Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona. It is my honor to join with him in submitting this resolution. I hope in time that we will gather the support of Members on both sides of the political aisle and that we will make a statement, an urgent statement, that the Members of the U.S. Senate are ready, across party lines, to take a stand because we understand we are at a turning point in history and we cannot stand back and hope it goes in the right direction. In fact, today, as we watch events unfolding in Libya, I think we have reason to believe it is going in exactly the wrong direction. Let me read the first two paragraphs of this resolution Senator McCain and I are submitting because I think it sets what is happening in Libya in a context and also explains why we think America has a national interest in how the conflict in Libya ends. The first paragraph of the resolution we are submitting reads: Whereas peaceful demonstrations, inspired by similar peaceful demonstrations in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East, began in Libya with calls for greater political reform, opportunity, justice and the rule of law and quickly spread to cities around the country. The second paragraph: Whereas Muammar Qaddafi, his sons, and forces loyal to them have responded to the peaceful demonstrations by authorizing and initiating violence against civilian non-combatants in Libya, including the use of airpower, foreign mercenaries, helicopters, mortar and artillery fire, naval assets, snipers and soldiers. I read those two paragraphs because they set exactly in context what is happening in Libya. The fact is that Libya is occurring in the context of these extraordinary, peaceful, democratic uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt that have been described--and I think correctly--as the Arab spring. For too long, we accepted an argument that there were only two choices for the United States and most of the rest of the world in the Arab world. There was a choice between secular dictatorships that were cordial to us on one side and on the other side radical Islamist regimes that despised us and were threatening to us. We made our peace with those secular dictatorships, but it was inherently uncomfortable and inconsistent with our basic democratic values going back to the Declaration of Independence. Beginning in Tunisia and spreading to Egypt and then to Libya and other countries, the Arab people themselves rose up and said: No, there is a third way. And the third way is democracy. We want political freedom. We want economic opportunity. We want into the modern world. We don't want extremism of any kind. Those revolutions, those uprisings resulted in the end of the rule of two longstanding rulers, Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, and they happened peacefully for a lot of reasons. Part of it was that those two leaders did not order their militaries to turn on their own people, and the militaries, perhaps, in those two cases would not have done it in any case. So that is the Arab spring. But now, in Libya, because Qadhafi has taken exactly the opposite position and turned his guns and his military power on his own people as they peacefully demonstrate for change, for universal human rights, there is a danger that what is happening in Libya is essentially a wall being put up which says: This peaceful democratic revolution in the Arab world ends here. To put it another way, the Arab spring may be going the way of the Prague spring of 1968 when the people of then- Czechoslovakia rose up and Soviet tanks and armaments suppressed their revolution. We simply cannot let that happen. Senator McCain and I were in Tunisia and Egypt a couple of weeks ago, and one of the messages we got, particularly from the young people who have been at the head of this remarkable uprising in these two countries, was: Don't stand by. Please, America, don't stand by and let Qadhafi bludgeon his own people who are asking for the same rights and opportunity and freedoms we have been asking for. If you do, it will end the movement of freedom and opportunity across the Arab world. In some sense, the Tunisians and Egyptians said to us: It may set back our own cause, even though we have been successful thus far. That is why it has been so frustrating, really infuriating, to watch as Qadhafi has moved with increasing brutality and force against his own people, pushing his opponents back, threatening to totally suppress their uprising. I have been struck as I have watched that the world community--most of it--is spending so much time discussing and debating, and as the world discusses and debates what to do in Libya, Libya descends back into Qadhafi's darkness. We simply cannot let that happen. The Libyan people are not asking us to come in and fight for them. The Libyan people don't want our troops on the ground. That is not what this resolution would authorize. The Libyan people want us to come to their aid in the sense of enabling them to fight Qadhafi's forces and Qadhafi to carry on as freedom fighters. They want recognition as the established and legal authority, sovereignty for their country. They would like some military assistance. They would like weapons. They would like the kind of intelligence and electronic assistance we can give, and they would like us in some way--a no-fly zone or using our capacity to fire missiles from offshore--to protect them from what has turned the tide in their struggle for freedom against Qadhafi and Libya, which is the brutal use of Libyan air power against the Libyan people. If we don't do this, I fear this Arab spring will turn to winter--a winter of darkness and suppression--again, too quickly, and the world will regret it. People have said to Senator McCain and me: What is the American national interest in getting involved in Libya? Let me just give a few reasons I think we do have an interest. First, we have a clear national interest--a humanitarian interest--in not standing idly by and watching tens of thousands of people slaughtered by their own government. As I have said, if we stand by and do nothing, if this happens, it will be devastating to America's image in the Arab world and to our moral leadership throughout the world. Some people have argued: Why would we want to get involved in yet a third Arab or Muslim country, thinking of Iraq and Afghanistan before that. But this is more like 1990 and 1991 and the first gulf war when the Arab world itself was calling out to us: Please help us get Saddam out of Kuwait. The Arab world, as Senator McCain said, is pleading with us: Help stop Qadhafi from slaughtering his own people, the blood of our brothers and sisters in Libya. Second, we have a clear national interest in preventing Libya from becoming a failed state that al-Qaida and other Islamist groups will exploit, and that is precisely what will happen if this becomes a bloody and protracted civil war and then descends into chaos. Third, if Qadhafi is able to defeat this uprising, it will send a message, as Senator McCain has said, to every dictator in the world that the way to stop peaceful democratic protest is through brutal violence. Fourth, I don't mean this quote literally, but remember the old phrase from earlier times in history: If you go after the king, make sure you eliminate him. Don't leave him wounded. If Qadhafi survives this, he is going to cause no end of trouble for the United States and anyone else in the world who stood with the freedom fighters. So let's not think we can stand idly by and that we will not pay ourselves the consequences of Qadhafi surviving. Finally, there is a relationship between what is happening in Libya today and the instability it has caused throughout that region of the world and the skyrocketing price of gasoline at the pump that does concern the American people every day. In fact, with all that has been discussed, I think the best we can do to stabilize the price of gasoline in America is to stabilize Libya and to enable the Libyan opposition to Qadhafi to fight the fair fight they want to fight. So that is the intention of this resolution. It is, as the French would say, a ``cris de coeur.'' It is a cry from our hearts because I fear we have let so much time go by that it may be impossible to enable the freedom fighters in Libya to wage a fair fight. I hope their cause is not lost because it is our cause, and the least we can do is help them fight for that cause against the man who has suppressed that cause under his rule. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona. I fear that is exactly the message we would be sending if the United States and our allies stand back and let Qadhafi, through the force of his arms, suppress political dissent from his own people. One of the inspiring qualities to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt was that they were peaceful. Incidentally, they were not anti-American. They were pro-Tunisia, pro-Egypt. The people of Tunisia and Egypt were pleading for a better life. So the model there and one of the most powerful examples of peaceful protests, which is part of American history, was established. It changed those two governments, Tunisia and Egypt. Now we have another model being set; that is, when your people rise up and peacefully protest, you don't respond, you don't negotiate, you don't listen to them, you don't react. You turn your firepower on them. You kill them wantonly, and you keep doing that until that dissent ends. One, in a world that is increasingly dangerous, that is a terrible message to send. Two, in a world in which--well, let's just go back a little bit to what were false choices in the Arab world. But in the uprisings in Tunisia and in Egypt, there has been expressed the strongest possible repudiation of al-Qaida on the one hand, and Iran on the other--that is the Government of Iran--both of which have followed an Islamist extremist ideology and used violence to achieve their ends. So we have the Tunisia-Egypt model of peaceful protest, democracy, economic opportunity, and now we have the other model of Qadhafi, which is violence, which will beget more violence and will cost us dearly. I say to my friend from Arizona, as we say in our resolution, President Obama has made clear that he believes Qadhafi must go. If, after that clear statement of American policy by our Commander in Chief, Qadhafi does not go, and it is seen not just in the Arab world but throughout the wider world that the United States was not able to mobilize action in the world community to make sure Qadhafi went, but in fact he stayed, it inevitably has an effect on the credibility of American leadership in the world. None of us want that to happen, including President Obama. So it is not too late. The actions we have taken, significant as they are-- sanctions on Qadhafi and some people close to him, the threat or the plan to refer others close to him to the International Court of Justice--all are important. But, unfortunately, what is more important now is what is happening on the ground in Libya. On the ground in Libya, the power of the forces of Qadhafi are winning in a fight that is not fair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I just want to conclude by saying this: In our history in this country we have, again, been quite fortunate, and it may be that--as a friend of mine said to me, it is hard for people to imagine themselves in a position where they would need to be rescued from danger, from death. Senator McCain cited some of the episodes, dark times in recent history, where people needed that help from outside--the Holocaust, Srebenica, the Balkans, Rwanda. We acted. This is of that same type. But when we think about Japan, there is this parallel to the United States. There have been natural disasters in this country--earthquakes, hurricanes. Katrina is an example. When the people of the gulf coast region pleaded with us, the central government, the National Government, the Federal Government, for help, we gave it to them. I will never forget what the Coast Guard did in rescuing lives on the gulf coast after Katrina. In some ways I think we have to perhaps see it as a manmade disaster, as a natural disaster. It is a basic rescue. In this case they are not asking us to fight their fight. They are asking us to leave them the weapons, the cover, so that they can fight their fight. That is the intention of this resolution--bottom line--to recognize the opposition to Qadhafi in Benghazi as the government and legitimate suffering government of Libya, and then work with our allies in the world community, including not only our NATO allies but in the Arab League and the Gulf Council to protect the Libyan people from Qadhafi's air force. I join with Senator McCain in saying that I hope Senators Reid and McConnell can agree on a way to bring forth this resolution quickly. Every moment that passes without us helping the Libyan opposition to make it a fair fight is a moment in which darkness descends over Libya. Again, Senator McCain said we are willing to discuss changes to the resolution because we would like this to be a resolution that has the broadest possible bipartisan support in the Senate.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to say what came to my mind over the weekend about Japan. Prime Minister Kan of Japan described this earthquake and tsunami as the worst thing to happen to Japan since World War II. I suppose what struck me and struck probably a lot of other Americans was, of course, Japan and the United States were at war with each other in World War II. Today, the U.S.-Japanese relationship is extremely close. I believe we don't have a better, more steadfast ally in Asia than the Japanese people. It is part of why I hope the people of Japan understand that the people of the United States are with them at this moment in which they suffer so from this natural disaster, and we will do everything we can to help them. They are a proud people, but now they can't handle this all alone. We want to help them. We are a proud people. I want to share with my colleagues a conversation I had with the gentleman who was serving in the American Embassy in Tokyo at the time of Hurricane Katrina. He told me yesterday the Japanese people lined up outside our embassy in Tokyo after they heard about, watched films of Hurricane Katrina, to offer help, whatever they could offer. One private citizen of Japan, unannounced, arrived at the embassy and wrote out a private check for $1 million for Hurricane Katrina relief. This is the closeness of the relationship. I hope and I am confident we will be as supportive of the Japanese people as they respond to this earthquake and tsunami and rebuild as they were to the people of the gulf coast in America in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a bipartisan resolution that has been submitted by our colleague, Senator Durbin, and of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, which concerns the situation in the country of Belarus. As the winds of democratic change have been sweeping now across North Africa and the Middle East ousting autocratic rulers who have been long entrenched there, it is important for us to remember there is still one remaining dictatorship in Europe, and that is in the country of Belarus. In the 20 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, Belarus's neighbors to the north and west have become successful, prosperous democracies. But, tragically, while Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia have broken the chains of tyranny and joined the flagship institutions of the Euro-Atlantic world, NATO, and the European Union, Belarus and its people have been left behind--held back by its despot ruler Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled his country through repression and rigged elections for nearly two decades. Some in the United States and Europe had hoped in recent years that Lukashenko might be prepared to open up Belarus and change his ways. These hopes, however, came to an abrupt end on December 19 of last year when Belarus held Presidential elections. As it quickly became clear that the votes in those elections were neither free nor fair, thousands of Belarusian people took to the streets of Minsk in protest, and the Lukashenko regime responded with violence and brutality. This resolution would put the Senate on record in response to the crackdown launched in Belarus on December 19--a crackdown, I add, that continues in significant ways to this day. More than 600 people were swept up by Belarusian security forces on election day and its immediate aftermath--among them journalists, civil society representatives, political activists, and several opposition Presidential candidates. It is hard to believe this kind of behavior still exists in this world today. The detained continue to be denied access to family, lawyers, medical treatment, and open legal proceedings, while their relatives and attorneys endure harassment by Lukashenko's security forces. This resolution will do several significant things. First, it will send a strong and clear message to Lukashenko that his actions are unacceptable and will carry significant costs. It tells him we do not consider the December 19 election to be legitimate and that he is, therefore, not the legitimately elected leader of Belarus, and that there should be new elections that are free, fair, and meet international standards. I would add that the European Parliament passed a resolution not long ago that says precisely the same thing that I have just said here in the Senate. Perhaps even more important, this resolution will send a message to the people of Belarus who were struggling to secure their fundamental freedoms. It tells the dissidents there that we have not and will not forget them or their cause; that we remember their names, in fact, and we will stand in solidarity with them until they achieve their goal, which is a free and democratic Belarus. Last month, Senator McCain and I and others traveled to Vilnius, Lithuania, where we met with Belarusian students and opposition military leaders. This was an extremely powerful experience for all of us. We heard directly from them about the repression taking place in their home country. The substance of the resolution Senator Durbin has written and submitted, with cosponsorship by several of us, reflects what the Belarusians we met with in Vilnius told us, as well as what we heard here in Washington from other dissidents from that country. The resolution specifically calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Belarus. It also urges a tightening of the sanctions against Lukashenko, and we are urging the Obama administration to offer the strongest possible material and technical support for Belarusian civil society, and that includes, of course, the political opposition. This resolution is broadly bipartisan in its sponsorship and reflects what I think is a wide consensus in the Senate about the situation in Belarus today. I know there are some who may look at the resolution and say it is merely symbolic, who say there is nothing we can do to help the people who are living such repressed and unfree lives in Belarus, and that we should simply accept the reality of Lukashenko's dictatorship after all these years. But if the historic events in Tunisia and Egypt have taught us anything about our foreign policies, it is that the United States does best when we stand with our values and with the people who share them--and that what appear to be even the most impregnable regimes can fall with remarkable speed. Obviously, I cannot say exactly when Belarus will be free, but I have no doubt that someday it will be free. I am confident the future of Belarus belongs not to Lukashenko and his cronies but to the people of that great country--to the dissidents who are in jail, to the students we met in Vilnius last month, to the civil society activists who are being harassed by the KGB as we speak. It belongs to the people in Belarus who want a future of democracy and economic opportunity, not Soviet-style repression. This resolution--put together, again I say with thanks, by Senator Durbin--puts the Senate on the side of the people of Belarus and against the Lukashenko regime that is oppressing them. I hope we can come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan measure. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today Senators Collins, Carper, Brown, and I are pleased to introduce the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2011 to ensure that firefighters and emergency medical service personnel serving communities across the nation are repaid for the sacrifices they make every day with the best possible training and equipment--particularly given the budget cuts many communities have been forced to make in these economically uncertain times. The bill we present to the Senate reauthorizes the Assistance to Firefighters, AFG, program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response program, SAFER, two highly successful programs I worked to establish in 2000 and 2003. This is bipartisan legislation that has won overwhelming Senate support in previous years. As we all know, our first responders make great sacrifices for us. Firefighters in communities of all shapes and sizes have assumed a greater role in overall national emergency preparedness since September 11 and the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. They now serve as the frontline of defense in many communities for disasters of all types. More than ever, firefighters need the training and equipment to deal not only with fires but also with hazardous materials; nuclear, radioactive, and explosive devices; and other potential threats. The responsibilities placed on firefighters have only grown more demanding. Firefighters respond more and more to medical emergencies-- 15.8 million in 2008, a 213 percent increase from 1980. Right here in Washington, D.C., at Fire Engine Company 10--known as the ``House of Pain'' for its grueling schedule--80 percent of the calls are for medical emergencies. Our nation's firefighters--like other first responders--are the first to arrive and the last to leave whenever trouble hits. They deserve all the support we can give them. Unfortunately, they do not always get it. Firefighters often lack the equipment and vehicles they need to do their jobs safely and effectively. In 2006 the U.S. Fire Administration reported that 60 percent of fire departments did not have enough breathing apparatuses to equip all firefighters on a shift, 65 percent did not have enough portable radios, and 49 percent of all fire engines were at least 15 years old. We can and must do more for these brave men and women. We must make sure they have what they need to protect their communities and themselves as they perform a very dangerous job. Our bill takes much- needed steps to ensure that they do. To start with, because career, volunteer, and combination fire departments all suffer from shortages in equipment, vehicles, and training, our bill requires that each type receives at least 25 percent of the available AFG grant funding. The remaining funds will be allocated based on factors such as risk and the needs of individual communities and the country as a whole. This creates an appropriate balance, ensuring that funds are directed at departments facing the most significant risks while guaranteeing that no department is left out. We have also taken a number of steps in our bill to help fire departments in communities struggling with economic difficulties. In many cases, local governments have reduced spending on vital services, including fire departments. Among other things, these cuts have prevented many departments from replacing old equipment and forced them to lay off needed firefighters. To help departments rebuild, we have lowered the matching requirements for AFG and SAFER. Departments are still required to match some of their grant awards with funds of their own--ensuring they have some skin in the game--but the reduced amount will make it easier for them to accept awards. We have similarly created an economic hardship waiver for both grant programs that will allow FEMA to waive certain requirements, such as requiring that grantees provide matching funds, for departments in communities that have been especially hard hit by tough economic times. Our bill contains a number of other important provisions. It raises the maximum grant amounts available under AFG. As commonsense would suggest, large communities often require a substantial amount of equipment, and they will now be able to apply for funding in amounts more in line with what they need. Our bill would provide funding for national fire safety organizations and institutions of higher education that wish to create joint programs establishing fire safety research centers. There is a great need for research devoted to fire safety and prevention and improved technology. The work these centers do will help us reduce fire casualties among firefighters and civilians and make communities safer. But as important as it is to help our firefighters, we must also demand accountability when we spend taxpayer dollars. For this reason, we require that FEMA create performance management systems for these programs, complete with quantifiable metrics that will allow us to see how well they perform. Going forward, this will allow us to see what works in these programs and what does not so that we can make needed improvements when required. We have also included provisions to prevent earmarks from being attached to these programs. AFG and SAFER have never been earmarked--an impressive accomplishment--and we want to keep it that way. The funding for these programs needs to go to firefighters, not pet projects. Finally, this legislation authorizes $950 million each for these vital programs. This is actually less than what was authorized in the past. We believe that supporting our Nation's firefighters and emergency medical service responders ought to be a priority, but we recognize that these tough fiscal times require some belt-tightening. Authorizing funding for AFG and SAFER at these amounts sends the message that Congress can direct funding where it is needed while also showing discipline. This legislation ensures that fire departments get the support they need to protect their communities while also protecting taxpayer dollars. It addresses a vital national need while increasing accountability to the public. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of these important programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on the morning of March 7, the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, will take the stage in front of the Lincoln Memorial to announce a $3 million donation on behalf of the Australian Government to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to help build the Education Center at the Vietnam Wall. This generous contribution is a testament to the strength of the United States' relationship with the Australian people and is critical to our continuing efforts to honor the men and women who served in Vietnam. As one who strongly supported legislation to establish the Education Center, I want to recognize and commend the Prime Minister, the legislature and the Australian people for their deep commitment to helping it come to fruition. Australian soldiers made terrible sacrifices during the Vietnam war. More than 500 Australian servicemen lost their lives, andsome 3,000 were wounded, injured, or struck ill. For years, Australia has been a steadfast ally and friend of the United States. Besides Vietnam, Australian soldiers fought alongside Americans during many of our struggles in the 20th century, including World War I, World War II, the Korean war, and more recently in Iraq. Currently, over 1500 Australian troops are fighting alongside our Armed Forces in Afghanistan, working to train Afghan troops. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial bears the names of the more than 58,000 brave men and women who gave their lives in service to our great country during the Vietnam war. It is a memorial, built by the American people, designed to ensure that names of those who made the ultimate sacrifice would never be lost to history. By telling the stories of the men and women who fought and died in Vietnam, the Education Center will help visitors understand their courage, sacrifice and devotion. And through interactive exhibits and primary source materials, visitors will be able to better understand the profound impact the Vietnam war had on their family members, their home towns, their communities and the Nation. Visitors will understand the importance of The Wall and the role it continues to play in healing the wounds left by the war. The Vietnam Memorial has always been profoundly meaningful to me, both as a moving way to honor those who died and a remarkably effective means of healing the terrible national wounds from that war. The Education Center will be an important complement for both of those efforts. I hope to continue to play a role in making the Education Center a reality and look forward to the day that the United States can share the rich stories there with all visitors. When that time comes, I will be grateful to the Australian people and mindful of their kind generosity. I wish to thank the Prime Minster, the government of Australia, and the Australian people for their strong support for this worthy endeavor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Senate standing rules XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 23, 2011, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations adopted subcommittee rules of procedure. Consistent with standing rule XXVI, today I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the rules of procedure of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 28, 2011, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia adopted subcommittee rules of procedure. Consistent with standing rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the rules of procedure of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 28, 2011, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs adopted subcommittee rules of procedure. Consistent with standing rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the rules of procedure of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 28, 2011, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security adopted subcommittee rules of procedure. Consistent with standing rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the rules of procedure of the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 15, 2011, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs adopted committee rules of procedure. Consistent with standing rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the rules of procedure of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 28, 2011, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight adopted subcommittee rules of procedure. Consistent with standing rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the rules of procedure of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I rise to express my deepest sorrow about a tragic attack on American law enforcement that happened earlier this week in Mexico. On Tuesday afternoon, two agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were attacked by unknown individuals while driving between Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico. Today, I honor the incredible sacrifice of Special Agent Jaime J. Zapata, who lost his life in service of our country, and Special Agent Victor Avila, who is recovering from injuries from the shooting. Special Agent Zapata joined ICE in 2006. He joined one of ICE's offices in Laredo, TX, where he served on the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Unit, as well as the Border Enforcement Security Task Force. He was most recently detailed to ICE's Attache office in Mexico City. He began his Federal law enforcement career with the Department of Homeland Security as a member of the U.S. Border Patrol in Yuma, AZ. A native of Brownsville, TX, Special Agent Zapata graduated from the University of Texas at Brownsville in 2005 with a bachelor of science in criminal justice. My thoughts and prayers are with Special Agent Avila as he recovers. These two brave agents gave their all to shield others from harm. They worked tirelessly against dangerous criminal elements. They bravely took dangerous assignments, ultimately making a profound sacrifice. They were two of the hundreds of ICE personnel around the globe. Honorable agents like these two individuals collaborate with their counterparts in joint efforts to dismantle transnational criminal organizations. Agents like them give their all day in and day out on fighting money laundering, contraband smuggling, weapons proliferation, forced child labor, human rights violations, intellectual property violations, child exploitation, and human smuggling and trafficking. An incident like this serves to remind us all as a nation how grateful we are for the sacrifices made by these brave men and women every day. The work they do serves to make the public safe and protect the Nation's security. I have been in contact with law enforcement, and I know that they are working closely with the authorities in Mexico to ensure that the perpetrators of this horrible attack on American law enforcement are brought to justice as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I offer my deepest condolences to the family of Special Agent Zapata. He died for a just cause and will forever be remembered as a man of courage and honor. And a message for Special Agent Avila. I think I speak for a nation when I say that I hope, and pray, for your recovery. Words cannot express our thanks for your service.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I regret having missed the February 8 vote to consider an amendment to the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. I was celebrating the joyous occasion of my newest grandson's birth with my wife and children. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of Senator Nelson's amendment to strike section 605. Section 605 would have established an advisory committee on aeronautics, but such a committee is not necessary because NASA already plays that role.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in 3 days' time, across our country, from the North Country of New Hampshire to his final resting place in Simi Valley, CA, Americans will celebrate the legacy of President Ronald Reagan. It will be the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his birth. I am very honored to rise today to join other colleagues of both parties and others throughout the United States and, I am sure, the world in paying tribute to America's 40th President. I cannot speak as personally about President Reagan as some in this Chamber can. I met him only a few times when, as a visiting State attorney general during the eighties, I was at the White House. He was always gracious, always responsive to us. But I did have one meeting that I might call a virtual meeting with President Reagan that reminds me of his enduring importance for our country today. Twenty-two years ago, on January 4, 1989, as President Reagan was departing the White House, having completed his second term, I had just arrived in Washington as a freshman Senator from Connecticut. President Reagan was set to give his final weekly radio address on that brisk Saturday morning, and then-Senate majority leader George Mitchell had honored me by asking me if I would give the Democratic response. It was a real honor, although a daunting one, for me to be asked to do that on that occasion. Looking back, I believe President Reagan's 331st and final radio address on that January morning was among the most masterful and moving of his career. In it, he captured the very essence of the American spirit. He said: Whether we seek it or not, whether we like it or not, we Americans are keepers of the miracles. We are asked to be guardians of a place to come to, a place to start again, a place to live in the dignity God meant for his children. May it ever be so. President Reagan concluded that morning. Needless to say, President Reagan's final radio address was quite literally a tough act to follow. In my remarks, I praised him for his love of country, for his fervent devotion to freedom, and for his commitment to the values of faith, flag, and family. I was, as I put it then, inspired and encouraged by his patriotism, and I urged all Americans to ``work on our unfinished business and the challenges ahead with the spirit of purpose and confidence that is the legacy of the Reagan years.'' Today, 22 years later, I continue to feel deeply honored that I was able to deliver those remarks and evermore confident of the importance of Ronald Reagan's legacy to us and the generations of Americans to come. The optimism, moral clarity, and confidence President Reagan radiated inspired a generation, and they are precisely the ideals we need today to rekindle and reinspire the current generation of Americans and others, frankly, living without freedom around the world. I didn't always agree with President Reagan. That is a matter of public record. But I always understood the enduring value and strength and sincerity of his faith in America's values and America's destiny. In 1980, Ronald Reagan promised to make America great again. And he did. He expressed with total confidence that those who would challenge our hard-won freedoms would collapse. And they did. He led our country and the free world to victory in the Cold War against Soviet communism, and he never doubted for a moment that America and our cause could and would prevail. When in 1977 Ronald Reagan was asked about his vision for the end of the Cold War-- remember, he was not yet President--he responded with characteristic and refreshing directness. He said: My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: We win and they lose. Well, President Reagan's understanding of world affairs was far from simplistic. He was an optimist without illusions, who guided by and, frankly, expressed moral judgments about what was right and what was wrong. We do not see that enough today. There is a kind of relativism afoot. But some things are just plain wrong, and some things, thank God, are just plain right. President Reagan had the moral clarity to make distinctions between good and evil and the moral courage to speak the truth of those distinctions unambiguously and to support them unwaveringly. When he addressed an audience of veterans and world leaders commemorating the 40th anniversary of D-day, standing as he spoke on the windswept coast of northern France, the very clifftop in Normandy where courageous allied soldiers fought to liberate Europe from the yoke of Nazi tyranny, President Reagan magnificently, masterfully, compellingly revealed again his moral clarity, and I am honored to quote these words today on this floor. The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here-- He said to the veterans-- to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt. You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you. It is thrilling just to read those words again. Yet President Reagan never spoke about America's enemies belligerently; rather, he spoke firmly and frankly about the deep divide between our morality and that of the Soviet Union. In doing so, I think he reawakened in all of us the belief that every human being has the potential to change history because history, as Reagan knew, was not by abstract inexorable forces, but by real live men and women. It was President Ronald Reagan who came to the defense of the dissidents in their fight against the Soviet Union and reminded the world that a single courageous human face, a single courageous voice can tear down the faceless inhumanity of a massive repressive system such as the Soviet Union. The great Soviet dissident and later Israeli leader and human rights activist Natan Sharansky once shared with me his memory of the moment he first learned of President Reagan's 1982 speech before the British Parliament, the speech in which Reagan described the Soviet Union as an evil empire. There were some in this country who thought that was much too stark and disrespectful. But Sharansky, who was a prisoner for nearly a decade in the Soviet gulag, described to me how word of Reagan's speech spread through that heartless prison and he and his fellow dissidents tapped on walls and talked through pipes and even toilets to communicate the extraordinary news that the leader of the free world had spoken the truth, a truth, as Sharansky put it, ``that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.'' Indeed, President Reagan was willing to expose an inconvenient truth about the Soviet Union that unsettled and unnerved some of his contemporaries who feared his undiplomatic words were a threat to stability. The truth is, they were. President Reagan refused to accept the stability of an authoritarian status quo that consigned millions of people to live under perpetual tyranny. So he did challenge the stability of the Berlin Wall and the gulag as the Stasi. In doing so, his moral courage helped inspire the men and women who brought down the Iron Curtain and expanded the frontiers of freedom. In his approach to foreign policy, President Reagan embodied that quintessentially American combination of idealism and pragmatism. He understood what America was about, which is freedom and opportunity. He fought to extend those great values here at home and throughout the world. In his final words to the Nation as our President, in a radio address on that January morning 22 years ago, President Reagan shared a story about a meeting Winston Churchill had with a group of American journalists in 1952. It was a time when many doubted whether the West could meet the challenges of the Cold War and prevail. Churchill asked the reporters: What other nation in history, when it became supremely powerful, has had no thought of territorial aggrandizement, no ambition but to use its resources for the good of the world? I marvel at America's altruism, her sublime disinterestedness. Churchill's friend and physician, Lord Moran, described the Prime Minister's demeanor as he spoke: All at once I realized Winston was in tears. His eyes were red. His voice faltered. He was deeply moved. President Reagan was drawn to that story in his final radio address to the Nation 22 years ago because he understood that in that moment Churchill understood and acknowledged the greatness of the American spirit. Imperfect though we are as human beings, it is the spirit that explains who we are and expresses all we aspire to be. He saw America's devotion to a cause that has defined us for over two centuries, a cause greater than our own individual self-interest or even national self- interest very often and that has given an enduring purpose to our national destiny. That is the cause of human dignity and human freedom. At a time when we face many challenges both at home and abroad and when it has, unfortunately, become fashionable to suggest that our best days as a nation are behind us, President Reagan's optimism and his abiding faith in America are more important to remember than ever before. They are as wise as they are true. Our shared national destiny has always inspired us as Americans and propelled us forward together. It is the spirit that Ronald Reagan reinspired in America at a time of great peril. It is spirit, at this time of peril here at home and around the world, that can carry us forward and continue to make us the greatest Nation on Earth and the last best hope of mankind. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I regret having missed votes to consider amendments to the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. I was celebrating the joyous occasion of my newest grandson's birth with my wife and children. Had I been present, I would have voted to oppose the motion to waive the Budget Act on the amendment to repeal the landmark health care reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This law provides health care coverage to more than 30 million Americans and also reduces the deficit. The benefits that have already been achieved by this law are substantial. Its repeal would force seniors to pay more for their drug coverage, businesses would lose valuable tax credits that enable them to provide health care coverage to their employees, and millions of Americans would no longer receive vital consumer protections from the health insurance industry. Additionally, this law extends the solvency of Medicare for 12 more years. I have said before that a law this comprehensive would not be without flaws. I will support efforts to strengthen the Affordable Care Act and reduce the unintended consequences from it. I do not, however, support its repeal, which would not only be risky for our economy, but would have the effect of increasing the number of uninsured and causing vital programs such as Medicare to face insolvency in the very near future. Had I been present, and consistent with my desire to continue to improve the Affordable Care Act, I would have supported both Senators Levin and Stabenow's amendments to repeal the form 1099 reporting requirement. This provision imposes an onerous compliance obligation on businesses of all sizes, and Congress should act quickly to remove that burden and allow businesses to direct their time, energy, and resources to growing their businesses and creating new jobs.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act--SOAR--which seeks to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program or OSP. And I am proud to be joined by a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing this bill--Senator Collins, Senator Feinstein, Senator Alexander and Senator Ensign. The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program offers scholarships to low- income students, especially those from failing schools, to attend private schools where they can get a better education. This program offers District of Columbia students and their families a choice that improves the quality of their education and significantly increases their likelihood of graduating from high school and attending college. Here in Washington, there are many families who can exercise school choice. They can afford to live in neighborhoods with good schools, they can provide engaging supplemental and afterschool opportunities for their children, or they can choose to send their children to private schools. However, there are many low-income families whose children are trapped in failing schools and do not have those options. School reformers in Washington, through their hard work and, at times, controversial policies, have begun to make a difference for students in the District of Columbia. I applaud the work of Michelle Rhee and her team in their tireless efforts to make the District's schools better. I am pleased that Mayor Gray has indicated he will continue school reform because there is much more work to do on behalf of Washington's schoolchildren. District of Columbia test scores are on the rise but even so, according to recent National Assessment of Educational Progress data, the District of Columbia, while having one of the highest per pupil expenditures in the country, settles at the bottom of all states in reading and math for both 4th and 8th grade students. District of Columbia schools also have among the lowest graduation rates in the country. We all know that meaningful and effective change is slow and we still have a long way to go before we can be confident that each student in the District is getting the public education they deserve. Ronald Holassie, a high school student in the OSP, expressed the implications of this well when he said ``public schools in the District did not go bad over night and they won't get better over night.'' Students cannot wait for reforms to take effect in the worst of the District's public schools--they need a good education right now if they are going to be able to fulfill their potential. The Opportunity Scholarships respond to that immediate need. One of the goals of the OSP is holistic support of the reforms that are helping to improve education in all sectors of education here in the District. Since 2003, Congress has supported a tri-sector approach by appropriating new funds for District public schools, District public charter schools and the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Critics of the OSP argue that it takes away funds from public schools. That is simply not true. The scholarship program was intentionally designed to ensure that any funding for Opportunity Scholarships would not reduce funding for public schools. This legislation will provide additional new money for the District of Columbia's Public Schools, for District of Columbia Public Charter Schools, and for the continuation of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. We have not changed the three part funding design of the initiative. The SOAR Act also strengthens the existing requirements for all schools participating in the OSP by requiring a valid certificate of occupancy and ensuring that teachers in core subjects have an appropriate college degree. The bill continues to target students from lower income families who are attending those schools most in need of improvement and it increases the tuition amounts slightly to levels consistent with the tuition charged at typical participating schools. The new amounts are still well below the per pupil cost of educating a child in the District of Columbia public schools. While we have kept the income ceiling for entry into the program unchanged, we have increased slightly the income ceiling for those already participating in the program to ensure that parents are not forced to choose between a modest raise in their income and the scholarship. The most recent study conducted by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Science shows that the offer of an OSP scholarship raised a student's probability of completing high school by twelve percentage points overall. The offer of a scholarship improved the graduation prospects by thirteen percentage points for the high- priority group of students from schools designated ``Schools in Need of Improvement'' and for those students actually using an OSP scholarship the improved graduation rate went up to twenty percentage points. In the District of Columbia, where the graduation rates are among the lowest in the country, this is important data that cannot be overlooked. Overall, parents of OSP students were more satisfied and felt school was safer if their child was offered or used an OSP scholarship. In a landmark education speech at the outset of his presidency, President Obama promised that Education Secretary Arne Duncan ``will use only one test when deciding what ideas to support . . . : It's not whether an idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.'' By that standard, this program should be continued. It is not a Democratic, Republican, or Independent program--it is not a liberal or conservative program--it is a program that puts children first. The Opportunity Scholarship Program works as evidenced by increased graduation rates, higher reading proficiency, and the overwhelming support of District families. I urge Republicans and Democrats to rally behind the OSP program. Last year we had a vote on the bill that received the support of 42 Senators. In this Congress, I will be fighting for another vote and am confident there will be more than 50 votes to reauthorize the program. With these votes and the strong support of Speaker Boehner I am hopeful we can give students here in the District the opportunities they deserve. 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 today to introduce the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act--SOAR--which seeks to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program or OSP. And I am proud to be joined by a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing this bill--Senator Collins, Senator Feinstein, Senator Alexander and Senator Ensign. The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program offers scholarships to low- income students, especially those from failing schools, to attend private schools where they can get a better education. This program offers District of Columbia students and their families a choice that improves the quality of their education and significantly increases their likelihood of graduating from high school and attending college. Here in Washington, there are many families who can exercise school choice. They can afford to live in neighborhoods with good schools, they can provide engaging supplemental and afterschool opportunities for their children, or they can choose to send their children to private schools. However, there are many low-income families whose children are trapped in failing schools and do not have those options. School reformers in Washington, through their hard work and, at times, controversial policies, have begun to make a difference for students in the District of Columbia. I applaud the work of Michelle Rhee and her team in their tireless efforts to make the District's schools better. I am pleased that Mayor Gray has indicated he will continue school reform because there is much more work to do on behalf of Washington's schoolchildren. District of Columbia test scores are on the rise but even so, according to recent National Assessment of Educational Progress data, the District of Columbia, while having one of the highest per pupil expenditures in the country, settles at the bottom of all states in reading and math for both 4th and 8th grade students. District of Columbia schools also have among the lowest graduation rates in the country. We all know that meaningful and effective change is slow and we still have a long way to go before we can be confident that each student in the District is getting the public education they deserve. Ronald Holassie, a high school student in the OSP, expressed the implications of this well when he said ``public schools in the District did not go bad over night and they won't get better over night.'' Students cannot wait for reforms to take effect in the worst of the District's public schools--they need a good education right now if they are going to be able to fulfill their potential. The Opportunity Scholarships respond to that immediate need. One of the goals of the OSP is holistic support of the reforms that are helping to improve education in all sectors of education here in the District. Since 2003, Congress has supported a tri-sector approach by appropriating new funds for District public schools, District public charter schools and the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Critics of the OSP argue that it takes away funds from public schools. That is simply not true. The scholarship program was intentionally designed to ensure that any funding for Opportunity Scholarships would not reduce funding for public schools. This legislation will provide additional new money for the District of Columbia's Public Schools, for District of Columbia Public Charter Schools, and for the continuation of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. We have not changed the three part funding design of the initiative. The SOAR Act also strengthens the existing requirements for all schools participating in the OSP by requiring a valid certificate of occupancy and ensuring that teachers in core subjects have an appropriate college degree. The bill continues to target students from lower income families who are attending those schools most in need of improvement and it increases the tuition amounts slightly to levels consistent with the tuition charged at typical participating schools. The new amounts are still well below the per pupil cost of educating a child in the District of Columbia public schools. While we have kept the income ceiling for entry into the program unchanged, we have increased slightly the income ceiling for those already participating in the program to ensure that parents are not forced to choose between a modest raise in their income and the scholarship. The most recent study conducted by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Science shows that the offer of an OSP scholarship raised a student's probability of completing high school by twelve percentage points overall. The offer of a scholarship improved the graduation prospects by thirteen percentage points for the high- priority group of students from schools designated ``Schools in Need of Improvement'' and for those students actually using an OSP scholarship the improved graduation rate went up to twenty percentage points. In the District of Columbia, where the graduation rates are among the lowest in the country, this is important data that cannot be overlooked. Overall, parents of OSP students were more satisfied and felt school was safer if their child was offered or used an OSP scholarship. In a landmark education speech at the outset of his presidency, President Obama promised that Education Secretary Arne Duncan ``will use only one test when deciding what ideas to support . . . : It's not whether an idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.'' By that standard, this program should be continued. It is not a Democratic, Republican, or Independent program--it is not a liberal or conservative program--it is a program that puts children first. The Opportunity Scholarship Program works as evidenced by increased graduation rates, higher reading proficiency, and the overwhelming support of District families. I urge Republicans and Democrats to rally behind the OSP program. Last year we had a vote on the bill that received the support of 42 Senators. In this Congress, I will be fighting for another vote and am confident there will be more than 50 votes to reauthorize the program. With these votes and the strong support of Speaker Boehner I am hopeful we can give students here in the District the opportunities they deserve. 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 introduced legislation to protect the coastal plains region of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas exploration and drilling. Every Congress since the 101st, I have either introduced or been an original cosponsor of legislation to protect the Refuge, making tomorrow the twelfth time since 1989 that I will mark my unwavering support for reaffirming the original intent of the Refuge: to provide habitat for Alaska's wildlife, by designating 1.5 million acres of the Refuge as Wilderness to be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. I have long believed we have a responsibility to future generations to preserve the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and I have fought to protect it for as long as I have been in the Senate. The fact is, we do not have to choose between conservation and exploration when it comes to our energy future; we can do both simultaneously while moving toward a sustainable and diverse national energy policy. The Arctic Refuge is home to 250 species of wildlife. Drilling there would severely harm its abundant populations of polar bears, caribou, musk oxen, and snow geese. Beyond that, the amount of commercially recoverable oil in the Refuge would satisfy only a very small percentage of our Nation's need at any given time and would have no appreciable long-tem impact on gasoline prices. The permanent environmental price we would pay for ravaging the Refuge to drain those limited resources is simply too high. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, I introduced legislation to protect the coastal plains region of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas exploration and drilling. Every Congress since the 101st, I have either introduced or been an original cosponsor of legislation to protect the Refuge, making tomorrow the twelfth time since 1989 that I will mark my unwavering support for reaffirming the original intent of the Refuge: to provide habitat for Alaska's wildlife, by designating 1.5 million acres of the Refuge as Wilderness to be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. I have long believed we have a responsibility to future generations to preserve the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and I have fought to protect it for as long as I have been in the Senate. The fact is, we do not have to choose between conservation and exploration when it comes to our energy future; we can do both simultaneously while moving toward a sustainable and diverse national energy policy. The Arctic Refuge is home to 250 species of wildlife. Drilling there would severely harm its abundant populations of polar bears, caribou, musk oxen, and snow geese. Beyond that, the amount of commercially recoverable oil in the Refuge would satisfy only a very small percentage of our Nation's need at any given time and would have no appreciable long-tem impact on gasoline prices. The permanent environmental price we would pay for ravaging the Refuge to drain those limited resources is simply too high. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Senator Corker and I had a vote-- actually, Senator Corker, Senator McCain, and I had a vote on whose name should be first on this, and Senator Corker and I won, 2 to 1. Senator McCain's name is first because this is an amendment that attempts to deal in a unifying way with our concern that the Russians misunderstand the impact of this treaty or the impact of our development of missile defenses on this treaty and that it is important for us to speak out in unity, in a unified and clear voice, to the Russians, and no one has made that point more clearly as the treaty has been considered than Senator McCain. In fact, he offered an amendment earlier in our deliberations on the treaty which I supported, which did not pass, which would have removed the section of the preamble that has obviously been put in by the Russians in the negotiations which is confusing at best and downright mischievous at worst. This is the section that says: Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties. That is the end of the quote from the preamble. It strikes me as I read it that it will be a topic of consideration in law schools and classes on international law. The first question is, What did it mean? But I think the Russians had a particular intent in putting it in there, and they know what they wanted it to mean. What is troubling is that when the treaty was signed earlier in the year in Prague, the Russian Federation issued a statement that basically made these same points--that the treaty will be effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America. But these are two separate categories. This treaty, the START treaty, is all about reducing the offensive capabilities, nuclear and delivery capabilities of both great powers. We are building a missile defense system. It started out as a very controversial matter. It started out a long time ago--President Reagan, really, initially, and then serious consideration in the 1990s when a lot of people argued against it and said it was a waste of money and it would never work technologically, that you couldn't create a bullet that would hit a bullet. Yet that is exactly what we have done. Thank God that we invested the money and that our scientists and military leaders have brought it as far it is because one of the great threats that will face the people of the United States, our national security, will come from missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction fired particularly by rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. It would be irresponsible of us not to have developed a capacity to defend against those kinds of missile attacks. We have done that. The Russians keep wanting to link that to this treaty. It is not linked to the treaty. Therefore, I regretted that section was in the preamble I read. The United States responded through the State Department to that statement by the Russian Government when they signed the treaty. But it is really important for us, at the same time the instruments of ratification are conveyed to the Russian Government, to make a clear and direct statement of our understanding of the total nonrelationship between the development of our missile defense capability and the START treaty. That is what this amendment does. I am privileged to cosponsor it with Senator McCain, Senator Corker, and a number of other Members of both parties. Basically, it says that before the New START treaty could enter into force, the President shall certify to the Senate--basically, this is certifying what the President said in a letter sent to Senator Reid a few days ago--and at the time of the exchange of instruments of ratification shall communicate directly to the Russian Federation that, No. 1, we are going to continue development and deployment of a missile defense system to defend against missile threats from nations such as-- and I would add ``not limited to''--North Korea and Iran. No. 2, what do we mean by qualitative and quantitative improvement of such systems that we are going to be continuing? This is very important. We define that here to include all phases of the phased adaptive approach to missile defenses in Europe embraced now by our NATO allies; second, the modernization of the ground-based midcourse defense system; and third, the continued development of the two-stage ground-based interceptor as a technological and strategic hedge. We are being as direct as we can be here to the Russians. Some of my colleagues have said--and the record, unfortunately, shows it--that their record for complying with treaties is not a good one. We don't want to enter into this one with any misunderstandings or covering up the truth. We are saying here loudly and clearly that the United States is going to continue to develop all of these different forms of missile defense to protect our security and that has nothing to do with this START treaty. I think the third section here is very important. We say: The U.S. believes that these systems [missile defense systems] do not and will not threaten the strategic balance with the Russian Federation. Consequently, while the U.S. cannot circumscribe the sovereign rights of the Russian Federation under paragraph 3 of Article XIV of the [START] Treaty-- Which is the section that gives nations the right to withdraw under extraordinary circumstances--nonetheless, if we adopt this, when we adopt it, this amendment, we are saying here: The United States believes continued improvement and deployment of United States missile defense systems do not constitute a basis for questioning the effectiveness and viability of the Treaty, and therefore would not give rise to circumstances justifying the withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the treaty. We are trying to manage our relationship with the Russian Federation in a way that is conducive to the security of our country and the security of the world. We disagree with the Russians on an awful lot of things, including human rights and values and freedom of the press--which the current government in Russia has so aggressively suppressed. So we want to be honest with them and direct with them and not enter into this important treaty with any illusions. I believe we have said that clearly. If it passes, it will be presented to the Russian Government directly. I am very pleased we have a broad, bipartisan group supporting this. It is a unified way to conclude our deliberations here before we go to vote on ratification, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask to have printed in the Record the following poem written in the memory of the late Senator Robert C. Byrd by Albert Carey Caswell. The poem follows: From so Little From so little . . . Can come so much! From so humble beginnings . . . Can, come as such . . . Greatness, that only a heart can bring . . . As from life's mistakes . . . But, comes life's lessons . . . time and time again such blessings! For only in open hearts, will so ring! In the kind, that dares great men to dream great dreams! Who come from almost nothing! To grow and involve, all into a many splendid thing! As from such humble beginnings, as but comes such things! From a coal miners father, and his dreams . . . A child, who would bless this our Nation all in his being! A giant, who upon the Senate floor . . . his thundering voice would so ring! Who fell in love, with one of our Forefathers greatest dreams! The Great American Experiment, called Democracy of all things! Democracy, and The United States Senate . . . all in this wing! And, that from so little . What time and faith and courage, can so bring! A man who so honored tradition, in all his fiber and all his being . . . All in his great intuition, knowing that these were but time tested things . . . But, so sacred and so essential . . . but to our Nation's very being! Like, a mother cub . . . Protecting her young! With all of his heart and soul, he would not let this great body be undone! And that some things you must not, and should not change! Time Tested, that for this our Nation to thrive must so remain! For he was a visionary, a scholar, and a student of the past, and legislation history to last! And with his very heart and soul, he so protected our forefathers great dream of gold! For he so wisely knew, that some things no greater can be! Never mess with perfection you see! So with each new and succeeding year, a champion for The Senate grew up so here! As this was but, his second greatest love so clear! His first, his beloved Erma, a marriage of seventy years . . . As This Master of Senate, so soon appeared . . . the kind even Webster would revere! And now, into the next world Robert you have gone, but ever your memory will live on! As but a lesson to us all . . . As from what so little, can grow so tall! A Champion of The United States Senate, Robert Byrd . . . As now up in Heaven, your voice is heard!

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, today I recognize the tremendous work of Dr. Anthony Cernera, a good friend and the very accomplished president of Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, CT. After 22 years of distinguished service to the Sacred Heart community, Tony is moving on to pursue new and different opportunities in Catholic education and beyond. Since 1988, Dr. Cernera has led Sacred Heart with purpose and grace as he helped to fulfill the college's mission of preparing its students to be contributing members of the global community. He expanded this noble mission by increasing the school's reach and the opportunities it offers, all while preserving the rich Catholic intellectual tradition that forms its identity. He helped transform Sacred Heart from a small commuter school serving Fairfield and the neighboring community into a vibrant residential university, introducing new and innovative degree programs and course offerings to keep pace with an ever-changing world. The progress he achieved helped advance a value-driven education that will enrich the lives of all who receive it. Dr. Cernera embodies the many deeply held values that Sacred Heart espouses. He does not see the world around him for what it is, but instead for what it can be. Where he sees promise, he leads through action. With the creation in 1992 of the Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding of Sacred Heart University, Dr. Cernera has striven for a world of greater interreligious dialogue, understanding and respect. As President of the International Federation of Catholic Universities, a federation of over 200 Catholic educational institutions around the world, Dr. Cernera has led at a global level, spreading the faith and values that define his life's work. In a world too rife with conflict and distrust, he has been a model member of the global community. Dr. Cernera leaves behind a lasting legacy at Sacred Heart University, with an impact that reaches far beyond the halls on campus and that will touch many lives for a long time to come. I wish him and his wife Ruth my very best as they embark on the next great chapter of their lives.