Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move for reconsideration and to lay that matter on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 514

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I believe there is agreement on this amendment on both sides. The amendment makes sense, and, therefore, I yield back all time on both sides.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I support this amendment. I am prepared to yield back any additional time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, we are on the verge of passing legislation that will streamline the executive branch nominations process and I want to congratulate the bill's authors--Senators Schumer and Alexander--for their bipartisan accomplishment and thank them for their hard work. This bill--S. 679, The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011--removes about 170 non-policymaking positions from the list of Presidential appointments requiring Senate confirmation--plus over 2800 members of the Public Health Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Officer Corps, whose appointments and promotions are also subject to the Senate's advice and consent. This is not as many positions as the bill first contemplated. But it is a significant achievement nonetheless when you consider that the work that goes into vetting nominees must be multiplied by four because the White House, the Senate, the FBI and the Office of Government Ethics, OGE, all have to conduct their own thorough background investigations. So by removing 170 positions we eliminate the need for 680 separate background investigations. This frees up the Senate, the White House, the FBI and OGE to focus their efforts on vetting nominations for those critical positions where policy is made. And that should help speed up the vetting and confirmation process for these positions as well. This act also establishes an executive branch working group to study and report to the President and Congress on the best ways to streamline all the paperwork nominees are required to fill out and consider consolidating it under a single ``smart form.'' Most nominees submit to at least four reviews, each represented by a separate packet of government forms, including a White House Personal Data Statement, questionnaires from the FBI and the Office of Government Ethics, and at least one questionnaire from the Senate committee of jurisdiction. A ``smart form'' would be an electronic system for collecting and distributing background information for nominees requiring Senate confirmation that a nominee would have to fill out just once and the information would then be transferred to all the other relevant forms. Before we vote, I wanted to stress the bipartisan nature of this effort. In January, Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell decided the nomination and confirmation process had become too slow and cumbersome and that this posed a serious national and economic security problem when crucial offices go unfilled for months and months. They established a working group on executive nominations and appointed Senators Schumer and Alexander--chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Rules Committee--to lead it. Senator Collins and I are also part of that group as chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Senators Schumer and Alexander introduced their carefully crafted legislation on March 30, with a bipartisan group of 15 cosponsors. And on April 13 the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on a bipartisan vote, reported the bill favorably to the Senate. The bill was brought to the floor, debated and further changes made in the spirit of compromise. This is the Senate at its best. A problem was identified and both sides of the aisle worked together to craft a solution. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so future administrations will be able to get their teams in place more quickly and the Senate can focus its energy on the qualifications of just the most important executive branch appointments as was intended by the Constitution.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, this will be on final passage. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield back all remaining time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues Senator Collins and Senator Akaka, to introduce legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our Government by fostering greater integration among the personnel who work on critical national security and homeland security missions. The national security and homeland security challenges that our nation faces in the 21st century are far more complex than those of the last century. Threats such as terrorism, proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons, insurgencies, and failed states are beyond the capability of any single agency of our Government, such as the Department of Defense, DOD, the Department of State, or the intelligence community, to counter on its own. In addition, threats such as terrorism and organized crime know no borders and instead cross the so-called ``foreign/domestic divide,'' the bureaucratic, cultural, and legal division between agencies that focus on threats from beyond our borders and those that focus on threats from within. Finally, a new group of government agencies is now involved in national and homeland security. These agencies bring to bear critical capabilities, such as interdicting terrorist finance, enforcing sanctions, protecting our critical infrastructure, and helping foreign countries threatened by terrorism to build their economies and legal systems, but many of them have relatively little experience of involvement with the traditional national security agencies. Some of these agencies have existed for decades or centuries, such as the Departments of Treasury, Justice, and Health and Human Services, HHS, while others are new since 9/11, such as the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI. As a result, our government needs to be able to apply all instruments of national power, including military, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, foreign aid, homeland security, and public health, in a whole-of-government approach to counter these threats. We only need to look at our government's failure to use the full range of civilian and military capabilities to stymie the Iraqi insurgency immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the government's failure to prepare and respond to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the government's failure to share information and coordinate action prior to the attack at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009, for examples of failure of interagency coordination and their costs in terms of lives, money, and the national interest. The challenge of integrating the agencies of the Executive Branch into a whole-of-government approach has been recognized by Congressionally chartered commissions for more than a decade. Prior to 9/11, the Commission led by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, entitled the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, issued reports recommending fundamental reorganization to integrate government capabilities, including for homeland security. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission, led by former Governor Tom Kean and former Representative Lee Hamilton, found that the U.S. Government needed reform in order to foster a stronger, faster, and more efficient government-wide effort against terrorism. In 2008, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, led by former Senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent, called for improving interagency coordination in our Nation's defenses against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass destruction. Congress has long recognized that a key way to better integrate our Government's capabilities is to provide strong incentives for personnel to do rotational assignments across bureaucratic stovepipes. The personnel who serve in our Government are our Nation's best-and- brightest, and they have and will respond to incentives that we institute in order to improve coordination across our government. In 1986, Congress enacted the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act. That legislation sought to break down stovepipes and foster jointness across the military services by requiring that military officers have served in a position outside of their service as a requirement for promotion to general or admiral. Twenty-five years later, this requirement has produced a sea change in military officers' mindsets and created a dominant military culture of jointness. In 2004, Congress enacted the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act at the 9/11 Commission's recommendation and required a similar rotational requirement for intelligence personnel. The Director of National Intelligence has since instituted rotations across the Intelligence Community as an eligibility requirement for promotion to senior intelligence positions, and this requirement is helping to integrate the 16 agencies and elements of the Intelligence Community. Finally, in 2005, Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act to improve our Nation's preparedness for and responses to domestic catastrophes and instituted a rotational program within the Department of Homeland Security in order to integrate that department. This proven mechanism of rotations must be applied to integrate the government as a whole on national security and homeland security issues. Indeed, the Hart/Rudman Commission called for rotations to other agencies and interagency professional education to be required in order for personnel to hold certain positions or be promoted to certain levels. The Graham/Talent Commission called for the Government to recruit the next generation of national security experts by establishing a program of joint duty, education, and training in order to create a culture of interagency collaboration, flexibility, and innovation. The Executive Branch has also recognized the need to foster greater interagency rotations and experience in order to improve integration across its agencies. In 2007, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13434 concerning national security professional development and to include interagency assignments. However, that executive order was not implemented aggressively toward the end of the Bush administration and has languished as the Obama administration pursued other priorities. Clearly, it is time for Congress to act and to institute the personnel incentives and reforms necessary to further integrate our government and enable it to counter the national security and homeland security threats of the 21st Century. Today I join with Senator Susan M. Collins and Senator Daniel K. Akaka to introduce the bipartisan Interagency Personnel Rotation Act of 2011. Companion legislation is being introduced in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis by Representative Geoff Davis and Representative John F. Tierney. The purpose of this legislation is to enable Executive Branch personnel to view national security and homeland security issues from a whole-of-government perspective and be able to capitalize upon communities of interest composed of personnel from multiple agencies who work on the same national security or homeland security issue. This legislation requires that the Executive Branch identify ``Interagency Communities of Interest,'' which are subject areas spanning multiple agencies and within which the Executive Branch needs to operate on a more integrated basis. Interagency Communities of Interest could include counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, counter proliferation, or regional areas such as the Middle East. This legislation then requires that agencies identify positions that are within each Interagency Community of Interest. Government personnel would then rotate to positions within other agencies but within the particular Interagency Community of Interest related to their expertise. Government personnel could also rotate to positions at offices that have specific interagency missions such as the National Security Staff. Completing an interagency rotation would be a prerequisite for selection to certain Senior Executive Service positions within that Interagency Community of Interest. As a result, personnel would have the incentives to serve in a rotational position and to develop the whole-of-government perspective and the network of contacts necessary for integrating across agencies and accomplishing national security and homeland security missions more efficiently and effectively. Let me offer some examples of how this might work. An employee of the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, who specializes in development strategy could rotate to the Office of the Secretary of Defense to advise DOD in planning on how development issues should be taken into account in military operations, while DOD counterinsurgency specialists could rotate to USAID to advise on how development priorities should be assessed in a counterinsurgency. A Treasury employee who does terrorist finance work could benefit from a rotation to Department of Justice to understand operations to take down terrorist cells and how terrorist finance work can help identify and prosecute their members, while Justice personnel would have the chance to learn from the Treasury's financial expertise in understanding how sources of funding can affect cells' formation and plotting. Someone from HHS who specializes in public health could rotate to a DOD counterinsurgency office to advise on improving public health in order to win over the hearts and minds of the population prone to counterinsurgency, while someone from DHS could rotate to HHS in order to learn about HHS's work to prepare the U.S. public health system for a biological terrorist attack. The cosponsors of this legislation and I recognize the complexity involved in the creation of Interagency Communities of Interest, the institution of rotations across a wide variety of government agencies, and having a rotation as a prerequisite for selection to certain Senior Executive Service positions. As a result, our legislation gives the Executive Branch substantial flexibility, including to identify Interagency Communities of Interest, to identify which positions in each agency are within a particular Interagency Community of Interest; to identify which positions in an Interagency Community of Interest should be open for rotation and how long the rotations will be; and finally, which Senior Executive Service positions have interagency rotational service as a prerequisite. To be clear, this legislation does not mandate that any agency be included in an Interagency Community of Interest or the interagency personnel rotations; instead, this legislation permits the Executive Branch to include any agency or part of an agency as the Executive Branch determines that our nation's national and homeland security missions require. In addition, our legislation gives the Executive Branch 15 years in which to implement this legislation and contains a substantial number of exemptions and waivers, especially during but not limited to the phase-in period. The legislation contains a number of provisions designed to protect the rights of our government personnel under existing law. Finally, this legislation is designed to be implemented without requiring any additional personnel for the Executive Branch. The legislation envisions that rotations will be conducted so that there is a reasonable equivalence between the number of personnel rotating out of an agency and the number rotating in. That way, no agency will be short-staffed as a result of having sent its best-and-brightest to do rotations; each agency will be receiving the best-and-brightest from other agencies. Let me close by answering a common objection to government reorganization. To quote the 9/11 Commission, ``An argument against change is that the nation is at war, and cannot afford to reorganize in midstream. But some of the main innovations of the 1940s and 1950s, including the creation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and even the construction of the Pentagon itself, were undertaken in the midst of war. Surely the country cannot wait until the struggle against Islamic terrorism is over.'' I urge my colleagues to take bold action to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our Government in countering 21st century national security and homeland security threats by promptly passing the Interagency Personnel Rotation Act of 2011.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues Senator Collins and Senator Akaka, to introduce legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our Government by fostering greater integration among the personnel who work on critical national security and homeland security missions. The national security and homeland security challenges that our nation faces in the 21st century are far more complex than those of the last century. Threats such as terrorism, proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons, insurgencies, and failed states are beyond the capability of any single agency of our Government, such as the Department of Defense, DOD, the Department of State, or the intelligence community, to counter on its own. In addition, threats such as terrorism and organized crime know no borders and instead cross the so-called ``foreign/domestic divide,'' the bureaucratic, cultural, and legal division between agencies that focus on threats from beyond our borders and those that focus on threats from within. Finally, a new group of government agencies is now involved in national and homeland security. These agencies bring to bear critical capabilities, such as interdicting terrorist finance, enforcing sanctions, protecting our critical infrastructure, and helping foreign countries threatened by terrorism to build their economies and legal systems, but many of them have relatively little experience of involvement with the traditional national security agencies. Some of these agencies have existed for decades or centuries, such as the Departments of Treasury, Justice, and Health and Human Services, HHS, while others are new since 9/11, such as the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI. As a result, our government needs to be able to apply all instruments of national power, including military, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, foreign aid, homeland security, and public health, in a whole-of-government approach to counter these threats. We only need to look at our government's failure to use the full range of civilian and military capabilities to stymie the Iraqi insurgency immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the government's failure to prepare and respond to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the government's failure to share information and coordinate action prior to the attack at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009, for examples of failure of interagency coordination and their costs in terms of lives, money, and the national interest. The challenge of integrating the agencies of the Executive Branch into a whole-of-government approach has been recognized by Congressionally chartered commissions for more than a decade. Prior to 9/11, the Commission led by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, entitled the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, issued reports recommending fundamental reorganization to integrate government capabilities, including for homeland security. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission, led by former Governor Tom Kean and former Representative Lee Hamilton, found that the U.S. Government needed reform in order to foster a stronger, faster, and more efficient government-wide effort against terrorism. In 2008, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, led by former Senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent, called for improving interagency coordination in our Nation's defenses against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass destruction. Congress has long recognized that a key way to better integrate our Government's capabilities is to provide strong incentives for personnel to do rotational assignments across bureaucratic stovepipes. The personnel who serve in our Government are our Nation's best-and- brightest, and they have and will respond to incentives that we institute in order to improve coordination across our government. In 1986, Congress enacted the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act. That legislation sought to break down stovepipes and foster jointness across the military services by requiring that military officers have served in a position outside of their service as a requirement for promotion to general or admiral. Twenty-five years later, this requirement has produced a sea change in military officers' mindsets and created a dominant military culture of jointness. In 2004, Congress enacted the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act at the 9/11 Commission's recommendation and required a similar rotational requirement for intelligence personnel. The Director of National Intelligence has since instituted rotations across the Intelligence Community as an eligibility requirement for promotion to senior intelligence positions, and this requirement is helping to integrate the 16 agencies and elements of the Intelligence Community. Finally, in 2005, Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act to improve our Nation's preparedness for and responses to domestic catastrophes and instituted a rotational program within the Department of Homeland Security in order to integrate that department. This proven mechanism of rotations must be applied to integrate the government as a whole on national security and homeland security issues. Indeed, the Hart/Rudman Commission called for rotations to other agencies and interagency professional education to be required in order for personnel to hold certain positions or be promoted to certain levels. The Graham/Talent Commission called for the Government to recruit the next generation of national security experts by establishing a program of joint duty, education, and training in order to create a culture of interagency collaboration, flexibility, and innovation. The Executive Branch has also recognized the need to foster greater interagency rotations and experience in order to improve integration across its agencies. In 2007, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13434 concerning national security professional development and to include interagency assignments. However, that executive order was not implemented aggressively toward the end of the Bush administration and has languished as the Obama administration pursued other priorities. Clearly, it is time for Congress to act and to institute the personnel incentives and reforms necessary to further integrate our government and enable it to counter the national security and homeland security threats of the 21st Century. Today I join with Senator Susan M. Collins and Senator Daniel K. Akaka to introduce the bipartisan Interagency Personnel Rotation Act of 2011. Companion legislation is being introduced in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis by Representative Geoff Davis and Representative John F. Tierney. The purpose of this legislation is to enable Executive Branch personnel to view national security and homeland security issues from a whole-of-government perspective and be able to capitalize upon communities of interest composed of personnel from multiple agencies who work on the same national security or homeland security issue. This legislation requires that the Executive Branch identify ``Interagency Communities of Interest,'' which are subject areas spanning multiple agencies and within which the Executive Branch needs to operate on a more integrated basis. Interagency Communities of Interest could include counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, counter proliferation, or regional areas such as the Middle East. This legislation then requires that agencies identify positions that are within each Interagency Community of Interest. Government personnel would then rotate to positions within other agencies but within the particular Interagency Community of Interest related to their expertise. Government personnel could also rotate to positions at offices that have specific interagency missions such as the National Security Staff. Completing an interagency rotation would be a prerequisite for selection to certain Senior Executive Service positions within that Interagency Community of Interest. As a result, personnel would have the incentives to serve in a rotational position and to develop the whole-of-government perspective and the network of contacts necessary for integrating across agencies and accomplishing national security and homeland security missions more efficiently and effectively. Let me offer some examples of how this might work. An employee of the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, who specializes in development strategy could rotate to the Office of the Secretary of Defense to advise DOD in planning on how development issues should be taken into account in military operations, while DOD counterinsurgency specialists could rotate to USAID to advise on how development priorities should be assessed in a counterinsurgency. A Treasury employee who does terrorist finance work could benefit from a rotation to Department of Justice to understand operations to take down terrorist cells and how terrorist finance work can help identify and prosecute their members, while Justice personnel would have the chance to learn from the Treasury's financial expertise in understanding how sources of funding can affect cells' formation and plotting. Someone from HHS who specializes in public health could rotate to a DOD counterinsurgency office to advise on improving public health in order to win over the hearts and minds of the population prone to counterinsurgency, while someone from DHS could rotate to HHS in order to learn about HHS's work to prepare the U.S. public health system for a biological terrorist attack. The cosponsors of this legislation and I recognize the complexity involved in the creation of Interagency Communities of Interest, the institution of rotations across a wide variety of government agencies, and having a rotation as a prerequisite for selection to certain Senior Executive Service positions. As a result, our legislation gives the Executive Branch substantial flexibility, including to identify Interagency Communities of Interest, to identify which positions in each agency are within a particular Interagency Community of Interest; to identify which positions in an Interagency Community of Interest should be open for rotation and how long the rotations will be; and finally, which Senior Executive Service positions have interagency rotational service as a prerequisite. To be clear, this legislation does not mandate that any agency be included in an Interagency Community of Interest or the interagency personnel rotations; instead, this legislation permits the Executive Branch to include any agency or part of an agency as the Executive Branch determines that our nation's national and homeland security missions require. In addition, our legislation gives the Executive Branch 15 years in which to implement this legislation and contains a substantial number of exemptions and waivers, especially during but not limited to the phase-in period. The legislation contains a number of provisions designed to protect the rights of our government personnel under existing law. Finally, this legislation is designed to be implemented without requiring any additional personnel for the Executive Branch. The legislation envisions that rotations will be conducted so that there is a reasonable equivalence between the number of personnel rotating out of an agency and the number rotating in. That way, no agency will be short-staffed as a result of having sent its best-and-brightest to do rotations; each agency will be receiving the best-and-brightest from other agencies. Let me close by answering a common objection to government reorganization. To quote the 9/11 Commission, ``An argument against change is that the nation is at war, and cannot afford to reorganize in midstream. But some of the main innovations of the 1940s and 1950s, including the creation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and even the construction of the Pentagon itself, were undertaken in the midst of war. Surely the country cannot wait until the struggle against Islamic terrorism is over.'' I urge my colleagues to take bold action to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our Government in countering 21st century national security and homeland security threats by promptly passing the Interagency Personnel Rotation Act of 2011.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is my honor now to rise as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to speak on behalf of S. 679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, and I do so with great gratitude toward Senator Alexander, who is now on the Senate floor, Senator Schumer, and others who worked together to clear away procedural obstacles to focus on this piece of legislation. This is a noble effort that has been tried before and failed, but I am confident this time, with the support of our leaders--really our bipartisan leadership, Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Senator Alexander, Senator Schumer, not to mention Senator Collins and me--we are going to, in our committee role, get this passed. This is a bipartisan effort to solve a problem, or at least help solve part of a problem, that has been growing for a long time in Washington in our government--certainly since the Kennedy administration--which is, it takes too long for an incoming President and a sitting President to get their team in place, and there are too many vacancies throughout the course of an administration, as I will indicate during my remarks. The average is 25 percent, one-quarter of the positions in the administration, are empty at any one time because of the length of the process, the delays that occur in the executive branch, the White House, and in the Senate, and this is a direct attempt to try to lessen that problem. One of my favorite descriptions of our current nomination and confirmation process--I have used this so often I forgot who said it; the gentleman in the chair might have said it--described the current confirmation and nomination process as ``nasty and brutish without being short.'' So, hopefully, this will make the process at least less nasty and brutish and shorter as well. Mr. President, 100 days into President Obama's administration only 14 percent of the full-time Senate-confirmed positions had been filled-- only 14 percent. After 18 months, 25 percent of key policymaking positions were still vacant. This is not an unusual circumstance. Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush faced similar difficulties. It is a problem that does have, however, a serious national and economic security implication because crucial offices go unfilled for months and months. President Bush actually did not have his national security team, including critical subcabinet officials, confirmed and on the job until at least 6 months after he took office. The 9/11 Commission pointed out how dangerous this was and recommended steps to speed up the process for national security appointments, some of which were adopted as part of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2004. At the height of the financial crisis, which we are still working our way out of, Secretary of the Treasury Geithner was actually home alone, with no other Senate-confirmed positions at the Treasury Department filled for over 3 months. That is an outrageous result. So what would the bill before the Senate now do? It would eliminate the need for Senate confirmation for about 200 positions out of about 1,200 that now need Senate confirmation. Of these 200 positions, most of them are in the areas of legislative and public affairs, internal management positions, such as, chief financial officers who report to others up the chain of command, directors, commissioners, or administrators at or below the Assistant Secretary level who, again, will report to another Senate- confirmed official, and the members of a number of part-time advisory boards which, under the current state of the law, have to go through full vetting and then full Senate consideration and confirmation. The proposal before us is not by any means a radical proposal. Removing these positions from the need for Senate confirmation would free up both the Senate and future administrations to concentrate more fully on the nominations for those key positions where public policy is made. I want to note, again, the bipartisan nature of these proposals. In January, Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell decided the nomination and confirmation process had become too slow and cumbersome. That was in January of this year. They established a working group on executive nominations and asked leaders Schumer and Alexander to be in charge of that. Chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Rules Committee, Senator Collins and I were also privileged to be part of that group as chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The reforms proposed by Senators Schumer and Alexander in our group have really been carefully crafted, and I cannot thank them enough for both their legislative intellectual work on this but also for sticking with it right to this moment. They introduced their legislation on March 30; that is, Schumer and Alexander, with a bipartisan group of 15 cosponsors. On April 13, our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, again, on a bipartisan vote, reported the bill favorably to the Senate. Senators Schumer and Alexander are also proposing an important Senate Resolution, S. Res. 116, that would streamline the confirmation process for approximately 200 other Presidential appointments that receive Senate confirmation by allowing their nominations to bypass the committee process and come directly to the Senate floor as long as no Senator objects. This is an important companion proposal. So if all goes well, we will have 400 of the current 1,200 positions--that is about one-third of the current nominations requiring full Senate consideration, Senate proposal, committee consideration, et cetera--to be in a different status. These 200 positions that will be the subject of S. Res. 116 come from 30 bipartisan Federal advisory groups and councils, such as the Social Security Advisory Board and the IRS Advisory Board. This is the way the Senate should work. A problem is identified, both sides of the aisle work together to craft a solution, then bring it to the floor for debate. Hopefully, it is a model for what we can and should do in a lot of other areas that are pressing not just on the Senate but on the country and the people of the country. On March 2, Senator Collins and I--just speaking a bit more in detail--held a hearing which we called ``Eliminating the Bottlenecks: Streamlining the Nominations Process.'' We heard from a group of former executives, really White House officials, both parties, and from some experts in the private sector. They made a compelling case for change, and here is some of what we learned. When President Kennedy entered office in 1961, there were 850 Senate- confirmed positions that the President had to fill. By the time President George W. Bush took office, that had increased to 1,143. When President Obama was sworn in just 8 years later, that was already up to 1,215. Not surprisingly, with more positions it takes longer to fill them. The delay is not, fortunately, at the Cabinet level. Between 1987 and 2005, it took Presidents an average of only 17 days from the time of a vacancy to nominate a Cabinet Secretary, and the Senate took an average of just 16 days to confirm the nominee. But it is at the critical subcabinet level where things slow to a crawl. It took Presidents an average of 95 days--that is, of course, more than 3 months--to nominate Deputy Cabinet Secretaries, and the Senate took 62 days to confirm them, another 2 months. Now we are up to more than 5 months for Deputy Cabinet Members which are critical to the functioning of their departments. Noncabinet agency heads waited an average of 173 days for nomination and 63 additional days for confirmation. So we are up to over 230 days, over 7 months, approaching 8 months. Noncabinet agency deputy heads fared even worse, an average of 301 days before nomination and 82 days before confirmation. That is more than a year to go through this process while those offices are effectively unfilled, and the people's business is not being done. Part of the problem is a large number of appointments that need to be made at the outset of an administration can overwhelm the resources available within the executive branch and the Senate to review and vet these nominees. So eliminating the requirement for Senate confirmation for nonpolicymaking or lower level positions should allow an incoming administration and the Senate, as well as the FBI and the Office of Government Ethics, which do the vetting, to focus on more important policymaking positions, speeding up the process. Other problems contributing to the delay are the numerous duplicative and time-consuming forms that potential nominees are required to fill out. Most nominees actually submit to at least four reviews, each represented by a separate packet of government forms, including a White House personnel data statement, questionnaires from the FBI, Office of Government Ethics, and at least one questionnaire from the Senate committee of jurisdiction. There is a very interesting study done by Professor Terry Sullivan at the University of North Carolina that found half the questions asked in those four reviews for each nominee are redundant. They are repetitive. This act would establish, therefore, an executive branch working group to study and report to the President and the Congress the best ways to streamline all this paperwork, along with a detailed plan for creating and implementing a smart reform. An example would be an electronic system for collecting and distributing background information for nominees requiring Senate confirmation. With a ``smart form'' such as this, a nominee could answer a question once and the information would be filled in for all of the relevant forms. The need for reforms in the Federal appointments process is not a new topic. Over the past three decades, an abundance of commissions, think tanks, good government groups, and individual academics have turned their sights on this problem. I will not list them all, but here are just a few: the National Academy of Public Administration in 1983 and 1985; the President's Commission on the Federal Appointments Process in 1990; the Twentieth Century Fund in 1996; the Brookings Institution's Presidential Appointee Initiative, cochaired by former Senator Nancy Kassebaum and former Director of the Office of Management and Budget Franklin Raines in 2001; and the bipartisan National Commission on the Public Service, headed by Paul Volcker, in 1989 and 2003. The Senate has looked into making changes as well. In 2001, our committee--then called the Governmental Affairs Committee and chaired by former Senator Fred Thompson--held a 2-day hearing titled ``The State of the Presidential Appointment Process,'' which looked at many of the ideas we are considering today. The committee also reported out a bill--``The Presidential Appointments Improvement Act of 2002''--that sought to make modest improvements to the appointments process, including streamlining financial disclosure requirements. But the full Senate never considered it. Then, as I mentioned, Congress passed the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which included some improvements to help speed up the consideration of critical members of a new President's national security team. Now it is time to take a modest next step. We have reasonable, bipartisan legislation in front of us and it is time--in fact, past time--to act. Now let me address the question that seems to be of concern to some of our colleagues, which is: Is the Senate, in limiting by 200, and in some sense limiting another 200, giving away its power to advise and consent? I say the answer is a resounding no, and I wish to explain why. Let me read directly from article 2 of the Constitution: [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. This part of the quote is crucial: But the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The very first Congress, in which, of course, many of the Framers of our Constitution sat, did precisely what they authorized in the Constitution when they created the State Department, which was then called the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Secretary--a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson--was subject to Senate confirmation, but the legislation creating the Department also called for the hiring of a ``chief clerk'' who would be second in command--essentially the deputy. That position was not subject to confirmation and Jefferson hired a man named Henry Remsen, who had held the same job under the previous Articles of Confederation. So right from the beginning--from the Founding Fathers, the drafters of the Constitution--it was clear they understood there had to be limits on the number of offices the Senate would be called on to advise and consent to. Incidentally, I think it is also worth noting that in that first Congress, on a single day in 1789, the Senate took up 102 nominations sent to it by President Washington 2 days earlier and approved them all but one. Needless to say, President Washington complained about the one nominee whom the Senate did not confirm. But Washington, obviously acknowledged as the Father of our Country, was unique, and no President--appropriately, I would say--has received exactly that kind of deference since. The nominations process can be a rough and tumble one, and that is to be expected under our separation of powers. This legislation, however, I wish to emphasize, does nothing to change that. In fact, I would argue this legislation enhances the Senate's authority regarding advice and consent by enabling us to focus our energies on the qualifications of those who would shape national policy. If we don't fix this system, which almost everybody regards as broken, I think we risk what has already begun to happen, which is that some of our Nation's most talented people will simply not accept nominations for these important positions because of the time involved, the redundancy involved, and they will go unfilled. There has been a lot of work done to support this effort, some of which was done by some of our former colleagues, including Senator Bill Frist and Chuck Robb and former White House officials Clay Johnson from the Bush administration and Mack McLarty from the Clinton administration. For the past year, the four of them have headed up a bipartisan commission to reform the Federal appointments process and they have all endorsed this bill as well as S. Res. 116, and so too has the Partnership for Public Service. I know there is a natural tendency--notwithstanding all the reasons everybody understands to limit the number of nominees that come before the Senate for advice and consent--when we come to that moment where individual chairs of committees and ranking members don't want to yield what seems to be any authority. But, honestly, this is not an authority worth fighting to retain, and it works against the general functioning of the Senate, against the functioning of our government and, in my opinion, actually undercuts the vitality of the advice and consent clause. I call on my fellow chairmen, ranking members, and of course all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on this legislation so future Presidents can recruit the best nominees to serve us and the Senate can make sure it does its full job under the advice and consent clause to investigate and confirm them before they take office and deal with the Nation's business. As always, I have been privileged on the committee to be working with Senator Collins as my ranking member, and I yield to her at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank our friend and colleague from Tennessee for his statement and even more for the hard work he has done, along with Senator Schumer--the hard work, the steadfast work, without which we would not be on the floor right now. Senator Collins and I both agree this is one of those rare cases where I would not say we gave up, but we were beginning to grow pessimistic about our capability to achieve these reforms. It is unusual for us because we are usually so stubbornly persistent. But Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer, working with the encouragement and blessing of the two leaders, Senators Reid and McConnell, have put us in a position to get this done. It would be a real step forward. So I thank the Senator. Obviously, the work begins now. The floor is open for debate, as of 3 o'clock, for amendment. If either of my colleagues do not have anything more to say, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, which will strengthen the content knowledge and instructional skills of our present K-12 teacher workforce. Our goal with this legislation, like any education legislation I support, is to ultimately raise student achievement. The Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act would establish up to eight new Teachers Professional Development Institutes throughout the nation each year over the next 5 years based on the successful model that has been operating at Yale University for over thirty 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, five or six 13 session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics that teachers have selected to enhance their mastery of the subject areas 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, or 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. All of this is a very empowering experience for 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, Charlotte, North Carolina, and New Castle County, Delaware. Nine other school districts in 6 states, including California, Arizona, Oklahoma, Illinois, Virginia, and Georgia, are currently participating in the Initiative to learn how to develop a new Institute. 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 that 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 for their students. A retrospective study showed that over 5 years, Teachers Institute participants were almost twice as likely as non-participants to remain teaching in the district 5 years later. Research has shown that longevity in a district leads to increased teacher 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, and I quote ``teachers who receive substantial professional development, an average of 49 hours in the 9 studies, can boost their students' achievement by about twenty-one 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 lead to 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, and I quote, ``the practices of high-performing countries show clearly that America in particular has to do much more to elevate the teaching profession, from the recruitment and training of teachers to their evaluation and professional development.'' 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 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, today I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, which will strengthen the content knowledge and instructional skills of our present K-12 teacher workforce. Our goal with this legislation, like any education legislation I support, is to ultimately raise student achievement. The Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act would establish up to eight new Teachers Professional Development Institutes throughout the nation each year over the next 5 years based on the successful model that has been operating at Yale University for over thirty 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, five or six 13 session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics that teachers have selected to enhance their mastery of the subject areas 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, or 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. All of this is a very empowering experience for 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, Charlotte, North Carolina, and New Castle County, Delaware. Nine other school districts in 6 states, including California, Arizona, Oklahoma, Illinois, Virginia, and Georgia, are currently participating in the Initiative to learn how to develop a new Institute. 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 that 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 for their students. A retrospective study showed that over 5 years, Teachers Institute participants were almost twice as likely as non-participants to remain teaching in the district 5 years later. Research has shown that longevity in a district leads to increased teacher 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, and I quote ``teachers who receive substantial professional development, an average of 49 hours in the 9 studies, can boost their students' achievement by about twenty-one 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 lead to 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, and I quote, ``the practices of high-performing countries show clearly that America in particular has to do much more to elevate the teaching profession, from the recruitment and training of teachers to their evaluation and professional development.'' 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 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 rise to speak about the fiscal crisis facing our country and specifically the dire financial situation of Medicare, which is a program that matters so much to tens of millions of senior Americans but also adds so much to our national debt. I wish to talk about some ideas I have about how we might effectively deal with this problem in Medicare, particularly, without doing away with the Medicare Program because I believe in it. If I can start on a broader level, briefly. It is hard to find anybody in Congress in any party who does not acknowledge that our Federal Government is hurtling toward the edge of a financial cliff. We are now running deficits in this year of over $1 trillion. That means we are spending $1 trillion more than we are taking in so we have to borrow that money, and at some point we are going to reach a level of borrowing that is unsustainable. It will send our economy hurtling down, will bring us into another great recession, will compromise our ability to provide the security and services to the people of our country that it is our responsibility to provide. To avoid that horrific result, we have to show some responsibility and work across party lines to get some things done. None of this is easy. Almost everybody will say we have a terrible financial problem in the Government, debt, deficit, but when you get to the solutions, there has been an outbreak of what I call Federal Government NIMBYism. Everybody talks about NIMBY at the State and local level--Not In My Back Yard; this is a great program, but I do not want it in my neighborhood. The Federal Government budget crisis we are in, NIMBYism seems to be not my program or not my favorite tax credit. You can cut other stuff but not what I am in favor of. We have one group saying no tax increases whatsoever, even indirect through the elimination of tax credits, which is spending money, and tax credits can be as wasteful an expenditure of the taxpayers' money as a wasteful spending program can be. On the other side, we have people saying: Not my program. You cannot touch it. You cannot even try to make it more efficient. It is just too good or it is too politically popular or whatever. If we keep going down that road, we are not going to get anything done. The main hope of our result in the next couple months is the small bipartisan, bicameral leadership group that is being presided over by Vice President Biden. I think anytime any of us comes out and says: No, we cannot do this, we cannot have a tax increase of any kind, we cannot even eliminate wasteful tax credits, and on the other side people say, we cannot touch Medicare, for instance, it, one, shackles the hands of Vice President Biden as he tries to solve this problem, and it also means, more generally, that we are not fulfilling our responsibility. That is the case with Medicare. The fact is, those who say you cannot do anything with Medicare, just will not support it, are not doing a favor to the Medicare Program. Congressman Paul Ryan, in the House, put forth his own budget, including a Medicare reform program. I said when he did it, I want to look at it in more detail, but I gave him credit to put something so comprehensive out because it is going to take that kind of guts by all of us to save our great country from going over the edge of the cliff, from going into permanent decline, from making it impossible for our children and grandchildren and beyond to have the opportunities we have had. When I looked at the Ryan plan, particularly on Medicare, I decided I was not for it. When it came to the Senate, I voted against it. That was the case, generally, when it came up in the Senate and the vote on the Ryan budget. But one cannot just stop there and say no, which is a popular vote on a Medicare reform proposal. I think any of us responsibly have to then come forward with our own ideas. That is why, last week, I indicated in a newspaper op-ed column that I would be putting some proposals forward that will save Medicare, that will protect Medicare as a Government program of health insurance for senior Americans but will change the program. Anybody who tells you Paul Ryan is going to kill Medicare as we know it, there is another way to kill Medicare as we know it, which is to do nothing to try to save it. We cannot save Medicare as it exists today. There are a couple of statistics. In 2010, the Medicare Program cost $523 billion. The estimates I have seen are consensus, not extreme estimates, that within the next 10 years that number will double to over $1 trillion for Medicare. Where are we going to get the money to pay for that? That is going to add to the national deficit and the national debt. Part of what is happening is the baby boomers are coming of age and Medicare eligibility--15 million in the coming years coming into this program. I will give you another general statistic. All the studies I have seen show--most people do not appreciate this, if I can say, the average Medicare participant over their lifetime will actually cost the system in benefits three times what we put in through premiums, withdrawals, et cetera. So this program is on an unsustainable course. I think if you want to save Medicare, you have to be willing to change it. You cannot say do not touch Medicare. I must say I am disappointed when I hear people say that. Here are some of the ideas I am working on legislation to propose. The plan I outlined last week, and I am putting into legislation, I think will extend the solvency of the Medicare Part A, a big program for hospital care. It will lower the Federal Government's financial commitments to the Part B Program for doctor services and, most importantly, it will keep the Medicare Program alive and serving America's senior citizens for at least 20 years and when we get it estimated, probably by a lot more. A lot of the proposals I made--and I have five key parts of it--are similar to ones that have been made earlier and the Congressional Budget Office has made estimates on. My guess, applying existing CBO estimates to the ideas I put forward, is they will save $250 billion in the first 10 years and extend the life of the program by at least 20 years, which is 20 more years in which American seniors can depend on Medicare to help them pay their health care bills in their senior years. Here is some of what I am proposing. It is controversial. They are all controversial. We cannot save Medicare without doing some things that make people unhappy. I am proposing to raise the eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to 67, beginning in 2014, by 2 months every year until it reaches 67 years in 2025. That would put it on the same course Social Security is on now, to go up to 67, which means if you turn 65 in 2014, you are going to have to wait an additional 60 days before you become eligible for Medicare. In my opinion, that is a small price to pay for the guarantee that you are going to have Medicare to take care of your health costs for the rest of your senior years. The reason for this change being necessary is factual. When the Medicare Program began in the mid-1960s, the average lifespan of an American was a little less than 70 years. Today, the average lifespan is 78. Thank God. That means people are obviously living longer. Part of why they are living longer is they are getting better health care, but that wonderful fact explains why the average recipient takes three times as much out of the Medicare system as they put in. I will give you another number that says this in a different way. In 1965, there were about 4.6 active workers for every Medicare enrollee in the program as a senior. In 2005, that went down to 3.8 active workers. The Medicare actuaries tell us, by 2050, that will drop to 2.2 workers for everybody on Medicare at that time, and that means the burden on those 2.2 workers is going to be too high. The current math, therefore, is unsustainable, and it is why we have to change the eligibility age. According to the Congressional Budget Office, doing so, 65 to 67, will save $125 billion over 10 years. That is a substantial savings, which will contribute to keeping the program viable and paying bills for seniors. The other thing to say is that for those who fear what will happen to those seniors between 65 and 67 as they wait--some will have their own health insurance--but we did pass health care reform, and that is going to be there to cover those people through the health care exchanges. Second, I am proposing that we reform the complex Medicare benefit structure, which is wasteful, misunderstood, particularly by the beneficiaries and a lot of the providers, and prone to overutilization and fraud. That is, prescribing more health services because someone doesn't pay for it, Medicare does--but we all pay for it. The Medicare benefit structure is so confusing and so maligned with various deductibles, copays, cost sharing, caps, fees, forms, and limits that one would be hard-pressed to find a Medicare enrollee who really understands how their insurance coverage works. As a result, there is enormous waste and excess utilization, with services being paid for by the Medicare Program that are really not needed for the health of the individual. That, again, means more costs for the taxpayers. I think we can fix these problems by implementing a single, combined Part A and B deductible requiring a copay on all Medicare services and, if we choose, we can also do something new, which is create a maximum, out-of-pocket benefit that will give seniors peace of mind. In other words, they would only be required to pay up to a certain amount out of their pockets every year. So it guarantees them that if they have a serious illness requiring long-term hospitalization, they are not going to be forced into poverty or bankruptcy. This proposal was part of the Bowles-Simpson report, and it is a good one. Third, I think it is time to reform the premium structure. When Medicare was implemented, the premiums paid by the beneficiaries supported 50 percent of the cost of the program. In fact, when President Johnson signed Medicare into law, he noted that this equal contribution--50 percent from government, 50 percent from the insured-- was a critical part of the program. He said: And under a separate plan, when you are 65 you may be covered for medical and surgical fees whether you are in or out of the hospital. You will pay $3 per month after you are 65 and your government will contribute an equal amount. Fifty-fifty. Unfortunately, today, as a result of acts of Congress of various kinds--well-intentioned--Medicare enrollee premiums support only 25 percent of the cost of the program--half of what they were intended to when President Johnson signed this extraordinarily progressive and beneficial law into effect. We make up the difference from funds taken out of our Federal budget--general revenues. That is part of why Medicare contributes to the exploding national deficits and long-term debt. So I am going to propose that we raise premiums for all new enrollees in Part B, which is the part that covers doctor expenses, starting in 2014, so they pay for 35 percent of the program costs instead of 25 percent. That will result in around a $40 increase in premiums. The fact is there is some indexing based on income in the Part B and Part D Programs, and, therefore, under the current law, the increase from 25 percent to 35 percent will be paid by more people of higher income. I know asking anybody to pay more money for anything is not popular, but it is needed if we are to address the stranglehold Medicare puts on our annual budget and if we are to avoid something even more unpopular, which is the demise of the Medicare Program as we know it. Fourth, I think we need to reform the way Medigap policies work. Medigap policies are insurance policies that cover the gaps in a senior's Medicare coverage. They are designed to pay an enrollee's copays and deductibles so he or she would not be liable for a big hospital bill if they ever get sick. But study after study has found that the Medicare enrollees who have a comprehensive Medigap plan that pays all of the deductible and all of the copays, so the individual doesn't pay anything, use as much as 25 percent more services than those with the traditional Medicare Program, and that is because they don't have any impact on themselves for the utilization of services. Again, who pays for that extra utilization of services? Not the individual Medicare enrollee, the taxpayer, and it is not fair. Fifth, I think we have to increase revenues into the Medicare Program. We just can't save it by adjusting benefits and making changes in the premium structure. So I am going to propose that higher income Americans--in this case defining it as people making over $250,000 a year--contribute an additional 1 percent of every dollar of income over $250,000 to save Medicare as we know it. That is the outline of my plan. I wanted to come and describe it to my colleagues: We raise the eligibility age; charge a more financially sound premium; address overutilization and waste and fraud; and develop a more reliable funding stream so we can save Medicare, which is a great program, and which we would not save unless we make some tough decisions. I said earlier I think this proposal will save at least $250 billion in the first decade and keep the program alive for 20 years. I was encouraged that the very respected Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said, after I disclosed this plan last week, that they believed it would save as much as $325 billion over the next decade and reduce spending even more in the following decades. I offer these ideas as a starting point in a discussion we have to have about how we can both extend the solvency and life of Medicare for the seniors who depend on it and reduce our national deficit and debt, which we will not do unless we reduce the drain on our National Treasury that the Medicare Program now represents. I am going to be drafting this as legislation, and I will circulate it to my colleagues. I hope it is of some assistance to Vice President Biden and the leadership group that is working with him as they prepare proposals to get America's ship of state back into fiscal balance. I know all of these are full of political risk, but the refusal of different parties of Congress to either cut spending on the one hand or raise taxes on the other is exactly why we are in the fiscal mess we are in now, and the more we wait to deal with it the harder it is going to be. At some point, there is going to be such a disaster that we are going to have to both impose Draconian cuts in spending and tax increases, and none of us want to do that. The way to avoid that moment is to do it now in a methodical and sequenced, longer term way. The fact is, unless we take risks together, the great losers--and those risks have to be across party lines. This has to be a moment when we say to each other across party lines: These are tough votes. I can demagogue this vote, I can go after you in the next election based on this vote, but I am pleading with you to cast this vote, and I will cast one that is risky, too, politically, so we can do something good for the country because, if we don't turn away from partisanship and turn toward shared responsibility, the big losers are going to be our great country and the wonderful people who elected us and sent us here to lead. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, which I am introducing today along with my colleagues Senators Crapo, Tester, Bingaman, Murkowski, Whitehouse, Begich, Cardin, and Mark Udall. This legislation would establish the most comprehensive effort ever attempted to treat the causes of fish habitat decline. Healthy waterways and robust fish populations are vital to the well- being of our society and are a staple in many cultures throughout the United States. This bill will help provide clean water and sustainable fisheries in this country and provide recreational value to those who fish wild waters or canoe tranquil streams. This means more recreational fishing opportunity, which translates into more jobs and economic output. Currently, recreational fishing supports approximately one million jobs and $45 billion in direct expenditures. Today, nearly half, 40 percent, of our fish populations are in decline, over 700 species in total, and 50 percent of our Nation's waters are impaired. Unless we act in an informed and coordinated fashion, fish habitats will continue to be lost at a rapid pace. This bill is about better habitat, better recreational fishing opportunity as well as a better economy. Currently, our Nation's efforts to address threats to fish species are often highly disjointed and not extensive enough to reverse this downward trend. Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, Federal Government agencies, State and local governments, conservation groups, fishing industry groups and related businesses will work together collectively for the first time to conserve and protect aquatic habitats critical to our Nation. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act will also provide people with clean and safe water supplies and improve ecosystems through habitat conservation projects that remediate problems on our waterways, including erosion, drainage issues and flooding. This legislation leverages Federal, State, and private funds to build regional partnerships aimed at addressing the Nation's biggest aquatic habitat problems. By directing critical resources towards this cause through partnerships, we can foster fish habitat conservation efforts and improve the quality of life for all Americans. Using a bottom-up approach, the goal of this effort is to foster landscape scale, multi- state aquatic habitat improvements across the country that perpetuate not only fishery resources but the tradition of recreational fishing, which is enjoyed by many Americans, spanning many generations. Over 40 million anglers utilize our waterways on a yearly basis, generating $45 billion dollars in retail sales for the industry nationwide. That figure does not even include Americans who utilize our waterways for other recreational purposes. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes grants to be directed toward fish habitat projects that are supported by regional Fish Habitat Partnerships. Based on the highly successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, this legislation establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board charged with recommending projects to the Secretary of Interior for assistance. Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships are responsible for implementing approved on-the-ground projects that are designed to protect, restore and enhance fish habitats and fish populations. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act lays the foundation for a new paradigm of how to care for fish habitats, displaying why they should be restored and protected. This bill will bring together all of the different groups that have a stake in the health and productivity of our Nation's fish habitats and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation and reverse the decline of our ailing waterways and fisheries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the remarkable life and legacy of Richard W. Carr. One year after Dick Carr's passing, I feel deprived of the ongoing, often surprising revelations of his depth and diversity. But also, of course, I feel deeply grateful to have been his friend. Dick Carr was like a great book in which you find new meanings, insights, and strengths every time you return to it. When I first met Dick, he seemed like another good guy with a kind and vivacious wife and wonderful daughters who lived a block away from my family in Hillandale. He was surely all that but over time, as I came to know him better, it was clear that Dick Carr was much, much more. He was a man of property but also a man of poetry. He was a man who knew history, but also understood what it meant to be holy. He learned a lot and taught a lot. He laughed a lot and loved a lot. Little things sometimes tell us big things about people. For instance, in Hillandale, Dick was one of the few residents who took care of his own yard, with Marie's help of course. Not, I presume, because he couldn't afford gardening help, but because he just enjoyed doing it himself and wanted his grounds to be as perfect as he and Marie would make them. And it tells you a lot about Dick that he didn't stop with his own yard. He took care of the yards of neighbors who were away or whose husbands were ailing or gone. That was Dick Carr. Dick had many loves in his life none of course greater than Marie, Kate, Annie, Beth, his parents, and his siblings. But he also had a special love for this city--its history and its people--and he helped, along with his family, to rebuild, enrich, and beautify Washington in many lasting ways. Dick's work to restore the Willard Hotel to its previous grandeur was a great gift to our country and its Capital City. His charitable work changed the lives of many who had much less than he did. And he did it all in a quiet way that showed he had the self- confidence not to need the public credit. In the last 3 years since he was diagnosed with aplastic anemia, I learned some other new things from Dick Carr. In the face of repeated bleak diagnoses and painful treatments, Dick taught me and all of us new meaning of words like strength, courage, and grace under pressure. He didn't just fight the good fight; he fought a great fight until he had given to life all that he could and God was ready to take his soul from this Earth. And Marie, his love and life's partner, fought tirelessly for him and alongside him every step of the way in the most sustained, selfless, and devoted acts of caring I have ever seen. Marie Carr is simply saintly. Thank you, Marie, for what you showed and taught all of us about love and faith over the years. I pray that you will be strengthened now and in the years ahead by your faith and comforted by wonderful memories of Dick. I pray also, with total confidence, that Dick's soul has soared to heaven where he is living in eternal peace, which in his case will probably mean reading, writing, gardening, dreaming, and building. In fact, I would not be surprised if right now Dick was devising plans to restore some heavenly structure to its previous grandeur. Today, in Sister's Garden of the Dahlgren Chapel of the Sacred Heart here in Washington, DC, Dick's great life and legacy will be honored and memorialized forever in that lush, green, and holy space. May God bless you and keep you, Dick, as you blessed and inspired each of us who knew you.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I regret that for personal reasons I could not be present in the Senate for the vote on the Tester amendment No. 392 to the Economic Development Revitalization Act, S. 782. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of the Tester amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a milestone that has been reached by an important cultural exchange program administered by the State Department. In 1986, the United States Information Agency, USIA, exercised its authority under the Fulbright/ Hays Act to establish the Au Pair Program on a pilot basis. This initiative was designed to provide opportunities for young Europeans to live with an American family, care for children, and pursue their educational interests. One of the leaders in developing the concept of the Au Pair Program was the American Institute in Foreign Study, AIFS, located in my hometown of Stamford, CT. AIFS was one of the initial sponsors and worked in connection with the State Department to develop a comprehensive framework that supports American families and foreign nationals. Over the past 25 years, the Au Pair Program has grown dramatically. Congress assisted in that growth by passing legislation, signed into law by President Clinton in 1997, which gave the Au Pair Program permanent authority under the J-1 visa program. This initiative has proven to be a remarkable success. In fact, over 180,000 au pairs from over 60 countries have lived with an American family for a year since the program's inception. I can personally attest to the strength and value of the Au Pair Program. When our youngest daughter was growing up, Hadassah and I had several au pairs. They became part of our extended family and we still keep in touch with them today. The exchange experience enriched the lives of our au pair and my family through the sharing of culture, language, and religion. I am pleased the U.S. State Department is holding a reception on June 9, 2011, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Au Pair Program. I commend all those who have made this program so successful, and in particular AIFS, for its vision and leadership.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications network for our Nation's first responders that is secure, interoperable and resilient. As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has more capability than those of the men and women who put their lives on the line for us each and every day and that is just wrong. Today, we introduce the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011, which will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate effectively in an emergency. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Peter T. King and Bennie G. Thompson, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security. I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40 organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big 7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials--International, APCO International, the National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of State EMS Officials, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association. I am pleased that President Obama has pledged his commitment to reserve the D Block for public safety. I also look forward to working with Senator Rockefeller, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, who has championed this cause and has signaled his determination to see a bill move through Congress this year. Today, public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions, and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for granted in today's commercial communications. Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina. But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it. A police officer at the scene of a crime would be able to feed video back to headquarters. Emergency response officials would be able to exchange data with hospitals while treating patients at the scene of an accident. I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, proposed in its National Broadband Plan, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications that are not disrupted by commercial traffic. The Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011 would ensure that the D Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist with the costs of constructing the network and up to $5.5 billion for an operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance. These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of different bands of spectrum to commercial carriers. By dedicating those auction revenues to the public safety network, we can help public safety officials build the system they need without adding to the deficit. Under our bill, the FCC would set rules for the public safety network, ensuring interoperability across the nationwide system. The rules would also allow public safety to share spectrum with other governmental and private entities, as long as public safety services retain priority access to the spectrum. This authority would help hold down costs of the system by allowing public safety to leverage existing infrastructure. The grants to build and maintain the public safety network would be administered by the Department of Homeland Security and would be awarded directly to States and municipalities, who are in the best position to know how to deploy the network in their jurisdictions. Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. We should not let the 10th anniversary of 9/11 pass without legislating to remedy that failure. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Commission, the Honorable Thomas H. Kean and the Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, appeared before our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in March and urged the immediate allocation of the D Block to public safety, bluntly, and rightfully, delivering a message to Congress that further delay is intolerable. I urge my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by promptly passing the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications network for our Nation's first responders that is secure, interoperable and resilient. As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has more capability than those of the men and women who put their lives on the line for us each and every day and that is just wrong. Today, we introduce the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011, which will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate effectively in an emergency. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Peter T. King and Bennie G. Thompson, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security. I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40 organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big 7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials--International, APCO International, the National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of State EMS Officials, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association. I am pleased that President Obama has pledged his commitment to reserve the D Block for public safety. I also look forward to working with Senator Rockefeller, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, who has championed this cause and has signaled his determination to see a bill move through Congress this year. Today, public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions, and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for granted in today's commercial communications. Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina. But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it. A police officer at the scene of a crime would be able to feed video back to headquarters. Emergency response officials would be able to exchange data with hospitals while treating patients at the scene of an accident. I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, proposed in its National Broadband Plan, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications that are not disrupted by commercial traffic. The Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011 would ensure that the D Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist with the costs of constructing the network and up to $5.5 billion for an operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance. These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of different bands of spectrum to commercial carriers. By dedicating those auction revenues to the public safety network, we can help public safety officials build the system they need without adding to the deficit. Under our bill, the FCC would set rules for the public safety network, ensuring interoperability across the nationwide system. The rules would also allow public safety to share spectrum with other governmental and private entities, as long as public safety services retain priority access to the spectrum. This authority would help hold down costs of the system by allowing public safety to leverage existing infrastructure. The grants to build and maintain the public safety network would be administered by the Department of Homeland Security and would be awarded directly to States and municipalities, who are in the best position to know how to deploy the network in their jurisdictions. Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. We should not let the 10th anniversary of 9/11 pass without legislating to remedy that failure. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Commission, the Honorable Thomas H. Kean and the Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, appeared before our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in March and urged the immediate allocation of the D Block to public safety, bluntly, and rightfully, delivering a message to Congress that further delay is intolerable. I urge my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by promptly passing the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Nation Prepared: Strengthening Medical and Public Health Preparedness and Response.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 3:30 p.m.