Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk which I call up for immediate consideration.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for no more than 3 minutes to respond to my colleague, the Senator from Texas.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I believe my friend from Texas would like to enter a letter into the Record. I yield to him.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I want to come back to respond to some of the things my friend and colleague from Texas said in opposition to my amendment. I do want to state for the record what I hope is clear, which is that I support the underlying bill. I support the trade promotion authority, so-called fast track. I believe one of the great lessons we learned in the 1990s, under President Clinton, was that trade is a pillar of economic growth in our country. We only have so many people in our country. There is only so big a market. We have to open up markets around the world to create more jobs at home. We have to find other places around the world to sell our products. We have obligations, and that generally creates not only economic growth, more jobs, more wealth but improves our country generally. So I support the underlying bill. This amendment I have offered deletes words in the pending bill which I believe are very unfair and discriminate against the provisions of the bill that call for some concern and consideration of labor standards and environmental objectives in the agreements. The statement of my friend from Texas in opposition to my amendment fascinated me, surprised me, and I say with all respect, I do not believe it is real. I do not believe his concerns are justified by the terms of the legislation or what would be normal trade practice. Let me speak to this. The amendment strikes language that is unique to one of the 13 principal trade objectives in the bill that deals with labor standards and environmental protection. The language is unique and says: No retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of rights of discretion that are uniquely given with regard to labor and environmental standards and the right to establish domestic labor standards and levels of environmental protection.'' In essence, we are saying to those with whom we enter into a trade agreement that in regard to commitments they make that affect labor standards or environmental protection in their country, we will not have the capacity to enforce those promises they have made. That was the concern I had about the pending bill that motivated my amendment. The Senator from Texas has a very different response. He is worried that foreign nations may retaliate against us for our failure to keep our promises regarding labor standards and environmental protection. That thought never struck me. I must admit, it never struck me because our standards are higher, generally speaking, than most of the nations with which we negotiate, so I could not conceive they would want to retaliate against us. Also, remember the obligations that are imposed on a party to a trade agreement are set in that agreement. They are agreed to by the parties. We would not be held to fulfill any commitments regarding labor and the environment that we and they did not make in the agreement. The same is true of our foreign negotiating partners and of us. I want to respond to, I guess, what we used to call in law school, since my friend from Texas mentioned my law school, a ``slippery slope'' argument. If the United States commits to enforce the Endangered Species Act or a labor standard is applied to a particular law school that happens to be in New Haven, which I went to, the United States would be bound by those commitments. Those would be pledges we would have made. If the United States agrees to enforce every labor and environmental statute we have on our books and makes that agreement in a trade agreement--I cannot imagine we would make such an agreement, but if we did--we would be bound by that commitment. The rights we give to others must be found in the agreement we ratify. No foreign country will have free-range opportunity to challenge any action or inaction we take with regard to labor or environmental protections. For instance, the trade negotiation objective for foreign investment--I use this as an example; it is one of the other 13 principal trade negotiation objectives in the bill--calls for negotiation of agreements that reduce or eliminate exceptions to the principle of national treatment, freeing the transfer of funds relating to investments, et cetera. If we reach an agreement where we and our trading partners commit to ``reduce or eliminate exceptions to the principle of national treatment'' that is in the bill, that is the commitment that each party has the right to seek to enforce. That is in the agreement. Countries, again, have no free-wheeling right to challenge any U.S. action or inaction concerning foreign investments; certainly no right to rewrite our laws. We can only be held to what we have promised to do in the agreement, just as the foreign country can only be held to that. Foreign countries' rights are set and limited by the terms of the agreement we negotiate. Our own standards, again, with regard to labor and environmental protection, are almost always higher than the foreign nations with which we are negotiating. The agreements focus on trying to slightly raise the standards of less developed countries. That is what we are all about and about which some have been concerned. Second, this trade objective focused on labor and environment is unique in another regard in this bill. My amendment takes out the part that prohibits retaliation for any reason. It does not eliminate any of the rest of section (B) of this part--I believe it is trade negotiating objective No. 11. What does the rest of it do? It does something unique in this bill. The 11th principal negotiating objective is already qualified in ways not applicable to any other trade negotiating objectives. That makes it even more important that we retain the power to enforce these commitments, which my amendment would do with regard to trade in services--these are other negotiating objectives--intellectual property, agriculture, and other subjects. Compliance of the parties is strictly enforced. No excuses are permitted; no discretion is granted. If there is a violation, the parties are held strictly liable. With regard to labor and environmental commitments, the pending bill already states that noncompliance can be tolerated under certain circumstances. Parties are granted the right to ``exercise discretion with respect to investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory, and compliance matters,'' and they are granted the right to ``make decisions regarding the allocation of resources to enforcement with respect to other labor and environmental matters determined to have higher priorities.'' This discretion and these decisions must be reasonable and bona fide according to the bill. It explicitly states that we ``recognize that a country is effectively enforcing its laws if a course of action or inaction reflects a reasonable exercise of such discretion, or results from a bona fide decision regarding the allocation of resources.'' We do not see language about discretion or allocation of resources applied to any other section in the bill--not to the services section, not to the intellectual property section, not to the agricultural section, not to any other section. Madam President, I am, in fact, troubled by the inclusion of this language regarding such discretion as it applies to labor and environmental protections. I worry that it is a bit open-ended, perhaps ambiguous. But despite those misgivings, the language does come verbatim from the United States-Jordan trade agreement. We granted that discretion in that agreement. Therefore, that is why the language has been picked up in the bill and I do not move to strike it. The language to prohibit any retaliatory action does not come from the Jordan Agreement. It is something new and it says essentially that we are not going to hold the other party to its promises and, in that sense, viewing this from the perspective of the Senator from Texas, they cannot hold us to our promises. That is not the kind of country we are. That is not the kind of Congress I believe we are. Why include in this bill a negotiating objective that contains its own negation? Why include fine print that essentially says we do not mean what we have said, and we do not care to hold the foreign country into which we have entered a trade agreement to what they have said? The issue is simple: Do the commitments made in these trade agreements regarding labor and environment--our commitments and their commitments--mean something? I am pleased again to say that the U.S. is much more likely to have higher standards and be committed to honoring those commitments. So I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which I think improves the bill and still leaves a lot of discretion in the enforcement of these labor and environmental sections of this pending legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to explain my absence from yesterday's vote on the nomination of Paul G. Cassell to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah. After spending yesterday working with constituents in Connecticut, I was scheduled to fly back to Washington in time to make the vote. Unfortunately, high wind and tornado threats caused flights into Washington to be cancelled. I ultimately returned to Washington by train and too late to cast my vote. Had I been here, I would have cast my vote in the affirmative.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I voted today for the farm bill because I believe that it provides some needed relief to our strapped farm industry as well as provides some new and much-appreciated assistance to the farmers of Connecticut. Our farm economy right now is in dire shape, and farmers from across the nation have pleaded with the Congress to give them the assurances that this bill possesses. I do not believe it is a time at which we can turn our back on the nation's farmers. The bill also provides some precedent-setting relief to the often ignored farm industry in my home state of Connecticut. In particular, the extension of the dairy program, the new assistance for the speciality crops that dominate our farmland, the increases in conservation funding over the status quo, and the various incentive programs for organic agriculture all will bring benefits to Connecticut farmers. Finally, the provision of $600 million annually in new nutrition programs, including the restoration of food stamps to many legal immigrants, will allow many Connecticut residents to provide essential supplies of food for their families. While this bill does provide support for who depend on the land for their living, like most legislation it is not perfect, and so I cast this vote with some reservations. I am concerned that several of the features that made the Senate-passed bill desirable have been weakened in conference. In particular, the conservation funding has been reduced and appears to be backloaded far into the future. The payment limitations that were adopted in order to ensure that funds were distributed more equitably, and not disproportionately to large corporate farms, also appear to have been weakened. While I cast my vote today for this bill, I hope that we can revisit these important issues in the near future.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a milestone in the life of one of America's most honored and honorable leaders on the occasion of his 65th birthday, our 65th Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Time and again, when Colin Powell's country has needed him, he has answered the call. He spent 35 years as a professional soldier, in which he rose to the rank of four-star general and then served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the first President Bush. In 1991, Secretary Powell led the American effort to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi aggression in the Persian Gulf War. In 1997, then-General Powell helped found America's Promise the Alliance for Youth--designed to marshal Americans to get involved in the lives of young people so that every child, regardless of race or income, has a life with caring adults, safe places, a healthy start, marketable skills, and opportunities to serve. In this capacity, Colin Powell proved that his tenacity, skill, and focus could just as easily help inspire a child as it could help win a war. Now, as our Secretary of State, Colin Powell faces yet another formidable challenge, and he is once again leading with confidence, competence, and a principled vision. Our country is deeply grateful for his service as he guides our foreign policy, including the twin challenges of coordinating the diplomatic component of the war against terrorism and attempting to guide the Middle East toward peace. America needs his sharp mind, calm voice, and sound judgment now more than ever, and I know that Secretary Powell will not let us down. He will help this country protect its people, live up to its most precious values, and build a safer, freer, and more democratic world. Thomas Jefferson, our nation's first Secretary of State, once said that, ``A character of justice . . . is (as) valuable to a nation as to an individual.'' I can't think of a life that exemplifies that sentiment more powerfully than that of Colin Powell. Secretary of State Powell talked candidly about his life's accomplishments, and the many challenges before him, in a revealing profile on the occasion of his birthday, written by White House and State Department correspondent Trude Feldman. To pay tribute to one of our strongest and most admired leaders, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Feldman's article, syndicated, by International Press Syndicate, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Tennessee for a superb statement. I thank him not only for his support of the amendment that Senator Smith of Oregon and I have put before the Senate today, but for the principled and compelling logic of the additional statements that he made. I was just about to use a term to describe the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee, which I was going to say is normally associated with a colleague who sits near him, and that colleague walked into the Chamber. I was going to say his remarks were definitely straight talk, and I appreciate them very much. Does the Senator from Arizona wish to speak?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes. I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Arizona for his strong and principled statement. I could not agree with him more. I pick up for a moment on what the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Tennessee suggested earlier: This amendment might affect the conduct of foreign policy by the President and this administration. I strongly believe adoption of this amendment will be supportive of the policy of this administration and will strengthen the hand of the President and the Secretary of State, particularly as they proceed in their diplomacy in the Middle East, and more particularly in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Why do I say that? Because America is always at its strongest when we are true to our principles. The President articulated those principles post-September 11 in the Bush doctrine. They say we will stand with those who fight terrorism as we are fighting terrorism ourselves; all the more so when it comes to a fellow democracy, a longtime ally, such as the State of Israel. A nation gains strength by being true to its principles but also by being true to its allies and not compromising longstanding relationships as a result of the pressures of the moment, no matter how compelling those pressures. We are a great nation. We are the mightiest nation in the history of the world. If any nation has the strength to stand by its principles, it is, thank God, the United States of America. That is what in simple, direct terms this amendment says. We made a stand after September 11 against terrorism. The Israelis are fighting the same enemy as we are now. They are not fighting the Palestinians; they are fighting terrorism. In that battle, no matter what the economic or political or strategic or diplomatic pressures that some may attempt to put upon the United States, we will be true to principle and we will be true to our alliances. That is what my colleagues have spoken eloquently on. For that, I thank my colleagues. When this Senate adopts this amendment overwhelmingly, it will send a message to those who may be equivocating, who may be remaining silent. Remember that line from Dante: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. Great powers in the world are doing that right now. We say as the representatives of the people of the United States in this amendment, for the United States, we are not going to remain silent. We are going to stand by our principles and by our friends. That will strengthen us in our relationship with our friends and with our enemies. I am pleased to note the presence in the Chamber of the Senator from Utah. I yield to him.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, responding to my good friend from Arizona, it certainly is our intention to have a vote on this amendment this afternoon. I think it is important to do so. And it is my understanding that that is also the intention of the leadership of the Senate. I gather some conversations may be going on with the senior Senator from West Virginia, who was in the Chamber earlier, before going to a hearing, who said he had a statement to make of limited duration. I believe there is an attempt to have him come to the floor as soon as possible. I do not know of any other Senators at this time who wish to speak on this amendment. I thank my friend.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his very principled and impassioned statement. I wish to briefly respond, and in particular say, as a personal statement, that it seems to me it is self-evident and compelling that the only way peace will be established between the Israelis and the Palestinians is when each side recognizes the right of the other to have a homeland there and to live in peace. That is a personal statement. But it also seems to me that has been at least an implicit, if not an explicit, part of American foreign policy, certainly since the Oslo Declaration of Principles was signed on the White House lawn in September of 1993. It remains to this day a fundamental objective. As to the claims on both sides and the death on both sides, I think it is so critical, as I believe the Senator was saying, that neither side--this is difficult sometimes in the heat of violence and fear and anger--can be allowed to come to a point where they deny or forget the humanity of everybody on the other side. There is a famous statement made by Golda Meir, the former Prime Minister of Israel. I will paraphrase it because I don't remember it exactly. She said at one point: We Israelis will someday forgive the Arabs for killing our children. What will be more difficult for us is to forgive the Arabs for forcing our children to kill their children. That spirit, so eloquently expressed, really should guide our deliberations. I consider this amendment to be a statement of American principles, a statement of solidarity with our ally, Israel, and a statement that is consistent with the war on terrorism and the doctrine that President Bush has articulated. It is intentionally not in any sense anti- Palestinian. It is antiterrorist. It is intentionally drafted that way with the hope that it will draw the broadest possible support and be an expression of solidarity and an expression of support for Israel's right centrally, fundamentally to defend itself against terrorism.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Minnesota. I could not agree with him more. I think what is at issue now is whether we can create a circumstance where the Palestinian leadership will seize the initiative from the suicide bombers, from the terrorists, who have captured it, who have, in that sense, hijacked, as I said earlier in this debate, the legitimate cause of Palestinian statehood. When that happens, I am confident they will meet with an overall majority of the Israeli people who want nothing more than to live in peace and security with their neighbors. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, briefly and respectfully, I reply to my friend from South Carolina. Particularly, I want to pick up on the point at the end as to whether this is in the interest of the United States and our credibility. It seems to me that our credibility depends, in good measure, on our clarity--our moral clarity--and our consistency. That is what this amendment is about. It states that we, after September 11, are in a war against terrorism, effectively declared by the Congress 2 or 3 days after September 11, that our Nation's policy is now guided by a doctrine that President Bush articulated in his address to a joint session of Congress last September, now known as the Bush doctrine: Terrorism is evil; the use of violence to accomplish political ends-- including legitimate political ends, such as in this case, as I have said earlier in this debate, Palestinian statehood--is unacceptable; you cannot use terrorism to accomplish legitimate ends. It is a time of decision: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. This amendment is a carefully drafted affirmative statement of moral clarity for the United States, that we see Israel as now a front-line state in the war against terrorism. Just as this administration has sent American soldiers, in fact, to the Philippines, to Yemen, to the country of Georgia, to assist regimes in their front-line status fighting terrorism, so, too, do we at least respect the right of the Israelis to do the same: to defend their people against terrorism. It is not, with all respect, a political amendment. It is, in my opinion--and I was involved most deeply with Senator Smith of Oregon in drafting it--a principled amendment. It goes to the principles articulated in the Bush doctrine and the moral clarity of our war against terrorism, which, with all respect, has been not so consistently applied over the last 2 or 3 weeks by this administration: On one day calling for the Israelis to withdraw, and the next day expressing understanding about why they would take military action against the terrorism. The truth is, no regime, no democracy could do other than they have done. This is not to defend every particular act of every particular soldier. I do not know what every particular soldier did. If we put this in American terms, if we think about young people out at night at a cafe getting blown to death by a suicide bomber; working people waiting at a bus stop; people at a religious service; and this past weekend a mother with two children in their home, while the father is off at synagogue on Sabbath morning, a terrorist comes in disguised in an Israeli military uniform and kills a 5-year-old girl, no civilized nation can do anything other than put a stop to that behavior. That is what this amendment says: We respect and stand in solidarity with Israel as it takes the necessary steps to provide security to its people, and we remain committed to Israel's right to self-defense. This is not in any sense an anti-Palestinian statement. It was carefully drafted to make sure it was not. It is an antiterrorism statement. It is in that sense that I hope the great majority of my colleagues will support it today. I note the presence in the Chamber of the Senator from Tennessee. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Nevada, whose words were unexpected. They are unnecessary. But they are deeply appreciated--in general and on the specific thanks for his support of this resolution. I am proud to stand and urge adoption of this amendment, which embodies a resolution expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. This amendment is a statement of fundamental principles. It is cosponsored by Senator Smith of Oregon, with whom it has been a pleasure to work. The underlying resolution is also cosponsored by the majority leader, Senator Daschle, and the Republican leader, Senator Lott. At last count, we had well over a majority of Members of the Senate cosponsoring the resolution which has now become this amendment and, notably and encouragingly, with just about equal support from both Democrats and Republicans. It is a fundamental principle of our foreign policy that terrorism is evil. It is not an acceptable form of political expression. It is also a fundamental tenet of our policy that a government, a society, should and must protect itself against violent terrorism. Those policies underlay most of recent memory, since the ugly head of terrorism reared itself in our history. We have felt it with a particular intensity, pain and resolve, since September 11 when we in America were brutally attacked by terrorists and lost the lives of more than 3,000 of our fellow Americans and family members in that attack. After that attack, President Bush came before Congress with a very stirring, strong, and principled speech. Among other things, he enunciated a series of principles which have come to be known as ``The Bush Doctrine.'' To state it as simply as I can, as I recall those words, the President spoke to the Joint Session of Congress in September. He said to the nations of the world: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. Then on November 22, 2001, the President said: We fight the terrorists, and we fight all those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world. If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends. The intention of this amendment, which Senator Smith, I, and others have worked on--and which we have tried to fashion in a way to encourage the broadest statement by this Senate representing the American people--is to embody and express those last words that I quoted from President Bush: If you support a terrorist in any way, you will be held accountable by the United States and by our friends. Israel is and has been a great friend of the United States. The United States has been a great friend to Israel. Our two nations are tied together by common values, by a common political system-- democracy--by common strategic interests, and by the closest of relationships between our military and intelligence systems. Our friend, Israel, has been under siege from a systematic and deliberate campaign of suicide and homicide attacks by terrorists. Their essence is identical to the attacks on our country on September 11. Those suicide bombers striking innocent Israelis in supermarkets, buses, public squares, pizza restaurants, schools, and religious observances are cut from the same cloth of evil as the terrorists who turned airplanes into weapons and struck the United States on September 11. So our country is engaged now with Israel and other allies in a common struggle against terrorism. But Israel, in particular, among our allies has found itself now on the front lines of a conflict thrust upon it against its will. In the absence of action by the Palestinian Authority to suppress these acts of terrorism--in particular the abhorrent and inhumane practice of suicide and homicide bombings--the Israeli Government has acted to protect its homeland, just as we have acted in so many ways, so courageously, so proudly, and so effectively since September 11, to protect our homeland and our people in America. The intention of this amendment is to put the Senate of the United States on record in support of Israel's right to self-defense. To state it in words that are direct, Congress stands in solidarity with Israel--a front-line state in the war against terrorism--as it takes necessary steps to provide security to its people, by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas, and remain committed to Israel's right to self-defense. I welcome the easing of a recent standoff between Israel and the Palestinians achieved in the last few days, thanks in good measure to effective diplomacy by the Bush administration. It is my fervent hope now that Chairman Arafat and Palestinian leaders will use this opportunity, as this amendment states, to ``dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas and to pursue vigorously efforts to establish a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.'' That is what the majority of Israelis want. I continue to hope and believe that is what the majority of Palestinians want--that the established leadership of the majority of the Palestinian people, whose lives have been so difficult, will take back the legitimate cause of Palestinian statehood from the suicide bombers and terrorists who have hijacked it. A just, lasting, and comprehensive peace is also clearly what we in America want. It has been our national policy for years now--certainly since the Declaration of Principles that originated in Oslo and which was signed on the White House lawn in September of 1993. The hope of our policy has been that we could be pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, but united together against terrorism. That is the thrust of this amendment. I also call on other friends in the region--in the Arab world particularly--to work with us, to use all their best efforts to help bring about an end to the violence and a dismantling of the infrastructure of terror, not only in the Palestinian territories but also the elements in their own countries that have aided and abetted terrorists, or that give militant, extremist, hateful ideas legitimacy. America will never countenance terrorism. We stand with those who oppose terrorism and against those who support it in any form. That is the message of this amendment--a message which I hope will have the overwhelming support of the Members of this body. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Oregon for the work we have done together on this amendment, but really, for the moment, for the statement he has just made, which is a statement of moral clarity and principles that are consistent with the highest ideals of our country. That is exactly what this amendment is about: The moral clarity of our own war against terrorism, and the understanding that gives us of the right of self-defense that the Israelis have, but the universalist principles that have been at the foundation of the American experience from the very beginning in the Declaration of Independence, when those rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were declared as self-evident truths, from where endowed were not from the Founders, not from any philosophers of the Enlightenment, but from the Creator. And that unity that flows from that, the humanity that flows from that, the principles and policies that flow from that are exactly the ones that are upheld in this amendment and have been eloquently expressed by my friend from Oregon. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, with Senators Specter and Graham, the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002. This legislation seeks to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to confront terrorism and other threats to our homeland security. Specifically, this legislation would create a new Department of National Homeland Security to focus an array of agencies and programs that are vital to securing our borders and critical infrastructure, and to preparing for and responding to homeland threats. It also would create a White House terrorism director to forge an effective strategy to combat terrorism across the entire Federal Government. In addition to the bill we introduce here, I am pleased to note that companion legislation is being introduced today by Representatives Thornberry, Harman, Tauscher and Gibbons. The events of September 11 brought home to us the very real threat of terrorism not only on foreign shores, but also here at home. Though the pain of that day will stay in our hearts and minds forever, we now have an opportunity to step back from that single most horrid event in our modern history and take action to prevent something like it from ever happening again. It seems that nearly every day, the media or government investigators expose a new crack in America's homeland defense foundation, at our borders, our ports, or within our cyberspace. The fact is, without a government that is permanently reoriented to meet unexpected challenges here at home, new vulnerabilities will emerge. That's why we must mobilize government so that it can quickly and effectively prevent terrorist threats here at home and respond should the worst occur. Our approach, combining a homeland security department with a White House office for combating terrorism, addresses the need to permanently restructure critical homeland security functions under a cabinet-level secretary with real operational authority and the ability to personally direct a homeland security plan. At the same time, we would allow for the highest level of coordination with other Federal agencies--Health and Human Services, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, for example, and real budget certification authority. Our proposal stems from a series of hearings I convened last fall as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. We held about a dozen different sessions looking into various aspects of homeland security, ranging from protection of our critical infrastructure to the state and local role in protecting Americans at home. Those hearings confirmed what experts and commissions had already warned us: that our government is poorly prepared to deal with the threat of terrorism. Although the government has an array of programs related to terrorism and other homeland threats, these efforts are poorly coordinated and lack overall strategic leadership. We need focused, accountable leadership to forge these efforts into a cohesive homeland security program. Among the witnesses we heard from were former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, who co-chaired the so-called Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security/21st Century. Guided by recommendations of that Commission, Senator Specter and I introduced legislation to create a Homeland Security Department. After negotiations through the winter with Senator Graham, we combined our proposal with his idea of conferring statutory authority on a White House terrorism office. As our bill is written, the department will be led by a Cabinet official with real line and budget authority over critical homeland security programs. The new department will bring together under one roof our key border security agencies, Coast Guard, Customs, INS law enforcement, as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is the cornerstone of our emergency preparation and response efforts. The department will also include programs to protect our critical infrastructure, and an office to promote research and development of technologies vital to our homeland security. The new department will provide state and local authorities with a clear resource and point of contact to forge a truly national response to this problem. Yet we recognize that, no matter how robust a department we create, it can not include every agency that plays a role in homeland security, which is why our legislation incorporates Senator Graham's proposal to confer statutory authority on a White House office. That office--the National Office for Combating Terrorism--would coordinate a national anti-terrorism strategy. The office would be led by a presidentially- appointed, Senate-confirmed director charged with coordinating a comprehensive assessment of terrorist threats and, along with the department secretary, developing a strategy and a budget to fight terrorism here at home. The director would coordinate execution of the strategy by relevant federal agencies--particularly those concerned with intelligence and law enforcement. Naturally, our new formation would require a major restructuring of the Federal Government's public safety-related responsibilities. I know this will not be easy. Machiavelli trenchantly observed ``there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system.'' Within the agencies, and within Congress as well, as Governor Ridge has already discovered, there are powerful reflexes to protect administrative turf. Bureaucracies are slow to change. Change is disruptive. It creates uncertainty and it distorts existing balances of power. But we must look at September 11 as an urgent reason to create something better. A restructuring of the kind we envision is not unprecedented. We have undertaken bold organizational change in periods of crisis before. Consider General Marshall's transformation of the army which helped win World War II or the National Security Act of 1947 that created the CIA and Department of Defense in the midst of the Cold War. More recently, the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, in streamlining the military command, helped us to prosecute the Persian Gulf War. The bottom line is if statutory and budget authority are not conferred upon the director of homeland security, the homeland defense of this nation will be less than what it should be. In the one area where compromise can be catastrophic, this is an unacceptable compromise. Let's be motivated by the words of Winston Churchill, who in 1941 said to the Axis powers, ``You do your worst and we will do our best.'' We can tinker around the edges of change. Or, we can understand that September 11 confirmed our worst fears: warfare has changed and we are no longer safe at home. We are in a terrible, new era and we urgently need a government that is invigorated and effectively organized to meet the challenge. I thank my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, with Senators Specter and Graham, the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002. This legislation seeks to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to confront terrorism and other threats to our homeland security. Specifically, this legislation would create a new Department of National Homeland Security to focus an array of agencies and programs that are vital to securing our borders and critical infrastructure, and to preparing for and responding to homeland threats. It also would create a White House terrorism director to forge an effective strategy to combat terrorism across the entire Federal Government. In addition to the bill we introduce here, I am pleased to note that companion legislation is being introduced today by Representatives Thornberry, Harman, Tauscher and Gibbons. The events of September 11 brought home to us the very real threat of terrorism not only on foreign shores, but also here at home. Though the pain of that day will stay in our hearts and minds forever, we now have an opportunity to step back from that single most horrid event in our modern history and take action to prevent something like it from ever happening again. It seems that nearly every day, the media or government investigators expose a new crack in America's homeland defense foundation, at our borders, our ports, or within our cyberspace. The fact is, without a government that is permanently reoriented to meet unexpected challenges here at home, new vulnerabilities will emerge. That's why we must mobilize government so that it can quickly and effectively prevent terrorist threats here at home and respond should the worst occur. Our approach, combining a homeland security department with a White House office for combating terrorism, addresses the need to permanently restructure critical homeland security functions under a cabinet-level secretary with real operational authority and the ability to personally direct a homeland security plan. At the same time, we would allow for the highest level of coordination with other Federal agencies--Health and Human Services, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, for example, and real budget certification authority. Our proposal stems from a series of hearings I convened last fall as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. We held about a dozen different sessions looking into various aspects of homeland security, ranging from protection of our critical infrastructure to the state and local role in protecting Americans at home. Those hearings confirmed what experts and commissions had already warned us: that our government is poorly prepared to deal with the threat of terrorism. Although the government has an array of programs related to terrorism and other homeland threats, these efforts are poorly coordinated and lack overall strategic leadership. We need focused, accountable leadership to forge these efforts into a cohesive homeland security program. Among the witnesses we heard from were former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, who co-chaired the so-called Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security/21st Century. Guided by recommendations of that Commission, Senator Specter and I introduced legislation to create a Homeland Security Department. After negotiations through the winter with Senator Graham, we combined our proposal with his idea of conferring statutory authority on a White House terrorism office. As our bill is written, the department will be led by a Cabinet official with real line and budget authority over critical homeland security programs. The new department will bring together under one roof our key border security agencies, Coast Guard, Customs, INS law enforcement, as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is the cornerstone of our emergency preparation and response efforts. The department will also include programs to protect our critical infrastructure, and an office to promote research and development of technologies vital to our homeland security. The new department will provide state and local authorities with a clear resource and point of contact to forge a truly national response to this problem. Yet we recognize that, no matter how robust a department we create, it can not include every agency that plays a role in homeland security, which is why our legislation incorporates Senator Graham's proposal to confer statutory authority on a White House office. That office--the National Office for Combating Terrorism--would coordinate a national anti-terrorism strategy. The office would be led by a presidentially- appointed, Senate-confirmed director charged with coordinating a comprehensive assessment of terrorist threats and, along with the department secretary, developing a strategy and a budget to fight terrorism here at home. The director would coordinate execution of the strategy by relevant federal agencies--particularly those concerned with intelligence and law enforcement. Naturally, our new formation would require a major restructuring of the Federal Government's public safety-related responsibilities. I know this will not be easy. Machiavelli trenchantly observed ``there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system.'' Within the agencies, and within Congress as well, as Governor Ridge has already discovered, there are powerful reflexes to protect administrative turf. Bureaucracies are slow to change. Change is disruptive. It creates uncertainty and it distorts existing balances of power. But we must look at September 11 as an urgent reason to create something better. A restructuring of the kind we envision is not unprecedented. We have undertaken bold organizational change in periods of crisis before. Consider General Marshall's transformation of the army which helped win World War II or the National Security Act of 1947 that created the CIA and Department of Defense in the midst of the Cold War. More recently, the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, in streamlining the military command, helped us to prosecute the Persian Gulf War. The bottom line is if statutory and budget authority are not conferred upon the director of homeland security, the homeland defense of this nation will be less than what it should be. In the one area where compromise can be catastrophic, this is an unacceptable compromise. Let's be motivated by the words of Winston Churchill, who in 1941 said to the Axis powers, ``You do your worst and we will do our best.'' We can tinker around the edges of change. Or, we can understand that September 11 confirmed our worst fears: warfare has changed and we are no longer safe at home. We are in a terrible, new era and we urgently need a government that is invigorated and effectively organized to meet the challenge. I thank my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to support the Carper-Specter amendment. We come today to offer America a clear path away from foreign oil dependency and toward a newly energized economic future, and that is a new goal for fuel efficiency of cars and trucks. America can start engineering itself out of its oil dependency if we make it a priority. This amendment would do just that by setting a bold but realistic goal of reducing our projected dependence on oil by one million barrels a day by 2015, thereby reducing our reliance on imported oil. There's no debate that we must change the status quo. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2001, the U.S. consumed 18 million barrels of oil per day. Automobiles and light trucks used 68 percent of the total, or 12.25 million barrels per day. The EIA estimates total U.S. consumption of between 25 and 28 million barrels per day by 2020. The majority of that oil comes from other nations. In 2001, the U.S. imported 9.1 million barrels of oil per day. Approximately 1.65 million barrels per day came from Saudi Arabia and 0.82 million barrels per day came from Iraq. The question before us today is, Do we keep our blinders on and barrel along doing business as usual, knowing full well that we're headed in the wrong direction, or do we have the foresight to change course? President Bush and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know we have no choice but to change course. On February 25 of this year, the President said, ``It's important for Americans to remember . . . that America imports more than 50 percent of its oil--more than 10 million barrels a day. And the figure is rising . . . This dependence is a challenge to our economic security, because dependence can lead to price shocks and fuel shortages. And this dependence on foreign oil is a matter of national security. To put it bluntly, sometimes we rely upon energy sources from countries that don't particularly like us.'' We consume a quarter of the world's oil and have about three percent of its reserves--so even if we allowed drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the Rockies, and right here beneath the Capitol dome, the nations from which we import oil would still have us over a barrel. Please indulge my oil-dependent puns; in the spirit of this amendment, I am trying to get as much mileage out of them as possible. In contrast, Mr. President, the fuel efficiency gains we're proposing today cannot be exhausted, they cannot run dry, and they will begin to shift our economy away from its usage of oil. These steps are the best way to substantially reduce our reliance on foreign oil. To quote again from the President, ``It's also important to realize that the transportation sector consumes more than two-thirds of all the petroleum used in the United States, so that any effort to reduce consumption must include ways to safely make cars and trucks more fuel efficient.'' I couldn't agree more. Compared to proposals to open precious places to oil exploration, this measure would achieve more at a monumentally smaller price to America. In fact, the entrepreneurship, creativity and ingenuity that would be unleashed when companies strive to hit this target would create jobs. They would spur economic growth. And, of course, they would help repair the environment in the process--rather than continue to contribute to air pollution, global warming, and the degradation that often goes along with drilling for oil in natural places. These proposals, Mr. President, are also more than feasible. Earlier this year, the National Academies of Science concluded that current technology was available to achieve efficiency gains that far exceed those required in this amendment, and that was even excluding consideration of the hybrid technology that is on the market right now. We must put our faith in the innovative genius of American industry to meet the challenge that this amendment poses. Mr. President, this amendment also provides the lead-time and flexibility our industry needs to achieve these goals. It does not micromanage where or how these savings should occur, but rather would provide maximum flexibility to the appropriate agencies in achieving the objective of using, and therefore importing, less oil. It leaves intact all of the provisions that are now included in the underlying bill. In short, this proposal has been carefully crafted to address the concerns raised by Senators in both parties regarding the previous CAFE amendment. I hope that the Senate finds this to be a much-improved amendment that can be broadly embraced. Mr. President, the importance of reducing our reliance on foreign oil has been echoed throughout this chamber again and again over the last few weeks. I could quote from scores of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have decried the problem and put the highest priority on finding a solution. But when it comes down to it, we have failed to prove that we're willing to lead America to a better way. This must end. We must re- energize our commitment to reach bi-partisan consensus on weaning our economy off of fossil fuels. The process will by definition be a gradual one--so we must start now. Mr. President, there are 99 barrels of oil on the wall, 99 barrels of oil. Most of them, no matter how much we explore, come from overseas. If just one of those barrels should happen to fall, we'll still need all 99 barrels of oil on the wall, and they'll still mostly come from overseas. But if we as a nation can change our craving for that oil-- get on the efficiency wagon, so to speak--so that we only need 90 or 80 or 70 and shrinking barrels of oil, we can alter that repetitive refrain. The question is: Do we have the drive to get there? Do we have the will? If we have the will, American ingenuity can and will find the way. No one should have any doubt about that. But it takes leadership from Washington, and that is what I hope we in the Congress are willing to provide, beginning with this amendment. Madam President, again, I think we all agree on the problem. The problem is that America is dangerously dependent on foreign oil. No matter how great our military might is, how strong our economy is, that dependence upon foreign oil makes us vulnerable. The only way to break our dependence on foreign oil is to diminish our dependence on oil. We just don't have enough of it in reserve. One of the most tried and true American ways to deal with problems of this kind is through thrift, efficiency, conservation, and a better use of resources. I grew up with a slogan, as I bet a lot of Members did, which is ``waste not, want not.'' We are using fuel in a wasteful way. This amendment is, in my opinion, not in contradiction to the Levin- Bond amendment. Nothing in the Levin-Bond amendment would be undermined or distorted by the rulemaking considerations that are effected by this Carper-Specter amendment. The language is respectful of Levin-Bond and simply adds the oil-saving target of reducing America's use of oil by 1 million barrels a day by 2015. You remember the movie ``Field of Dreams,'' where it was said, ``if you build it, they will come.'' We are saying affirmatively, if we set a standard America will meet that standard, and probably go beyond it. If we do not, we will continue to make ourselves vulnerable by being dependent on a source of fuel that we do not control. We consume a quarter of the world's oil. We have about 3 percent of its reserves. So even if we allowed drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the Rockies, and perhaps right here beneath the Capitol dome, the nations from which we import oil would still have us--if you will allow an oil-dependent pun--over a barrel. In contrast, the fuel efficiency gains proposed in this amendment cannot be exhausted, cannot run dry, and will begin to shift our economy away from its dependency on oil. We have the technological capacity to do it if law drives that technology. Earlier this year, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that current technology was available to achieve the efficiency gains that far exceed those required in this amendment. That even excluded consideration of the hybrid technology on the market right now, which the automakers cannot produce fast enough for the consumers who want to buy them. We have to put our faith in the innovative genius of American industry to meet the challenge that this amendment poses, and I am sure they will not only meet it, they will surpass it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues, Senators Gregg, Carper, Hutchinson, and Bayh in introducing this resolution today to salute the success of public charter schools in our country and to designate April 29, 2002 through May 3, 2002, as National Charter Schools Week. This week also marks the 10th anniversary of the opening of the Nation's first charter school. Since the City Academy in St. Paul, MN, was founded, the idea has been catching on. From seeing several charter schools up close, I am convinced that they represent one of the most promising engines of education reform in the country today. Charter schools grant educators freedom from top- heavy bureaucracies and their red tape in exchange for a commitment to meet high academic standards. In 1994, I was proud to join my colleague Dave Durenberger of Minnesota as sponsor of the bill authorizing the Federal Charter School Grant Program, which Congress passed with strong bipartisan majorities and which has provided more than $750 million since then for planning, startup and implementation of charter schools. I also think it's important to note in many cases charter schools are built from the ground up by educational entrepreneurs, teachers, parents and local leaders seeking to reinvent the public school and take it back to the future, reconnecting public education to some of our oldest, most basic values--responsibility, opportunity, community, and refocusing its mission on doing what's best for the child instead of what's best for the system. The results speak for themselves. Today, over 500,000 students attend more than 2,400 charter schools in 34 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. And, nationwide charters schools have combined waiting lists long enough to fill another 1,000 schools. Parents and educators in turn have given these programs overwhelmingly very high marks. Growing research shows that charter schools are effectively serving diverse populations, particularly many of the disadvantaged and at-risk children that traditional public schools have struggled to educate. Despite our achievements to date, we cannot rest on our laurels. We must strive to increase options, and replicate successes. Recently, some skeptics have criticized what they see as a slow down in the growth of charter schools and an increase in the number of schools that have closed. Although the hundreds of families on waiting lists clearly refutes these skeptics, we must rightly maintain our vigilance to ensure that charter schools reach our high academic expectations and demand accountability from those that our failing their students. Unfortunately in too many cases, charter schools are the victims of poorly drafted charter school laws and inadequate funding. I am pleased that many of the reforms enacted under the recently signed No Child Left Behind Act will further strengthen the academic performance of charter schools and help put them on firmer fiscal footing. Recognizing that greater choice and accountability enhances our public education system, I recently urged all American colleges and universities to create charter schools. Parents are crying out for more high-quality public school options that prepare their children for college, and colleges are perfectly positioned to help. The most remarkable aspect of the charter movement may be that it has managed to bring together educators, parents, community activists, business leaders and politicians from across the political spectrum in support of a common goal to better educate our children by offering more choice, more grassroots control and more accountability within our public schools. I am proud to salute these growing community efforts throughout our nation, and commend these frontline educational innovations for their commitment to expanding educational options for American families to ensure that all children reach high levels of academic achievement.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. As Senator Bingaman has indicated, this language incorporates the essential components of S. 1008, the Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001. Senators Byrd and Stevens introduced this important legislation, and I am proud that the Governmental Affairs Committee which I chair quickly endorsed the bill. The committee report accompanying the bill explains the reasoning behind the legislation and, as Senator Bingaman stated, should provide direction to those charged with executing the provisions of Title X. But I would like to summarize a few key points about why this is such an important contribution by Senators Byrd and Stevens. First, they have found a constructive way to move forward in a bipartisan fashion on the issue of climate change, one of the most profound and daunting challenges we face as a Nation and, indeed, a world community. Second, the bill establishes a regime of accountability on climate change-- under the legislation, the administration would be required to articulate a strategy to reach the long-agreed upon goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Third, the bill provides support for the innovative technologies that will be essential to meet the challenge of climate change. This legislation is an important step forward on climate change, and I thank my colleagues for their work on this provision.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have submitted a resolution today, along with Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Daschle, our majority leader, and we are currently in the process of communicating with the Republican leader. I hope Senator Lott will become the fourth initial cosponsor of this resolution which expresses the solidarity of Congress--Senate and House--with the State of Israel in its fight against terrorism. The painful events of September 11 have taught us Americans a powerful lesson: When innocent people are attacked, we have no choice but to capture or kill those killers and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure. That is the first step in reducing the likelihood of future attacks and making clear through our actions--not just our words--that violence against innocents will never be tolerated. Now we see Israel under siege by a systematic and deliberate campaign of suicide-homicide attacks whose essence is identical to the attacks on our country on September 11. Those suicide bombers striking innocent Israelis in supermarkets, pizza restaurants, buses, and schools are cut from the same cloth of fanatical, inhumane hatred as those terrorists who turned airplanes into weapons of mass destruction and killed more than 3,000 Americans on September 11. God knows that we have not always been astute enough to learn from history, but when the history of September 11 is this fresh in our minds and in our hearts, and the lessons are as clear and compelling as the lessons of September 11 were, let us not fail to apply those lessons. Let us not waver, let us not blur our vision or our values, particularly in this case when the victims of the country are citizens of a fellow democracy and a great ally, which is to say the State of Israel. Instead, let us recall the principled message of President Bush in his address to Congress less than 7 months ago: Terrorism is evil. It is not an acceptable form of political action. It is a crime that runs contrary to our most basic human values. Nations that support it, condone it, or enable it are our enemies, and nations that dismantle its immoral, inhuman machinery and go after its perpetrators to protect innocent lives of their citizens are doing freedom's work and they are our allies. In laying out this doctrine, President Bush actually echoed the words that President Franklin Roosevelt spoke in 1940 when he said: No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. The United States supports a peaceful Palestine along a secure Israel, as, for that matter, does Israel herself. We support a two- state solution. In other words, we support what we hope and pray is still the cause of the vast majority of the Palestinian people. But there is a danger that these suicide bombers operating out of Palestinian territory have hijacked the legitimate cause of Palestinian statehood. These homicide bombers do not represent what we hope is the aspiration of a majority of the Palestinian people for statehood, for a better life for themselves and their children. These homicide bombers--terrorists--insult that cause and undermine their own people's desire to live a better life. They represent a morally bankrupt and tactically suicide policy. Their militancy will only deepen the misery of the Palestinian people. Ultimately, in supporting Israel's right to protect and defend itself, we are also supporting our own war against terrorism because if we lose our bearings and muddy the moral clarity with which we began and are carrying out our campaign against terror, we risk undermining the fight against al-Qaida and other international terrorist groups that threaten our own people. We cannot allow that. The United States, acting in concert with Israel and our allies in the Arab world, and hopefully our allies in the rest of the world, including Europe and Asia, can still bring security to the region. It can still happen if mainstream, moderate leaders in the Arab world will not accommodate themselves out of fear or insecurity to the threats of the fanatical elements within the region but will stand up with our strong support and assert that the only way to achieve a better future for the Palestinian people and, in fact, for all the people in the Middle East, is to come together for the good people, to come together behind the rule of law against fanaticism, against solving problems with violence, for more human rights, for more democracy, for the kind of open economies that allow people to raise up their standard of living and deprive terrorists of the conditions they exploit for violent and suicidal purposes. Together, we can bring such a result to the region. This week, President Bush has two very important meetings: One with King Mohamed VI of Morocco, the other with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. These are opportunities not only to develop the hopes expressed in the Saudi peace proposal for mutual recognition of Israel by the Arab world, but to make clear to our allies in the Arab world and countries like Saudi Arabia and Morocco how critically important their own moral clarity in this moment of crisis is; that we need them to stand with us for a peaceful path to Palestinian statehood and a better life for all the people of their region. Ultimately, that only comes with more human rights for their citizens and a more open economic society with more opportunity. Together we can create conditions for a just and lasting peace, a peaceful and sovereign Palestine alongside a peaceful and secure Israel. It is time for the humane, law-abiding forces within the Middle East and those outside to come together and defeat the cancer of terrorism that now eats away at that region and the world. The United States must stand with our ally, Israel, sharing values and hopes for peace as we do, as she attempts to defeat and protect her citizens from acts of terrorism. That is the message we send with the resolution we are submitting today. I hope an overwhelming majority of my colleagues will join Senator Smith and me, Senator Daschle and, I hope, Senator Lott, in cosponsoring this resolution.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business.