hit by tough economic times. Our bill contains a number of other important provisions. It raises the maximum grant amounts available under AFG. As common sense would suggest, large communities often require a substantial amount of equipment, and they will now be able to apply for funding in amounts more in line with what they need. We also would provide funding for national fire safety organizations and institutions of higher education that wish to create joint programs establishing fire safety research centers. There is a great need for research devoted to fire safety and prevention and improved technology. The work these centers do will help us reduce fire casualties among firefighters and civilians and make communities safer. As important as it is to help our firefighters, we must also demand accountability when we spend taxpayer dollars. For this reason, we require that FEMA create performance management systems for these programs, complete with quantifiable metrics that will allow us to see how well they perform. Going forward, this will allow us to see what works in these programs and what does not so that we can make needed improvements when required. We have also included provisions to prevent earmarks from being attached to these programs. AFG and SAFER have never been earmarked--an impressive accomplishment--and we want to keep it that way. The funding for these programs needs to go to firefighters, not pet projects. Finally, this legislation authorizes $950 million each for these vital programs. This is actually less than what was authorized in the past. We believe that supporting our nation's firefighters and emergency medical service responders ought to be a priority, but we recognize that these tough fiscal times require some belt-tightening. Authorizing funding for AFG and SAFER at these amounts sends the message that Congress can direct funding where it is needed while also showing discipline. These programs address a vital national need. Our legislation ensures that fire departments get the support they need to protect their communities while also protecting taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of these important programs.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize one of my State's great companies on the occasion of its 90th birthday. On April 23, 1920, Arthur Pitney and Walter Bowes officially formed the Pitney Bowes Company with its headquarters in Stamford, CT. Today the company is still headquartered in Stamford, and employs 33,000 individuals worldwide. In 1912, Arthur Pitney introduced the postage meter in the United States. This device, which is used to create and apply physical evidence of postage to pieces of mail, has allowed postal officials and offices throughout the United States to process mail more efficiently. In 1920, he partnered with Walter Bowes, a successful entrepreneur, to form the Pitney Bowes Postage Meter Company. In order for the postage meter to be sold in the U.S., Congress had to act to permit the meter indicia to be recognized as postage. Since its founding, Pitney Bowes has been at the forefront of technological innovation. It has added vastly to the intellectual capital of this country and currently manages an active patent portfolio of more than 3,000 inventions. Quite simply, it is a company that has been the source of many, many good ideas. Many of its scientists are based in its R&D facility in Shelton, CT. In addition, the company actually had one of the first ``e-commerce'' applications, with its meters able to download postage electronically since 1979. Pitney Bowes continues to innovate and grow. Last year its R&D investment was $182 million. It recently launched its newest mailing system. It also has become one of the world's largest software companies, helping its customers more accurately address their mail, deliver smarter marketing, provide more efficient government services, or locate their stores in the most promising location. The company also is a leader in the field of document management, helping government agencies, large companies and law firms manage their critical documents. For more than 20 years, Pitney Bowes Financial Services International, a wholly-owned subsidiary, has been providing high- quality financial services for Pitney Bowes customers throughout the international marketplace. For example, Pitney Bowes finances the purchase of postage in its meters for over 1 million customers. Pitney Bowes has operated globally for decades, and currently generates almost 30 percent of its revenue outside of the United States. At its manufacturing facility in Danbury, the company assembles large-scale mailing machines for export to many countries. I have had the privilege of touring the facility and have enjoyed seeing the flags of the destination countries hung over the machines they will be receiving. Pitney Bowes has a large and diverse customer base with 2 million customers worldwide, many of which are small businesses. It has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 1950, has been a component of the S&P 500 Stock Index continually since 1957, and first joined the Fortune 500 in 1962. Over the years, I know that Pitney Bowes has also been a good partner to the Postal Service and cares passionately about maintaining a mail service that not only survives but thrives. Pitney Bowes took the lead in creating the Mailing Industry CEO Council, which for the last several years has been at the forefront of educating policymakers about the mailing industry. There was a time when many of us in Congress failed to appreciate the extent of the importance and impact of the mailing industry. But thanks to their efforts, we know that it is a big trillion dollar industry employing more than 8 million workers. The company and the CEO Council played important roles in helping us enact postal reform legislation after a decade of effort. The company's chairman and CEO, Murray Martin, continues to regularly visit us in Washington to share his insights on how Congress can help the Postal Service adjust in a rapidly changing world. On behalf of the people of Connecticut and the rest of the Nation, I would like to honor Pitney Bowes on the occasion of its 90th birthday. I am certain that the company and its employees will continue to pioneer new technologies and services that will contribute to economic growth in the U.S. and abroad.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to support the long-delayed nomination of Judge Marisa Demeo for a seat on the DC Superior Court and urge my colleagues to approve her as quickly as possible so she can take her place on this court that is both busy and shorthanded. Judge Demeo is well qualified for this position and brings a range of legal experience to her new job that would make her an asset to the court. She has been a judge, a prosecutor, a plaintiff's attorney advocating for civil rights and a law professor. Specifically, for the past 2 years, Judge Demeo has served as a magistrate judge in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Prior to that, from 2004 to 2007 she served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; from 1997 to 2004 she served as the Regional Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, from 1993 to 1996 she was an honors program trial attorney with the Justice Department Civil Rights division, and she was an adjunct professor of law at Howard University in 2003, 2005 and 2008. Judge Demeo is a graduate of Princeton University with a bachelor's degree in political science and earned her law degree at New York University. And besides her legal work, she is also in demand as a speaker on legal issues and is the author of many articles on civil rights law. Judge Demeo also has a compelling personal story that reminds us that the American dream is alive and well. Her father--the son of Italian immigrants--and her mother--a Puerto Rican immigrant--taught her that if you work hard, anything is possible and Judge Demeo has channeled her talent and drive into a successful career in public service. These facts taken together led the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to endorse Judge Demeo's nomination by voice vote in May. Let me say that again, the committee reported Judge Demeo's nomination to the full Senate in May--11 months ago--and it has been stalled ever since. There is also speculation that some object to her because of legal advocacy work she has done on behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, also known as MALDEF. But there is no reason that this sort of work should be held against any nominee. Under our system of justice, when an individual or group believes something is not just, they are allowed to have their day in court and have an attorney zealously argue their cause. In her confirmation hearing, Judge Demeo was specifically asked if her advocacy work would affect her decisionmaking as a judge. Let me give you Judge Demeo's response in her own words: When you think about the parties that appear in the courtroom, oftentimes it's plaintiffs versus defendants and one party against another, and I've . . . worked in both positions in my career. Being in the judge position has allowed me to take a step back already, in the magistrate position, and listen to the parties and be open to both sides. To that end, at her confirmation hearing, representatives of the Justice Department and the Public Defenders' office came to lend their support to her nomination. And we should remember, that nominations for the DC courts are made through a process different than other judicial nominees. Under the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, the Judicial Nominations Committee recommends three individuals for each position to the President, and the President then selects one of those individuals and sends the nomination to the Senate for confirmation. The Judicial Nominations Committee is a diverse, Federal-district entity, comprised of two individuals appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia--one being a nonlawyer--two appointed by the Board of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar, one nonlawyer appointed by the city council of the District of Columbia, one individual appointed by the President of the United States, and one judicial member appointed by the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This is a process aimed at getting the best qualified nominees, without regard to party or politics. Finally, Chief Judge of the Superior Court, Lee F. Satterfield, wrote to both the majority and minority leaders in October pleading for the swift approval of Judge Demeo because the court is already five members short. In his letter, Judge Satterfield wrote: The Superior Court is a busy, urban court with a caseload of over 100,000 cases a year. Each day we make important decisions about neglected and abused children, juveniles alleged to have committed crimes, and accused charged with everything from minor misdemeanors to first degree murder and sexual abuse. Vulnerable families in the District rely on Superior Court judges to make timely and fair decisions regarding domestic violence, housing, child custody and support, and numerous issues that affect them every day. Our goal is to serve the community well by handling the important decisions we are entrusted with fairly, justly and efficiently. And last month, Judge Satterfield sent another letter to the majority and minority leader with this dire warning, ``We are beginning to experience delays in meeting performance measures and standards for how quickly cases should go to trial.'' But, a shorthanded court cannot achieve these goals, which means justice is delayed for many. It's long past time that we approve this highly qualified nominee and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this nomination and allow her to get to work administering justice for the citizens of our Nation's Capital. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the extraordinary life and service of Bill Stanley, a statesman, a scholar, and a true American patriot who passed away on April 19, 2010. Bill was a valued public intellectual, historian, and leader in the Norwich, CT, community. Beloved for his brilliant mind and generous spirit, Bill Stanley will be missed deeply. I knew Bill for many years, and I am grateful for all of the wisdom he offered me personally. Bill was a loyal and valued friend who was always generous with his time and advice. Mostly though, I treasure the example that Bill Stanley set in his career of devoted service to this country. Bill served America with courage and distinction in the U.S. Marine Corps, in Connecticut's State Senate for two successful terms, and through the many important causes that he championed in the city of Norwich and throughout our State. Bill Stanley's desire to serve his community was boundless, as was his generosity. Bill's legacy of enormous contributions and achievements has touched thousands of people across our state. Among his many initiatives were the St. Jude Common, a center that has cared for thousands of seniors across Connecticut, and the Forgotten Founders Committee, an extraordinary project that will honor many of early America's most important--and often overlooked--historical figures. Bill Stanley loved history, taught history, and made history. With his unique insight, energy, and passion, Bill Stanley illuminated our hearts and minds with his weekly columns for the Norwich Bulletin. Bill never hesitated to ask tough questions or take a contrarian stance on an issue. For this, he was respected and trusted by countless readers; many of whom he knew personally and others who admired him from afar. Bill Stanley wrote about many of the most important figures and moments in Norwich's history and uniquely brought to life the stories that form the fabric of the city of Norwich, a city he understood and cherished like few others. Bill lifted his readers up to experience a new, exciting, and wider view of the past. In doing so, he has offered us a deeper understanding of the present and helped us chart the future course for our State, our country, and our world. Our State and this Nation are blessed to have people like Bill Stanley who truly enrich our communities. We--his readers, his students, and his friends--were particularly blessed with the opportunity to have learned from him. Bill's brilliant mind, magnanimous spirit, and unforgettable stories will never fade from our memory. I extend my condolences to Bill's wife Peg and his children Bill Jr., Carol, and Mary.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to honor the Center for Excellence in Education, CEE, for launching the first National Lab Skills Symposium. As an honorary member of the board of trustees for the center, I have witnessed firsthand the important work CEE had undertaken, and I could not be more impressed and excited about its newest endeavor. Improving science education is an essential investment toward the future of our Nation and world. Since it was founded in 1983 by Joann DiGennaro and the late ADM H.G. Rickover, CEE has been an influential leader in championing efforts to provide science, technology, engineering, and mathematics initiatives for this Nation's top achieving students. With over 25 years of experience as a leader in STEM academic programs for high school students, CEE understands exactly what it takes to prepare future innovators for the 21st century; and it is prepared to take further steps to ensure that students develop the skills they need. Consequently, after data from both of CEE's world- renowned scientific enrichment programs, the Research Science Institute and the USA Biology Olympiad, demonstrated that even our Nation's best and brightest students are receiving inadequate training in laboratory skills and practices, CEE initiated the National Lab Skills Symposium to address the poor quality of instruction and learning in our Nation's science and technology labs. CEE held its first such symposium from April 8-9, in Washington, DC, to discuss best practices in laboratory education and to determine the ways in which high school teachers throughout the country can use these best practices for the teaching of laboratory skills to students for success in STEM careers. Before holding the symposium, CEE examined laboratory education programs across the United States, seeking those programs that follow the most cost-effective, sustainable, and replicable models for teaching students practical lab skills. CEE found six programs it deemed exemplary, which were recognized at the symposium. These programs also served as a framework that attendees, which included influential members of academia at the high school and university levels, nongovernmental organizations, governmental agency representatives, and corporate leaders, could evaluate and reference when developing a set of best practices for laboratory education. CEE plans to implement the symposium's best practice recommendations in several States within 2 years and hopes to eventually adopt them nationwide. I applaud the efforts of CEE to address the crisis in lab skills, and I am confident that this new initiative will help us to ensure that the United States fields a talented and diverse workforce in science and technology for years to come. I commend CEE's president, Joann DiGennaro, for the leadership and vision she has demonstrated in putting together the National Lab Skills Symposium. I have no doubt that Admiral Rickover is saluting this latest effort. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in recognizing the Center for Excellence in Education for all it has done to assure the Nation's economic growth and national security.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I gather I have at least 7 minutes assigned to me.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask that the Chair inform me if I am not finished when there is 1 minute remaining on my time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, a good friend once wisely said to me that it is only a very short road that has no turns. The road that health care reform has traveled to get to the Senate has been very long and has had many turns. Its path to us might well be described as tortuous, with all that word has come to mean. As I said when I explained in December why I was voting for the Senate health care reform bill, any piece of legislation this big, this complicated, and this transformational is unlikely to be perfectly pleasing to anyone. That is true for me. In the end, each of us has to ask ourselves, do the positives in this legislation outweigh the negatives? Does what pleases us in it outweigh what worries us? Let me begin with the measure before us now. The reconciliation act that is before us preserves most but not all of the health care reform the Senate adopted and I voted for in December. I concluded then and repeat now that together these measures achieve real change in the three big areas in which our health care system needs to be changed: reforming health care delivery to put a brake on the skyrocketing costs of care for individuals, families, businesses, and our government; better regulating health insurance companies to protect consumers, including those with preexisting conditions; and helping millions of middle-income Americans who cannot afford health insurance now to buy it. For me it is particularly noteworthy that the Senate bill, plus the reconciliation act, achieves all that progress without a government takeover of health care or health insurance. That would have been a very costly deficit-exploding mistake and would have fundamentally and adversely altered the traditional American balance of power between the public and private sectors that has worked so well over our history to create economic growth and opportunity and to build the American middle class. That is why I opposed the so-called public option so strenuously and why I am so grateful it is not in the reconciliation act the House has sent us. Those are the big and good things I appreciate in this health care reform package. What worries me about it? First, the size of this proposal concerns me, particularly at this time of national fiscal indebtedness and economic stress. I wish we had chosen to achieve health care reform step by step, beginning with delivery reforms that would lower health costs and then moving on to expand middle-class access to affordable health insurance and then more aggressively regulating health insurance companies. But there was never enough bipartisan support for such step- by-step reform. I know because I tried to find it. So now, along with each of my colleagues, I must vote on the proposal before us, not on one I wish we had before us. My biggest concerns about this proposal are its prospective fiscal consequences. I worry that the savings this bill achieves in Medicare and the revenue it raises from new Medicare taxes to help pay for health care reform will soon be urgently needed to save Medicare itself from running out of money it needs to pay the bills for seniors' health care. Most of all, I worry that the bottom line consequences of this health care reform will be to increase our already ominous national debt. I am, of course, greatly encouraged by the conclusion of the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that this health care reform legislation will not only not increase the debt but actually decrease it by more than a trillion dollars over the next two decades, and that its savings in Medicare will not only pay for part of health care reform but actually extend the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund. According to the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the solvency of the trust fund will be extended by 10 years as a result of the Senate health care reform bill that is now law. However, for those good and significant things to happen, future Congresses will have to be very disciplined and keep the promises that are made in this legislation to reform health care delivery to cut costs. Most of those reforms will over time be opposed by providers and beneficiaries. The record of Congress in resisting such pressure to stick with the costly status quo is not encouraging. So in the end, I have weighed the pluses and minuses, and I have decided to vote for this health care reform package, choosing its real change over the broken status quo, raising my hopes above my fears, and adding, if I may, a personal prayer that future Congresses and Presidents do not weaken the reforms in this bill that will stop the constant increases in health care and health insurance costs and help reduce our national debt. That will happen best if we can achieve the bipartisanship in overseeing the implementation of this historic health care reform legislation that we, unfortunately, were not able to achieve in its passage. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for his extraordinary effort that produced this admirable result. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, it was a pleasure to yield that time to my friend from Pennsylvania, which he used very well. I rise to continue a discussion of amendment No. 3456, which has been offered by Senators Collins, Byrd, Feinstein, Voinovich, Ensign, and myself, which would reauthorize the Opportunity Scholarship Program for students, needy and deserving students here in the District of Columbia, sometimes referred to as the DC voucher program. This amendment would, as I say, reauthorize this program which otherwise would either atrophy over time--there are still 1,300 students in it, but now, for the last 2 years, it has not been reauthorized. President Obama in his budget says this probably will be the last year that Federal funding would be in it. The nonprofit corporation that has administered this program has said--under the circumstances the Congress by our inaction and in some sense interruption have created--they cannot continue to administer the program. No one else has come forward to do that. This amendment says, effectively, it would be a tragedy, a human tragedy, 1,300 human tragedies--that 1,300 economically disadvantaged students in the District of Columbia who have been given a lifeline out of failing public schools to try to better educate themselves so they can live a life of self-sufficiency and satisfaction--that all that hope would be ended, all that opportunity would be ended. This amendment would turn all that around and say the Senate believes this program is at least worth continuing as an experiment. But more than that, it has worked, by independent evaluation. Why terminate it? There is no good reason to terminate it. Would the Chancellor of the District of Columbia School System, Michelle Rhee, obviously an advocate for the public schools here--as I am, as the other Senators, Collins, Byrd, Feinstein, Voinovich, and Ensign are--would the Chancellor of a public school system here support this program if it were not a good program? Of course not. Would she support it if she thought it was a threat to the public schools? Of course not. That is her first and major commitment. She supports a 5-year extension of this program that this amendment would authorize because, as she said poignantly to our Government Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over matters related to the District of Columbia--she said until she can say to a parent of a child at a school that has been designated under Federal law as a failing school, a school that has failed to give those children an equal educational opportunity--until, Chancellor Rhee has told us, she can say to the parent, ``that public school that your child is in here in the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital, is prepared to give your child an equal and good educational opportunity,'' then she cannot say terminate the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program which gives low-income, economically disadvantaged children a lifeline, a passport, a scholarship they can use at a private or faith-based school of their choice. This program was started after difficult and intricate negotiations in 2004. It was started with a basic premise that is deeply and wonderfully American, which is: Hey, this is the country whose Declaration of Independence said that the government was being created in the first place, in 1776, to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that everybody has an endowment from our Creator--not by the government; the government is there to secure those rights--the endowment came from God, from our Creator. One of the fundamental ways in which we have attempted over our history to secure those rights is through the public school system, through our school system. Generations and generations of Americans, new Americans, immigrant Americans, have come here and the school system has given them an opportunity for education and they have gone on to not only make a success of themselves but contribute enormously to our country. The sad fact is that a lot of our public schools today are failing particularly our economically disadvantaged students. There is a terrible gap based on income and race and ethnicity, an achievement gap, in our public school system. No Child Left Behind and various Federal programs are trying hard to close that, but it has not been closed yet. That is why a lot of us got together in 2004, the administration and both parties, and tried to negotiate and ultimately did negotiate a compromise which was based not on supporting any particular educational institution but founded on that goal that was in the Declaration of Independence, that is characteristically and fundamentally American, the individual and, in this case, the individual child. How many individual children, in this case in the Nation's Capital, can we give a better education so they can develop their God-given talent to the highest level possible, which they cannot do if they are not getting a good education? So in this compromise that was enacted in 2004, we basically created new income streams. Some people say: Oh, the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program looks like it is working. It is a good idea to help kids get a scholarship to a private or faith-based school, but I am against it because it takes money from public schools. Wrong. That was the whole premise. In fact, to even it out, when we adopted this program we gave an equal amount of additional money to the DC Public Schools as went into the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, then a new stream of money into charter schools in the District of Columbia. That was the agreement that was made. It was a good agreement. Those of us who support the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program are not at all unhappy to give an equal amount of extra money to the public schools and to the charter school movement in the District. I guess the program is controversial because some people do not want to experiment with something other than the public school system on how to educate the individual. OK, I respect that. I understand that. Teachers unions are at the forefront of the opposition. They are against this bill. I understand that. But I disagree, respectfully. This is not an assault on teachers or the public schools. As Chancellor Rhee has said: This is a temporary lifeline for students who are in schools designated under Federal law as inadequate to educate them, to give them an opportunity to step up and go to a private or a faith- based school where they can do better. I do not know why anyone would want to terminate this program. It is a small program. As I will make clear in a few moments, it has been positively evaluated. Particularly, I repeat, why would we want to intervene when the leader of the DC Public Schools says this Opportunity Scholarship Program should be continued because it is good for kids in the District of Columbia. She cannot really say to parents: I can give a good, first-class education to all of your children. Parents like this program a lot. Kids like it. We heard moving testimony from children in the system. Polling in the District of Columbia shows very strong support for it, particularly and not surprisingly in economically disadvantaged areas. Look, let's talk from the facts. Most of us, I will say ``us,'' including me, have the money to send our kids to either private or faith-based schools because we think they can get a better education there or the kind of education we want them to get, particularly if it is in a faith-based school. These are parents who do not have that choice because they do not have the money. Imagine the frustration that we would feel if our children were trapped in a public school where we knew they were not getting a good education that would compromise the rest of their life and yet we did not have the money to get them a better education. That is all this program deems, the Opportunity Scholarship Program. It is a scholarship to give economically disadvantaged kids an opportunity to rise to the limits of their ability. A vote against this amendment, I really believe, is a vote to take away opportunity for 1,300 economically disadvantaged students who are now in the program and hundreds of others who would join if and when this program is extended. There have been hundreds of students involved. At its peak there were 1,930 students enrolled for the 2007-2008 school year. Because no new students could enroll, because the program was not reauthorized to that extent by Congress, enrollment declined to 1,721 for the 2008-2009 school year. It is now at 1,319. Here is a terrible thing that happened: Last year, 216 students were offered a scholarship for the year that followed, the school year that followed. Then that offer, because of opposition to this program and a decision not to allow new students into it, was revoked by the Secretary of Education of the United States. Since its inception, the Opportunity Scholarship Program has served over 3,000 students, and more than 8,400 have applied to participate. Over 85 percent of the students in this program would be attending a school in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring as designated under Federal law. This is a remarkable program that really does deserve to be continued. I note the presence of my colleague and friend and cosponsor, Senator Ensign. If the Senator would like to speak at this time, I will be glad to yield the floor, and then I will take it back after he has concluded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank Senator Ensign for his cosponsorship, for his convincing and informed argument for this amendment. I couldn't agree more. There is such an irony here. Secretary Duncan of Education is a reformer. The President supports school reforms. Michelle Rhee is trying very hard and valiantly and effectively to reform the DC Public Schools. Why would Secretary Duncan and members of the administration and some in this body and our colleagues in the other body oppose this program, an opportunity scholarship program which Chancellor Rhee supports because it is consistent with her attempt and the attempt of Secretary Duncan to reform our public schools? The only answer I can think of is that certain interest groups, including particularly teachers unions, oppose this measure. For me, that is not an acceptable reason to terminate the hopes of 1,300 children in a program in the Nation's Capital. I note, with pleasure, the presence of our colleague from Maine, Senator Collins. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleague, Senator Collins, for coming to the floor, for being a cosponsor of this amendment. And for the passionate and reasoned way in which she spoke. Two things come to mind in listening to her remarks. One is, we are very often dealing with big national or international matters on the floor of the Senate--health care reform, jobs act, whatever. They all involve people, of course. But here is one which is local, and we can actually quantify the people. We have 1,319 children who are in private or faith-based schools because of this DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, getting, by their own telling and that of their parents, so much better an education, feeling better about themselves, being on the road of opportunity. If we don't authorize this, although the administration has said it is committed to at least following these students through high school, there is not enough money there to do that. The President, in the budget, said this is probably the last year he will fund it. There is not enough money to carry these students through high school. The second point is, with all the uncertainty in the program, the current administrator of it, a nonprofit corporation, has said they don't want to do this anymore. So far, no one else has been found to do it. So this definitely closes the door to opportunity for hundreds of other students in the District and their parents to give them a better education, while Chancellor Rhee, over the next 5 years, is trying to make every school in the District of Columbia a good school. But, secondly, it really focuses us on the possibility that these 1,319 children will be forced to go back to the public schools in their neighborhoods, and 86 percent of those schools, as Senator Collins has said, are designated under Federal law as inadequate. None of us would let our kids go there, and we would pay their way out. But these parents who benefit from this program cannot. So Senator Collins has really spoken of this as a tragedy, a human tragedy--she is right--that you could look into the face of each of these 1,319 kids and say: Sorry, you can't go on in this school you all are so happy to be going to at this point. The second point is this, and I say this respectfully: It has been very rare, when I have been involved in a debate in the Senate on a matter, that I have not felt there were some respectable, good arguments on the other side. I did not agree with them. On balance, they did not convince me my position was wrong. But I must say that on this one I cannot think of a single good reason to be opposed to this amendment: 5 more years of an experimental program, $20 million to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program out of, by my recollection, $13 billion of Federal taxpayer money that goes to title I schools, and over $25 billion that goes from the Federal Government to public schools around America in the No Child Left Behind Program--a total of $25 billion or $26 billion. This is $20 million for these DC Opportunity Scholarships, alongside $20 million more to the DC Public Schools that they will not otherwise get, and $20 million more for the charter schools. In fact, if this program is allowed to die and those 1,319 students are forced back into the public schools in their neighborhoods, that adds, by the estimate of one independent authority I have seen, at least $14 million more to the expense of the DC Public School System to take them back. So I welcome people who oppose this amendment to come to the floor to debate it, but honestly, listening to Senator Collins, I cannot think of a good reason to be against this amendment. I thank the Senator very much for coming over, for her cosponsorship, and for all the work we have been able to do together. Again, I say, why did this come before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee? Because historically--the Presiding Officer, I am now proud to say, is a new member of the committee--the Governmental Affairs Committee has been given jurisdiction over matters regarding the District of Columbia. It is in that capacity that we have done oversight of this program. I note the presence of another cosponsor--and I will give her a moment to get ready--Senator Feinstein of California, whom I will yield to whenever she wants to speak. One of the arguments against this--actually, since no one is on the floor opposing this, I am going to use a memo sent out this afternoon by staff to Senators opposing the amendment from the Democratic leadership office, I believe. I will just pick out a few of these. The first problem cited: This program was passed in 2003 as a 5-year pilot program. It has now been extended twice through appropriations bills to minimize the disruption to students already in the program, and a plan for winding it down is in place. But that is the point. So they say: Reauthorization is not needed to keep students in the schools they are in. That, according to the DC authorities on this, is not true. There is not enough money in it to keep them in there. The President said, in his budget this year, this would probably be the last time he would recommend appropriating to this program. The promise was to keep these students in the Opportunity Scholarship Program right through graduation from high school. There is not enough money there. But more to the point, there is every reason to do it, based on the independent evaluation of the program, based on Michelle Rhee, chancellor of the DC Public Schools, who is supporting the 5-year reauthorization because she feels it is necessary. Incidentally, this reauthorization is also supported by Mayor Fenty. He supports the tripartite appropriation: public schools, charter schools, and the Opportunity Scholarship Program. And it is supported in a letter from a majority of the members of the city council of the District. I want to quote--I will come back to it again--Michelle Rhee. This is why it is not adequate to say this ought to be just appropriated every year and keep these students in the program dangling every year, making it harder to find an independent administrator of the program, why reauthorization is needed. But listen to this. This is Michelle Rhee in testimony before the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on September 16 of last year. She says: [O]n a regular basis, I have parents from Wards 7 and 8 (which are our highest poverty wards, which are also the home of our lowest performing schools) come to me and they've done everything a parent should do and they say, ``I've looked at all the data, I know my neighborhood school and the schools surrounding are not performing at the level that I want them to. So I participated in the out-of-boundary process; I went through the lottery and I didn't get a slot at one of the schools I wanted.'' So they look at me and say, ``Now what? What are you going to do?'' Michelle Rhee answered in her testimony: And I cannot look at those parents in the eye right now at this point and offer every single one of them a spot in a school that I think is a high-performing school. Here is a gutsy comment from this chancellor who is really devoted to the improvement of the public schools. Chancellor Rhee says: And until I think we are able to do that, which I think is on that five-year horizon, then I believe that we do need to have choice for our families and I think they do have to have the ability to participate: either to move into a charter school or to use the opportunity scholarships. End of quote from the chancellor of the DC Public School System. I have the greatest respect for her. It took a lot of guts to say that. But she said ``5-year horizon,'' and that is what this reauthorization does. It gives these kids--these parents who know their children are not getting a good education in the public school they are in--who have not been able to go to one of the out-of-boundary, out-of-their- neighborhood schools because the schools are packed, have not made it into a charter school because I gather there are thousands waiting who cannot get into the existing charter schools--let's give them an opportunity to get one of these opportunity scholarships and have a chance for a better education and a better life. Mr. President, I am going to stop now. I am very grateful for the cosponsorship by the distinguished Senator from California, a former mayor, of course, who is intimately knowledgeable on public education, who is committed to public education and yet really concerned about every child. That is what this program is about. I will yield the floor at this moment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, briefly, I thank my colleague and dear friend from California for a wonderful statement. First, I say officially as an Independent that the Senator from California has begun demonstrating her independence of mind, spirit, and heart. Secondly, I cannot tell the Senator how important it was that she did what she did with those three students because this is personal. This matters to individual students. It is hard to imagine the talents these three have shown and have developed would have been developed in the same way, unfortunately, at the school they were consigned to by their neighborhood. Years ago, I learned an expression from some wise person--a hundred years ago--that if you save one life, it is as if you saved the whole world because every individual has all the potential of the world within them. That probably was talking more about physically saving a life. The truth is, in a way, that is real. By giving these kids an equal educational opportunity, we are giving them the ability to save their own lives. I cannot thank the Senator from California enough for a wonderful statement. I appreciate it very much. I note the presence of my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, who has been a long-time advocate, going back to his days in Ohio, for better educational opportunity for every child. I yield the floor and look forward to his statement at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Voinovich for his statement. He brings several thoughts to my mind. The first is: Senator Voinovich, I am going to miss you when you retire at the end of this year. You are a straight shooter, you are a straight talker, and you speak from your heart. You have had a lot of practical experience-- as mayor, as Governor, and as a Member of the Senate--and you bring it all to bear in what you said. Secondly, I look forward to buying that book you are about to write. I hope it is about your career broadly, but I would be real interested in that Ohio opportunity scholarships or voucher program.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Well, let's call it the Lieberman-Voinovich amendment. Senator Voinovich has spoken from his own experience in the Ohio case. As he said, sometimes people say opportunity scholarships or vouchers are constitutionally suspect or unconstitutional. Not true. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Ohio voucher program was a neutral private choice program that did not violate the establishment clause. But I will tell you what rings in my ear is the questions that have been raised by my colleagues in support of this amendment. Senator Voinovich said: Why would you vote against this amendment? Why would you vote against this program? As the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, said: What is there to be afraid of in this program? It doesn't take money away from the public schools. The head of the DC Public School System is for the program because she thinks it will benefit the children who need it, whom she knows she can't give a quality eduction to over the 5 years of the authorization program. This program has been tested by an independent evaluator, Dr. Patrick Wolf, principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Education study, and he concluded that: The DC voucher program has proven to be the most effective education innovation policy program evaluated by the Federal Government's official education research arm so far. Of the 11 innovation programs investigated, studies showed only 3 have reported any statistically significant achievement gains, and the gains reported in the Opportunity Scholarship Program in the District of Columbia are the highest thus far. I know Senator Rockefeller wants to return to the FAA authorization bill, so I will begin to wind this up. I thank all my colleagues who came over to speak on behalf of the amendment. I regret that nobody has come to speak against it. I was looking forward to a good debate. So I have to go back to this staff memo sent out to Senators against the amendment. We have actually dealt with all the arguments made: Public dollars should be spent on public schools that accept all students subject to uniform public standards. This program accepts the students who apply, and when there are too many, they subject them to a lottery. It is a wide-open program. They cite the Department of Education study. They do not do it fairly. They speak wrongly: DC parents already have choices about where to send their children with the public charter school network. Yet we know those programs are oversubscribed. The fact is, all the arguments made in this memo against the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and keeping it alive in the hopes that the lives of a limited number of students in the DC school system-- 1,300; maybe with this reauthorization they will be able to add a couple hundred more in each year for the next 5 years; maybe it will be 1,000 more children--will be better and for whom the doors of opportunity will be opened in a way they are not opened now. Why would anybody oppose this? I can't think of a good reason. The group that has been most vigorously opposed has been the teachers unions. I understand why, but their interests do not outweigh the interests of these children, economically disadvantaged, with dreams and hopes they can't realize in the schools they are in but who have those hopes elevated and realized--as those three beautiful pictures of students who have been in this program that Senator Feinstein showed us. Look, along with Chancellor Rhee, I hope for and, in fact, envision a day when the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is not needed and it will not be needed because the DC Public School System will be providing a good education to every student who lives in the District of Columbia. But that, as Chancellor Rhee has said, is not the reality these children and their families live in today. Many schools in our Nation's Capital, as the chancellor has said, are not providing an adequate education to the students. I repeat: I will bet there is not a Member of this Senate, if their children were consigned by neighborhood allocation systems, who would not spend the money to get their children out of those schools because their children's lives and hopes and dreams would be compromised, through no fault of their own, simply because the schools were not adequate to educate them. So this is all about helping some of those students by supporting this amendment to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program 5 more years. I hope and pray what Chancellor Rhee said is right; that in 5 years she can look every parent of every student in the DC Public School System in the eye and say: Your child is at a school where he or she can get a good education so we don't need the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program anymore. But for now, Chancellor Rhee says we need it, Mayor Fenty says we need it, former Mayor Williams--who helped to create the program--is strongly for it, and a July 2009 poll conducted in the District of Columbia says, 75 percent of District residents want and need the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. I don't see a reason why a majority of Members of this Senate, hopefully an overwhelming bipartisan majority, would speak against this; would frustrate the hopes of all these families, all these students, and all these leaders of education in the District of Columbia. So I am going to yield the floor with the hope that we can have a vote on this soon, and I urge my colleagues to think about the 1,319 children whose lives will be compromised, whose dreams will be stifled if this program is not reauthorized. I thank Senator Rockefeller for his patience while we continued on this amendment, and with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment introduced by Senators Collins, Burr, Voinovich, Feinstein, Ensign, and myself. It would benefit schoolchildren in the District of Columbia, reauthorizing a program we created 7 years ago now that has worked: $20 million to the DC public schools, $20 million to charter schools, and $20 million to the Opportunity Scholarship Program. The last part is the controversial part. But it should not be. As Senator Feinstein said in her remarks on this amendment, what is there in this amendment to be afraid of? It has helped 1,300 economically disadvantages children to have an opportunity to get out of a public school that the Chancellor of the DC Public Schools says is not working for them. This measure is supported by Mayor Fenty, Chancellor Michelle Rhee, a majority of the members of the DC Public Schools, and it has been judged by an independent evaluator to be the most effective program of its kind in America. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona for the question and for the opportunity to engage in this dialog on the important and troubling course of relations at this moment between the United States and Israel. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this colloquy be conducted as in morning business.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I say to my friend from Arizona what not only he knows, but what he has helped to bring about throughout his career, are two things: that the American relationship with Israel is one of the strongest, most important, most steadfast bilateral alliances we have in the world because it is not based on temporal matters--that is, matters that come and go and politics or diplomacy--it is based on shared values, shared strategic interests in the world, and, unfortunately, now on the fact that we in the United States and the Israelis are also targets of the Islamist extremists, the terrorists who threaten the security of so much of the world. So we have a strong bilateral relationship. The second thing to say, in answering my friend's question, is that the Israelis depend, to a very large degree, on America's friendship as they approach the world. The Senator is absolutely right, without a confidence--not that everything Israel does America will support, but that underlying we are heading in the same direction, we are allies, we are friends, it is as if we are part of the same family. Without that confidence in the U.S.-Israel relationship, the Israelis will not have the confidence to take the risks necessary for peace. So the uproar over the last several days is very troubling in that regard. Vice President Biden, as my friend knows, went to Israel to reset the relationship. Unfortunately, at that time, from all the Israeli Government says--I have no reason to doubt them--a bureaucratic decision was made within one department of the government, the Ministry of the Interior, to issue a permit--I gather one of seven permits necessary within the next few years for this building project to take place. It has become not just a bureaucratic mistake but a major, for the moment, source of division between our ally, Israel, and ourselves, and it does not help anyone to continue this. I just want to say briefly to my friend because he said something most people do not know--and this is my understanding of the situation--the permits for this housing are in an area of Jerusalem that is today mostly Jewish. The Israeli Government has taken the position, however, since 1967 that anybody ought to be able to buy property and build and live in any section of Jerusalem they choose to regardless of their religion or nationality or anything else. That is a very American concept. Secondly, this particular part of Jerusalem is, in most anybody's vision of a possible peace settlement, going to be part of Israel. A lot of Israelis believe all of Jerusalem should remain the eternal unified capital of Israel. But going to the negotiations that occurred between President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak, Chairman Arafat in 2000, which were about as detailed as any recent negotiations, this particular neighborhood of Jerusalem, in the document that was almost accepted by Arafat, was part of Israel. So it is not a violation of that. It is not a violation of the moratorium on new settlements that Prime Minister Netanyahu adopted, and it ought not to be--I tell you, that first wave of reaction, when Vice President Biden was there, I understood. He was upset. It was embarrassing. Maybe some of the words--``condemn'' was a little strong for a bureaucratic mistake. But why this continues now, including on the Sunday talk shows, with Mr. Axelrod saying it was an affront and an insult by Israel to the United States, serves nobody's good. It does not serve our interests; it does not serve Israel's interests. It helps those like the people in Tehran who want to cause difficulty throughout the region.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. I agree totally with what he said. I think it is very important the Senator from Arizona has gone to the speech that Vice President Biden made. I believe it was on Wednesday of last week in Tel Aviv at Tel Aviv University. What is interesting is, that speech came after the first date he was there. When this bureaucratic announcement of housing permits being issued in Jerusalem was made, Vice President Biden put out a statement condemning that action. I understand why he was upset by it, that it had been happening when he came. Prime Minister Netanyahu outright apologized in public for it. He said he is appointing a review committee to look at how it happened so they could set up a mechanism within the Israeli Government so a decision such as that would not be made, if I understood what their intention is, without the Prime Minister's office being notified. Then Vice President Biden made quite an important speech at Tel Aviv University. The Senator from Arizona is absolutely right. The Vice President said the relationship between the United States and Israel is unbreakable, and there is no space between us. When there is space between us, it only helps our shared enemies, not the two of us, the two great democracies. Vice President Biden also made clear that while we are committed to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it is very important for both-- and Prime Minister Netanyahu has too. He has taken his Likud Party to a place it has never been before. In a speech he gave at Bar-Ilan University, he said for the first time, very clearly, as the Likud Prime Minister, that he supports the two-state solution: two countries, two peoples side by side. Then he issued that moratorium on settlement expansion in a whole series of areas which Secretary Clinton, in an earlier visit, described as unprecedented. Then we go to the Vice President's speech. There, he focuses on Iran and the threat of a nuclear Iran, the threat of an Iran that suppresses the rights of its people, and he says not only is Iran explicitly a threat to Israel--as Ahmadinejad has said, threatening Israel's existence--Vice President Biden made very clear our concern about an Iranian nuclear weapon is not because of what Ahmadinejad said about Israel, although, obviously, that concerns us; it is because a nuclear, autocratic, tyrannical, totalitarian Iran threatens the short-, medium- , and long-term security of the United States of America. After that speech, I thought this whole business about the permits for housing was over. Yet then the State Department spokesman comes out on Friday with very strong language about the phone conversation with the Secretary of State whom, of course, the Senator from Arizona and I not only respect but like very much. She is our friend, our colleague. She has a long record of support for the United States-Israel relationship. But Friday afternoon's press statement seemed to be dredging up again something that seemed to have been calmed and ought to be calmed. The Senator from Arizona is absolutely right. I take it that is the point the Senator is making: There is too much that ties us together with Israel, too much on the line for both countries, to continue to make a mistake, for which the Prime Minister of Israel has apologized, into a division between two great allies.