Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to raise some concerns that I have with the Travel Promotion Act and to suggest some modifications to it that I feel may be necessary to ensure our security at the Nation's ports of entry. While I support the majority leader's efforts to promote travel to the United States, I believe that there are some security-related issues with the Travel Promotion Act that need to be addressed. I realize that, in order to move this bill, there won't be any amendments offered on the floor of the Senate. Nevertheless, I feel it is important to have a frank discussion about the potential unintended consequences that portions of this bill might have for our Nation's security. Because it is a good step forward, I plan to support this bill today. But I will continue to pursue legislative options to ensure that some of these peripheral issues are addressed. Allow me to provide some background. In the 110th Congress, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs created the Electronic System of Travel Authorization known as ESTA, within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, as part of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. The electronic system was developed to address our main concerns about the Visa Waiver Program, VWP; namely, that the first time Customs and Border Protection, CBP, encounters many travelers from visa waiver countries is when they land at a U.S. airport--far too late to prevent a terrorist incident in flight. The idea behind ESTA was to register travelers coming to America electronically before they leave their home countries. That way we would be able to detect potential terrorists attempting to enter the U.S. from VWP countries--like Richard Wright, ``the shoe bomber''-- before they actually board an airplane bound for the U.S. The 9/11 Commission Act also authorizes, but does not require, the collection of a fee to pay for the administration of the system. To date, DHS has elected not to impose a fee because of concerns about the adverse reaction ESTA requirements have generated in Europe. Indeed, the lack of a fee was one of the key reasons that the European Union ruled that ESTA was not a visa, and decided not to impose a visa requirement on U.S. travelers. The Travel Promotion Act, however, requires DHS to impose a minimum fee of $10 per travel authorization to be used for a Travel Promotion Fund. We should expect the European Union--EU--and other VWP nations to impose a similar fee on U.S. travelers in the future. Additionally, because citizens of the EU do not use credit cards online as often as Americans, it will be challenging for DHS to set up the infrastructure to collect this fee in a way that facilitates travel. Given these realities, I am concerned that the bill gives DHS no funding to set up the infrastructure that would be needed to collect this fee. DHS, therefore, would have to divert funds away from homeland security programs to pay for setting up and collecting this travel promotion fee. Promoting travel to the United States is surely a worthy cause, but we should make sure that the Department has the resources to administer it, so that it does not come at the expense of other programs that keep Americans safe. There is a simple way to address this problem. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the $10 fee would generate $180 million a year. The bill caps the funding that would be used for promoting travel at $100 million. This means that the fee could generate excess funding of as much as $80 million a year. The bill does not give any of this excess funding to DHS for implementing the ESTA system and the fee mandated by the legislation. Instead, it would actually require DHS to pay out of its own pocket the costs of implementing the fee. We should make sure that any excess funding is made available to DHS in order to ensure that funding is not diverted from important security programs to implement this fee. S. 1023 also seeks to give the Director of Travel Promotion in the Department of Commerce authority over CBP functions by requiring that he ``ensure that arriving international visitors are generally welcomed with accurate information and in an inviting manner'' and that he ``enhance the entry and departure experience for international visitors.'' The CBP port of entry is a unique security environment over which DHS, not the Department of Commerce, has and should continue to have ultimate jurisdiction. Prior to 9/11, consular officers often faced pressure to adjudicate visa applications more quickly even though some applications may have been incomplete. CBP Officers at ports of entry should not have to face similar pressures to speed up the processing of incoming travelers at the expense of security considerations. In order to ensure that there is no confusion, we should clarify that the role of the Director of Travel Promotion at the Nation's ports of entry is strictly advisory, and that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have control over the processes through which travelers are admitted into the United States. Lastly, S. 1023 would establish a Travel Promotion Corporation charged, in part, with disseminating information about our Nation's visa and entry requirements through a Web site and through promotional campaigns abroad. This is a worthy endeavor, and these campaigns surely will help to educate foreign travelers about the steps they need to take before travelling to the United States. As, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I understand that our visa and entry requirements can be very confusing. And the last thing we want is for a publicly funded entity to use taxpayer dollars to disseminate inaccurate information. I believe that the Travel Promotion Corporation should be required to submit the information it plans to disseminate for a factual review by the Departments of Homeland Security and State. The Homeland Security and State Departments would have absolutely no editorial role in the types of campaigns the Corporation develops. To avoid unnecessary delays, DHS and State should then be required to return their comments to the Corporation within 10 business days. I believe that the bill we are currently considering is important, and that its goal of promoting travel to the U.S. is laudable, especially when travel and tourism to our country are so important to our economy. I will vote for it today. Moving forward, however, I believe that we must ensure that the bill is implemented in a way that does not adversely impact the security of our Nation, by ensuring that it does not force DHS to rob Peter to pay Paul. I understand that, in order to get this bill passed today, amendments cannot be offered on the floor. I want to reiterate, however, that I plan on pursuing these objectives in future legislation . I think we can achieve the dual goals of promoting travel to our country and enhancing security--I look forward to working with the majority leader and other supporters of this legislation going forward.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time that expires be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I am pleased to both express my unqualified support for the nomination of Cass Sunstein to lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is known in government circles as OIRA, and also to favorably report the nomination out from our Homeland Security Committee. This nomination was considered and reported out by the committee on May 20. That was almost 3\1/2\ months ago. But unfortunately, Professor Sunstein's nomination has been the subject of unnecessary holds and delays. This is an important position that needs to be filled. I thank Majority Leader Reid for bringing this important nomination to a vote. Obviously, there was a filibuster, and we will now need to invoke cloture so Professor Sunstein can get on with the important job that President Obama has nominated him to do for our country and each one of us. OIRA is one of those governmental agencies that has a low public profile but exerts high influence over the workings of government and therefore the daily lives of most Americans. In Congress, we pass laws that express our values, that draw lines between what is right and wrong, what is desirable and undesirable for our society. But because we cannot ever foresee every permutation of the law or its effect, we must leave many of the details to the executive branch and its regulatory actions or implementation of the laws we pass. For over a quarter of a century now, Presidents of the United States have asked OIRA to help oversee and coordinate this critical regulatory process. Thus, OIRA has a huge impact on the widest range of problems, as wide as the purview of our government itself, including the health and safety of every American and the health and stability of the American economy. In Professor Cass Sunstein, the President has found someone with exceptional qualifications and talent, capable of leading OIRA in a positive direction to fulfill Congress's intention in the adoption of laws. When he began teaching at Harvard Law School in 2008, after a distinguished career teaching and residing in the city of Chicago, which is ably represented by the occupant of the chair, his new employers at Harvard announced that they had secured for their faculty ``the preeminent legal scholar of our time, the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential.'' As a graduate of Yale Law School, I was initially quite suspect of those superlatives. The truth is that those words of Elena Kagan, then dean of Harvard, now Solicitor General of the United States, are validated by the extraordinary record of Professor Cass Sunstein. He has taught and written about many subjects, including particularly regulation, the management of risk, and, in fact, OIRA itself. Our committee conducted a thorough review of Professor Sunstein's writings and his background, and he has met individually with me, Senator Collins, our ranking member, and most other members of the committee. We held a confirmation hearing on this nomination on May 12 of this year, at which the members of our committee thoroughly questioned Professor Sunstein about his views on several important matters. And I believe he responded directly, sincerely, and addressed each of the members' concerns. For example, I wanted to be sure his previous advocacy for a rigorous implementation of cost-benefit analysis to regulations did not mean that OIRA under his leadership would interfere with the agency's issuing of regulations necessary to protect public health and safety. Professor Sunstein convinced me in his answer that he would diligently support the purposes of laws to protect public health and safety as adopted by Congress and signed by the President. Because Professor Sunstein is brilliant, creative, and prolific, he has written some things that are unconventional and, for some, controversial. I believe when asked about each of those matters he answered sincerely and fully and reassuringly. For example, hunters were concerned about Professor Sunstein's views on gun rights. He made very clear he believes the second amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for hunting and self- defense. To farmers and others concerned with his previous writings and comments on cruelty to animals, Professor Sunstein has said he would take no steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals, which some concluded was his position based on a provocative article he wrote, and that he has no plans, certainly, to regulate animal husbandry. So this is a bright, thoughtful, creative man who, as a professor, has written some provocative, unconventional ideas. I suppose if one wanted to take advantage of them for one's own purposes, to politicize, in some sense, or ideologize, in some sense, this nomination, one might seize on those. But at bottom, this is a person extraordinarily well qualified for this position. I will say he has been endorsed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, insofar as concerns of the agricultural community are concerned. He met with them, and he answered there questions. They said: . . . we hope the Senate can take up this nomination in the near future and all Senators will vote to confirm him in this post. Professor Sunstein has also won the public endorsement of a variety of groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers which has concluded, based on his writings and their meetings with him, that he will be fair and not antibusiness, anti-economic growth in this important position. As for myself, after meeting with this distinguished, thoughtful, and very gentlemanly individual, listening to him at our hearings, seeing how he has responded thoroughly and forthrightly to those who have approached him with their concerns, I am convinced Professor Sunstein has superior qualifications for this office and a strong commitment, if concerned, to guide OIRA in conformity with the law and the public interest above all. That is why I urge my colleagues to support cloture and to support this nomination. Mr. President, I am pleased to see the senior Senator from Minnesota. I yield to her at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Klobuchar for those very thoughtful and, I thought, compelling words in support of Professor Sunstein's nomination. They were both thoughtful and personal, and that matters a lot. I thank her for taking the time to come and speak on this important nomination. I thought it might be helpful if I read from a few of the letters of endorsement of Professor Sunstein because this is one of those nominations that I think has become unnecessarily controversial. A rule I have always tried to apply--I think I have done it pretty well over the years, playing it uniformly--is when, as a Senator, we exercise our authority to advise and consent, the judgment for us to make is not whether we would have nominated that person to that office but whether on due consideration we conclude that nominee is within an acceptable range and capable of fulfilling that job. That is quite a different situation. One might agree or disagree, let's put it that way, with Professor Sunstein on one or another thing he has written in a remarkably productive, prolific career, but one would have to decide if he is unqualified for this position, not just that he wouldn't be your first choice but seems to be he is unqualified or there is a level of risk in fulfilling it that even if he was qualified, one would vote against it. I want to reassure my colleagues. I mentioned the American Farm Bureau Federation because there had been concern in the Agriculture Committee. I read a letter from Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation: Like others in the agriculture community, we were concerned about reports related to Mr. Sunstein's views on animal rights and the impact that could occur should such views be reflected in Federal regulations. We have, however, had the opportunity to discuss this subject in person with Mr. Sunstein. He has been candid, forthright and very open about how he views his role in OIRA. He has shared his perspective on the issues in question and stressed that he would not use his position to undermine further law or further policies inconsistent with congressional directives. I quoted in my opening statement of the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation: . . . we hope the Senate can take up this nomination in the near future and that all Senators will vote to confirm him in this post. Second, a very different association and important one in our country is the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and in a letter from R. Bruce Josten, the first paragraph says: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations-- He says about the nominee-- Over the course of an impressive career as a legal academic, Professor Sunstein has made important contributions in such diverse areas as environmental law, behavioral economics, and consumer safety. Through his work, he has improved our understanding of the law and public policy in a continuing effort to improve the ability of government to beneficially impact the lives of its citizens. As OIRA Administrator, Professor Sunstein is almost certain to apply a thoughtful approach to regulatory oversight and review. His extensive writings and teachings provide a useful blueprint of his pragmatic approach to regulation, including his continued defense of cost-benefit analysis as a tool for developing rational regulation. His approach is not influenced by an ideological predisposition. I repeat, from Bruce Josten, executive VP of the Chamber of Commerce: His approach is not influenced by an ideological predisposition--to the contrary, his writings show a strong commitment to a balanced review that is biased neither in favor of nor against regulation. By all accounts, Professor Sunstein is a man of personal integrity and formidable intellectual prowess, and the Chamber applauds his willingness to suspend an exceptional academic career in order to serve his country. Mr. Josten concludes by saying: The Chamber urges you to expeditiously confirm Professor Sunstein as Administrator of OIRA. I need not tell my colleagues in the Senate that the Chamber of Commerce is a probusiness group, and if they believed Cass Sunstein as OIRA Administrator would harm business entrepreneurship, economic growth, and the free market in our country, they would say so, loudly and clearly. But they did not say so. They did not just remain silent. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States said Cass Sunstein is qualified by his writings, he is fair, and they urge us to confirm this nomination. I have a similar letter from the National Association of Manufacturers, Rosario Palmieri, vice president of NAM, writing to Senator Collins and me: . . . I am writing to offer our support for the confirmation of Cass Sunstein to be Administrator of the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management & Budget. . . . The NAM [National Association of Manufacturers] has supported nominees to OIRA under both Republican and Democratic presidents. The office plays a crucial role in agency prioritization, paperwork reduction, and regulatory review. Cass Sunstein, in particular, is deserving of confirmation because of his keen intellect, expertise in the fields--

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. The bottom line is that Professor Sunstein is supported by many groups, including those who some might think would have opposed him. I hope my colleagues will support this nomination in the vote to come and on final passage. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mr. Mark Davis of Granby, CT, for his 25 years of service in television news on WTNH Channel 8 in Connecticut. Mark has been ``on the air'' throughout our State in a variety of capacities over the years, and we honor him today for his generous spirit and his impeccable commitment to impartial and informative journalism. With more than 35 years of broadcasting experience, Mark has taken an evenhanded approach to the news that he delivers with the kind of ``plain talk'' that engages a broad audience across our State. Mark made his first splash in Connecticut with his acclaimed radio show ``Dial Mark Davis'' and later as the host of Connecticut's first morning news show, ``Good Morning Connecticut.'' He has been awarded several Emmys throughout his career and each stands as a testament to his talent and hard work. Mark has said one of his favorite quotes of all time comes from U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said that so much in life is more nuanced than it seems because it is ``determined by the majority and subject to change.'' This attitude captures, in many ways, what makes Mark's reporting fresh and relevant: though we live in a world where constant and often polarized judgments are made, in the end, nearly everyone and everything is subject to change. Mark's careful and nuanced presentation of the news reminds us of this important lesson. Mark Davis is a fairminded and evenhanded journalist. That is one big reason why Connecticut citizens have named him the best television reporter in the State, according to Connecticut Magazine. Mark understands, as the best journalists do, that to be a journalist is to bear witness, and that is no easy task. Mark has a special place in the hearts and minds of Connecticut citizens. He performs an essential service that is essential to our democratic and liberal society. I am proud to have worked with Mark over the years, to have shared many of the big moments of my career with him, and now to thank and honor him for his continued service to Connecticut.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is a privilege to rise to speak on behalf of President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This takes me back to a time, shortly after I was privileged to be elected to the Senate, when President George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. David Souter had, by that time, been in law enforcement as an attorney general of New Hampshire. As a former attorney general, I felt an instant kinship with him. He had also been a trial judge in New Hampshire, a member of the New Hampshire Supreme Court and, ultimately, he sat on the Federal First Circuit Court of Appeals. He was proposed to President Bush 41 by our former colleague, Warren Rudman, a Senator from New Hampshire, a great Senator and a great friend. I remember when Senator Rudman brought David Souter around and introduced him after President Bush nominated him. It has been my privilege to have had a friendship with David Souter in the company of former attorneys general, particularly those who gather periodically to speak of matters past, present, and future. I wanted to speak of Justice Souter because, of course, it is his announcement of retirement that opens the vacancy that President Obama has asked us to fill with Judge Sonia Sotomayor. In the case of now-Justice Souter, I was privileged in one of my early votes here to join 89 of my Senate colleagues in voting to confirm Justice Souter. With his retirement this summer, after two decades on the Court, he has become the first Justice to retire of the six Supreme Court Justices on whose nominations I have had the privilege and responsibility of voting. I wish to first thank and commend Justice Souter for his decades of public service, generally, and, specifically, for his thoughtful, distinguished service to the highest Court of our land. I know Justice Souter is a very honorable, straightforward man. He is--if I may say so as a New Englander--a quintessential New Englander. He carries with him all the great constitutional traditions of the part of our country from which I am proud to hail. He brings with him some characteristics that are best associated with a New Englander. He is straightforward. He is not one for flowery rhetoric. He is one who is committed to integrity in his personal life, as well as his public life. He has a great New England sense of humor-- probably not often seen in his decisions, but I bear personal testimony here, though I am not under oath at the moment, to that great quality he has. I know there are some who have become critics of Justice Souter, who have said he isn't what they thought he would be when he was nominated. But when he was nominated, what he presented himself as was a man of the law who believed in our Constitution, believed in the values that underlie it, and one who would always do what he thought was right. He has done that in his years on the U.S. Supreme Court. I haven't agreed with every opinion Justice Souter has ever written, but this I know: Every time he sat to write an opinion or to join an opinion, he did so after the most careful consideration. He is an extraordinarily hard- working, disciplined individual and, ultimately, he reached a judgment that he felt was right, according to the requirements of our Constitution. I salute this great American, this quiet American, but this profoundly patriotic American, and wish him well in the years he has ahead of him as he returns now, by his own choice, to his beloved New Hampshire. The life tenure of Supreme Court Justices--a lifetime appointment for those who choose not to step down--defines, in many ways, the importance of the Senate's role in providing advice and consent to the President on Supreme Court nominees. I have always felt, from the time I first came in--and the first vote I cast was on a controversial nomination for Secretary of Defense. It was in 1989. I spent a lot of time looking back at the history of the advice and consent clause. To make a long story short, I felt it wasn't for me to vote for a nominee of the President, to advise and consent. I did not have to feel that nominee was the person I would have chosen but just that that nominee was within the range of being acceptable and was prepared and qualified for that job. There is a slightly higher standard for Supreme Court nominees because they do serve lifetime appointments. It is with that in mind that I approach this nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. I have met with Judge Sotomayor and have reviewed her judicial record. I followed her confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee and, based on all that, I conclude, without question, that she possesses remarkable intellectual and legal credentials, has a distinguished record of experience in the public and private sector, and a deep commitment to our country and our Constitution. I will, therefore, vote affirmatively to consent to her nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor's 17-year record as a Federal judge speaks volumes about her qualifications to serve on the Court, and that is why I feel she more than passes the threshold for this lifetime appointment. During 6 years as a trial judge on the U.S. district court and 11 years as a judge on the court of appeals, Sonia Sotomayor has shown she possesses a superior intellect, a commendable judicial temperament, and an admirable respect for the role of established precedent in our legal system. It is usually and quite naturally true that those who know people best are those with whom they have worked most closely. Those who have worked most closely with Judge Sotomayor are consistent, even effusive, in their praise for her personal attributes, her professional qualifications, and her fairness. Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, said: Sonia Sotomayor is a well-loved colleague on our court-- everybody from every point of view knows that she is fair and decent in all her dealings. Another colleague on the Second Circuit, Senior Judge Roger Miner, said: I don't think I'd go so far as to classify her in one camp or another. I think she just deserves the classification of outstanding judge. While the most significant facts about Judge Sotomayor are her personal qualifications and her judicial record, I also note that women are underrepresented on the Supreme Court of the United States. I say that not just as a matter of numbers but as a matter of qualification. I thank the President for this historic nomination of the first American of Hispanic descent to the Supreme Court. This nomination was clearly made on the basis of merit, not ethnicity or gender. I think it is consistent with her merit. But acknowledging her ethnicity, her selection represents another barrier that has been broken in American life. When that happens in American life, the doors open wider for every other American. I will be proud to vote yes to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, of New York, to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it has now been nearly 8 years since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, as 19 al-Qaida members hijacked four jet airplanes and crashed three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The passengers on the fourth plane, Flight 93, learned of the other attacks, fought back against the hijackers, and heroically gave their lives to prevent that plane from reaching its target in Washington, DC. That target was probably this very building--the U.S. Capitol. In the last 8 years, our homeland has not been attacked again. The reasons for this are many. We created a Department of Homeland Security, and we adopted reforms in our intelligence community recommended by the 9/11 Commission. We are now consistently connecting the intelligence dots that were not connected before 9/11. We have denied safe haven to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries around the world. And we have worked with our allies to prevent terrorist groups from gaining access to nuclear and radiological materials and to combat terrorist financing. One of the most important reasons why we have not been attacked again in the last 8 years is the tireless work of the men and women who serve in our intelligence agencies. While the attacks of 9/11 have receded into the memory of many Americans, I assure my colleagues that is not the case for the intelligence community. They know that the threat of terrorism has not diminished and are working each day to detect and disrupt terrorist plots targeting America and our allies. They know that the threats we face are ones that could imperil the lives of countless Americans. Just last year, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction determined that it is ``more likely than not'' that a nuclear or biological weapon of mass destruction will be used against the United States in a terrorist attack within the next five years. Should a nuclear device detonate in an American city, it could instantly kill hundreds of thousands of people and render the city uninhabitable for years. This is a devastating possibility that America faces every day and agents are working to prevent every second of every day. For all of these reasons, I believe we have a responsibility to give our intelligence agencies and agents the resources and tools they need, as well as the respect and appreciation they have earned. What we should not do is go backwards by investigating intelligence officials who served us on the front lines of this ongoing war on terrorism and acted within legal guidance they were given. Attorney General Holder is still considering an investigation into CIA interrogators and contract employees. I fear that such an investigation could very well foster a climate of political recriminations and sap the morale of the intelligence community. Those near certain results would no doubt leave our country less safe. President Obama had it right when he said that with regard to past behavior by the intelligence community, he is ``more interested in looking forward . . . than looking backward.'' Given the threats that we face as a nation, it is imperative that we follow the President's lead. With regard to the treatment of detainees now in U.S. custody, the President has been clear. The Executive order he signed on January 22 of this past year requires that all detainees in U.S. custody ``shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person'' and that all interrogations carried out by the U.S. Government, whether by the military, the CIA, the FBI or any other government entity, shall comply with the Army Field Manual. The President's Executive order is consistent with the Detainee Treatment Act as well as the Convention Against Torture and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Given that such policy changes have already been made, I can see no benefit from new investigations of intelligence officials, especially those who were doing what they thought was appropriate and necessary to keep us safe. The 9/11 Commission did a positive and constructive investigation of past events that needed to be understood so that we did not repeat the mistakes that made that horrific day possible. The commission investigated the activities of agencies such as the CIA and FBI in the years and months prior to the attacks of 9/11, and was unsparing in pointing out where those agencies had missed opportunities to disrupt the plot. As a result of the commission's recommendations, we established the Director of National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Center, improved sharing of intelligence information, and strengthened our watchlisting and visa issuance systems. All of these initiatives make the United States safer today against the threat of terrorism. A new investigation of interrogation procedures used on al-Qaida detainees would have no such benefits given that these procedures have now been changed. But an investigation into past practices could cause great harm. An investigation could ruin careers of men and women who have sacrificed so much on our behalf and would have a chilling effect on intelligence efforts moving forward. The overhanging threat of investigations will force those in the intelligence services to be risk averse, which in turn would make us all less secure. In the war against an enemy that does not wear a uniform, that ruthlessly kills innocent civilians, that then hides among those very same civilians, and that uses our own freedoms to undermine and attack us, tough decisions under great pressure--life and death decisions--must be made by those whose job it is to protect our security and our freedom. As CIA Director Leon Panetta recently wrote in the Washington Post: The time has come for both Democrats and Republicans to take a deep breath and recognize the reality of what happened after September 11, 2001. The question is not the sincerity or the patriotism of those who were dealing with the aftermath of September 11. The country was frightened, and political leaders were trying to respond as best they could. Judgments were made. Some of them were wrong. But that should not taint those public servants who did their duty pursuant to the legal guidance provided. As I said at the beginning, we must not take for granted the important fact that we have not been attacked on our homeland since September 11, 2001. That fact is not an accident nor is it just a product of good luck. It is mostly the result of the ceaseless efforts to protect our country by the brave men and women in our military, by all who work for civilian agencies involved in homeland security and counterterrorism, and last but not least, by the intelligence community. Those men and women are, as CIA Director Panetta pointed out, ``truly America's first line of defense.'' I urge the Attorney General not to go forward with the investigations being debated now. The collateral damage to America's intelligence community could be severe and that is something no American should want.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I was unable to participate in the rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Kohl substitute amendment, No. 1908, to H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010 and on the rollcall vote on amendment No. 1910 introduced by Senator McCain. Both rollcall votes took place yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted yea in support of the motion to invoke cloture and yea in support of Senator McCain's amendment. The McCain amendment would have cut $17.5 million set aside for the Rural Utilities Service, High Energy Cost Grant Program--a program that was eliminated in President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget. I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Kohl, and the ranking member, Senator Brownback, for their bipartisan work on this important bill that will fund agriculture priorities, nutrition assistance programs, and food and drug safety measures that are critical for my State of Connecticut and the rest of the country.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent now that the debate time remaining with respect to amendments offered be yielded back; that after Senator Thune offers his amendment, then debate time on that amendment extend until 3:45 p.m., divided as previously provided; that at 3:45 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments and motion to waive in the order listed, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled, in order prior to each vote, with the vote time after the first vote limited to 10 minutes each as follows: Vitter amendment No. 1907, as modified; Ensign amendment No. 1905, as modified; Bond amendment No. 1904; the Thune amendment I have referred to; and the Boxer motion to waive the applicable Budget Act point of order; that with reference to amendment No. 1904, if a Budget Act point of order is raised against the amendment, then a motion to waive the applicable point of order be considered made, further that all other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Collins, Feinstein, Voinovich, Byrd and Ensign to introduce the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, SOAR, which seeks to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, OSP, also known as the DC voucher program. This important initiative offers scholarships to low-income students, especially those from failing schools, to attend better private schools. In doing so, the program gives parents of economically disadvantaged children a choice that's available to the more affluent, including many of us in Congress and in the White House. This program offers DC students a choice that has improved the quality of their education and lives; it is a program that works. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the reauthorization of this important program. Since 2003, Congress has supported a tri-sector approach to improving education in the District of Columbia. This has included funding the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides low income students in the District with scholarships of up to $7,500 to attend private schools, as well as new funding for ongoing efforts to reform and improve public schools and public charter schools in the District. Critics of this program argue that it takes away funds from public schools. This is simply not the case. I remind my colleagues that we intentionally designed the scholarship program to ensure that any funding for opportunity scholarships would not reduce funding for public schools. We provided additional new money for the DC Public Schools and for DC Public Charter Schools. We have not changed the three part-funding design of the initiative. The tri-partite funding is central to the compromise approach that originally brought Democrats and Republicans together in support of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. This bill preserves that important requirement. It is our intent that any funding for DC Opportunity Scholarships will result in continued additional new money in support of public charter and public schools. This funding mechanism is an important point as it reflects the goal of the Opportunity Scholarship Program: to be supportive of the reforms that are helping to improve education in the District of Columbia. There is absolutely no intention to undermine the public schools--quite to the contrary. But as Ronald Holassie, one of the students receiving a scholarship, told us at a recent hearing on the program before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: ``public schools in the District did not go bad over night and they won't get better over night.'' That's the point: despite having amongst the highest per pupil expenditure for public school districts in the country, the public school students in the District score at the bottom on national tests. Ronald and others cannot wait for reforms to take effect in the worst of DC's public schools. They deserve a good education today and the Opportunity Scholarships respond to that need. Much progress has been made in improving DC schools over the years but even school Chancellor Michelle Rhee admits that much remains to be done. According to the Washington Post, Chancellor Rhee was asked recently to give herself a grade for her efforts. She said she would give herself a failing grade as long as any children were in schools that were not providing a quality education. That's a modest answer that obscures the progress she has made. DC test scores are up in the most recent study of academic performance. Undoubtedly, we will see additional improvements in the years to come. Chancellor Rhee will continue to have my full support and I am confident that Ms. Rhee will soon be able to claim the ``A'' grade that I believe she already deserves. In the new bill, we have made the connection between the scholarship program and the ongoing reform effort more explicit. Our bill acknowledges an intent to reexamine the program when DC public school students are testing at the national average in reading and math. The bill also responds to early criticisms of the Opportunity Scholarships with some important changes. It requires all participating schools to have a valid certificate of occupancy and to ensure that teachers in core subjects have an appropriate college degree. It continues to target students from lower income families who are attending those DC schools most in need of improvement but it increases the tuition amounts slightly to levels consistent with the tuition charged at a typical participating school, and adds an inflation adjustment. The new amounts are still well below the per pupil cost of educating a child in the DC 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, or marriage and the scholarship. It is very important to recognize that the Opportunity Scholarship schools are producing impressive results. Opportunity Scholarship students attending private schools showed a five month advantage in reading levels compared to students attending public schools who applied but did not receive the scholarship, in the most recent study of the program conducted by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. The study showed significantly higher levels of parental satisfaction with regards to safety and the quality of the school for those in the program. The study has not yet even looked at the effect of the program on graduation rates and attrition though studies of other voucher programs indicate this impact could very well be significant. We will see those results in next year's study. It is also imperative to put the results of the program in context. Rarely are there statistically significant results with any educational innovations, particularly those targeted at low income students. Of the eleven recent educational innovations studied under the auspices of the Department of Education using the same rigorous testing designs, only three showed any statistically significant achievement results. The Opportunity Scholarship was one of the three. Dr. Patrick Wolf, an education specialist and the lead researcher in the IES study, testified at a recent hearing on the scholarship program that in his professional opinion the results were exceptional and warranted continued study of the program. According to Dr. Wolf, ``by demonstrating statistically significant impacts overall in reading based on an experimental evaluation, the DC OSP has met a tough standard for efficacy in serving low-income inner-city students.'' Academic programs should be evaluated in terms of their impact on students' progress and achievement. In his speech before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce earlier this year, President Obama laid down that marker as a guideline for considering which education programs should be funded. On that basis, it is clear that we should continue to fund the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program--a program that has been good for students, good for parents and even good for public and charter schools in the District. Let us do the right thing for kids in DC and reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Collins, Feinstein, Voinovich, Byrd and Ensign to introduce the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, SOAR, which seeks to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, OSP, also known as the DC voucher program. This important initiative offers scholarships to low-income students, especially those from failing schools, to attend better private schools. In doing so, the program gives parents of economically disadvantaged children a choice that's available to the more affluent, including many of us in Congress and in the White House. This program offers DC students a choice that has improved the quality of their education and lives; it is a program that works. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the reauthorization of this important program. Since 2003, Congress has supported a tri-sector approach to improving education in the District of Columbia. This has included funding the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides low income students in the District with scholarships of up to $7,500 to attend private schools, as well as new funding for ongoing efforts to reform and improve public schools and public charter schools in the District. Critics of this program argue that it takes away funds from public schools. This is simply not the case. I remind my colleagues that we intentionally designed the scholarship program to ensure that any funding for opportunity scholarships would not reduce funding for public schools. We provided additional new money for the DC Public Schools and for DC Public Charter Schools. We have not changed the three part-funding design of the initiative. The tri-partite funding is central to the compromise approach that originally brought Democrats and Republicans together in support of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. This bill preserves that important requirement. It is our intent that any funding for DC Opportunity Scholarships will result in continued additional new money in support of public charter and public schools. This funding mechanism is an important point as it reflects the goal of the Opportunity Scholarship Program: to be supportive of the reforms that are helping to improve education in the District of Columbia. There is absolutely no intention to undermine the public schools--quite to the contrary. But as Ronald Holassie, one of the students receiving a scholarship, told us at a recent hearing on the program before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: ``public schools in the District did not go bad over night and they won't get better over night.'' That's the point: despite having amongst the highest per pupil expenditure for public school districts in the country, the public school students in the District score at the bottom on national tests. Ronald and others cannot wait for reforms to take effect in the worst of DC's public schools. They deserve a good education today and the Opportunity Scholarships respond to that need. Much progress has been made in improving DC schools over the years but even school Chancellor Michelle Rhee admits that much remains to be done. According to the Washington Post, Chancellor Rhee was asked recently to give herself a grade for her efforts. She said she would give herself a failing grade as long as any children were in schools that were not providing a quality education. That's a modest answer that obscures the progress she has made. DC test scores are up in the most recent study of academic performance. Undoubtedly, we will see additional improvements in the years to come. Chancellor Rhee will continue to have my full support and I am confident that Ms. Rhee will soon be able to claim the ``A'' grade that I believe she already deserves. In the new bill, we have made the connection between the scholarship program and the ongoing reform effort more explicit. Our bill acknowledges an intent to reexamine the program when DC public school students are testing at the national average in reading and math. The bill also responds to early criticisms of the Opportunity Scholarships with some important changes. It requires all participating schools to have a valid certificate of occupancy and to ensure that teachers in core subjects have an appropriate college degree. It continues to target students from lower income families who are attending those DC schools most in need of improvement but it increases the tuition amounts slightly to levels consistent with the tuition charged at a typical participating school, and adds an inflation adjustment. The new amounts are still well below the per pupil cost of educating a child in the DC 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, or marriage and the scholarship. It is very important to recognize that the Opportunity Scholarship schools are producing impressive results. Opportunity Scholarship students attending private schools showed a five month advantage in reading levels compared to students attending public schools who applied but did not receive the scholarship, in the most recent study of the program conducted by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. The study showed significantly higher levels of parental satisfaction with regards to safety and the quality of the school for those in the program. The study has not yet even looked at the effect of the program on graduation rates and attrition though studies of other voucher programs indicate this impact could very well be significant. We will see those results in next year's study. It is also imperative to put the results of the program in context. Rarely are there statistically significant results with any educational innovations, particularly those targeted at low income students. Of the eleven recent educational innovations studied under the auspices of the Department of Education using the same rigorous testing designs, only three showed any statistically significant achievement results. The Opportunity Scholarship was one of the three. Dr. Patrick Wolf, an education specialist and the lead researcher in the IES study, testified at a recent hearing on the scholarship program that in his professional opinion the results were exceptional and warranted continued study of the program. According to Dr. Wolf, ``by demonstrating statistically significant impacts overall in reading based on an experimental evaluation, the DC OSP has met a tough standard for efficacy in serving low-income inner-city students.'' Academic programs should be evaluated in terms of their impact on students' progress and achievement. In his speech before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce earlier this year, President Obama laid down that marker as a guideline for considering which education programs should be funded. On that basis, it is clear that we should continue to fund the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program--a program that has been good for students, good for parents and even good for public and charter schools in the District. Let us do the right thing for kids in DC and reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I was unable to participate in the rollcall vote on final passage of H.R. 3183, as amended, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted yea in support of the bill. I would like to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Dorgan, and the ranking member, Senator Bennett, for their bipartisan work on this important bill that will fund energy and conservation programs that are critical for my State of Connecticut and the rest of the country.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I wanted to say that as the overnight proceeded, there are a number of people who want to come down and speak on our side, so I wish to ask that on our amendment we have at least an hour and a half, perhaps two. I hope not to use it, but I think this is going to be a significant debate.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I have consulted with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and the ranking member, Senator McCain, and they have urged me to go forward and call up my amendment on the alternate engine and begin debating it to expedite matters while we are awaiting Senator Bayh to come over. I call it up at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. This amendment I am introducing with Senator McCain as my lead cosponsor, and with a strong bipartisan group of cosponsors, including Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and Senators Snowe, Schumer, Inhofe, Dodd, Hutchison, Collins, Kyl, and Cornyn. I am very grateful for that support. To state it briefly, and then to go into some detail, this amendment would remove funding from this bill that was added by way of amendment in the Armed Services Committee for $439 million to build a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter plane. I will argue, on behalf of the amendment I have introduced with Senator McCain and others, that it is a waste of $439 million to build for a plane a second engine, which we don't need. In fact, estimates are that continuing acquisition of this second engine will cost over $6 billion of taxpayer money that we don't need to spend because there has been a competition for the engine to be used in the Joint Strike Fighter, which is now the heart and soul of America's hopes for the future when it comes to tactical aviation--particularly after the Senate terminated the F-22 program the other day. So there was a competition to build the engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. General Electric, in its proposal, lost that competition. Pratt & Whitney won that competition. Now, by way of legislation, the proponents of the second engine for this plane are trying to achieve, by legislation, what they could not achieve by competition. It is not only that it is an unnecessary expenditure of $439 million in the coming year, and more than $6 billion, for a second engine that we don't need for that plane, but it has consequences. It is not just that we are spending taxpayer money, but I will go into this in some detail in a moment. Regarding putting that money to use on that second engine, a general from the Air Force overseeing this Joint Strike Fighter program told our committee it would delay the Joint Strike Fighter, which our services are desperately waiting for. They need this tactical fighter. So it would delay the program and, in fact, this Air Force general testified to our committee that putting money into the bill for the second engine, and continuing to fund it, would result, over the next 5 years, in a reduced capacity to build Joint Strike Fighters by 53 planes. So to spend the money to build a second engine for a plane, when we don't need a second engine--because the first one won the competition and is performing very well--we are going to reduce the buy of this tactical fighter that our military needs by 53 planes over the next 5 years. How do my friends who support the second engine pay for it? Well, in the Armed Services Committee bill, which is before us, which Senator McCain, I, and others are trying to remove, they defund the acquisition of helicopters, which are desperately needed by our marines, particularly those fighting in Afghanistan. There will be an alternative proposal made this morning in the amendment Senator Bayh will introduce, I presume, because there has been so much protest to defunding this acquisition of helicopters that the marines need in battle in Afghanistan, in order to pay for a second engine, which is unnecessary, for the Joint Strike Fighter. Instead, the amendment will defund the acquisition of C-130s, which are specially fitted for our special operations forces. Again, they are carrying out extremely dangerous and critical missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places, where they are courageously taking on particularly the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That is the essence of the argument. This second engine is a program President Obama has described as ``an unnecessary defense program that does nothing to keep us safe, but rather prevents us from spending money on what does keep us safe.'' That warning from President Obama about the consequences of funding the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter is realized already in the part of the bill Senator McCain and I and others are trying to withdraw and in the amendment my friend from Indiana will introduce because it takes money from the Marines and the Air Force special operations community in areas they and we desperately need. I wish to add that, this morning, I was grateful and honored to receive a letter from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in which the Secretary of Defense strongly and clearly expresses his opposition to the alternate engine, the second engine, an unnecessary engine--the $6 billion unnecessary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter--and his support for the amendment that Senator McCain and I and others have introduced. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Gates be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will read from the letter. It is three paragraphs: The Department of Defense supports striking from legislation any provision that would require the development or procurement of an alternate propulsion system for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 test hours. In addition, the risks associated with a single engine provider are manageable as evidenced by the performance of the F-22 and F/A-18/F, both Air Force and Navy programs supplied by a single engine provider. The Air Force currently has several fleets that operate on a single engine source. I draw back from the letter. What is unusual is to have a second engine. Logically, if we want to buy a car, it would be nice to have a second engine in the garage but would we pay the extra money for it if we had a perfectly good engine in the car? Back to the letter: Thus, further expenditures on a second engine are unnecessary and will likely impede the progress of the overall F-35 program. It is my belief that the JSF program presented in the President's budget request is in the best interests of national security. If a final bill is presented to the President containing provisions that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the President's senior advisors will recommend that the President veto the bill. I intend to show in my argument this morning that, in fact, this Armed Services Committee bill--if the amendment Senator McCain and I are proposing is not adopted--will seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the Joint Strike Fighter program and, therefore, will be occasion for the President's advisers to recommend he veto this entire and critically necessary bill. I thank Secretary Gates for expressing support for the amendment Senator McCain and I and others--Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd, Senator Kyl--have offered to strip this unnecessary expenditure of money from the bill. Our amendment, as I have said, would restore funding that was taken from the U.S. Marine Corps helicopter, the Huey, when the committee voted to fund the alternate engine. The vote to cut 10 Marine Corps helicopters comes at a time the Marines are conducting a major offensive in the mountains of Afghanistan where the high altitudes and hot weather require the best capabilities Congress can provide them, including these Hueys. In fact, in recent statements from the Joint Staff and Marine Corps leadership, it is clear how urgently the Marines need the enhanced capabilities of the UH-1 Huey on the battlefield. Speaking before the Armed Services Committee of the Senate on Thursday, July 9, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cartwright, said to the members of the committee: Those helicopters are, in fact, critical. He continued: The helicopter for the Marines is one of their most lethal weapons. They are the most effective in the battlefield, particularly in the counterinsurgency arena. They are effective in built-up urban areas and in compounds because they can be discreet, so the value of those helicopters is significant. The day after General Cartwright appeared, I received a letter from the Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Conway. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from General Conway.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, in his letter, General Conway writes: Procurement of less than the optimum ramp up of 28 H-1s in fiscal year 2010 will lead to continued reliance on aging helicopters that should have been retired from the inventory years ago. As we focus on operations in Afghanistan, sustaining the introduction of the H-1 is vital for our future success. He continues: Because of the severe operational limitations of the Corps' legacy helicopters, the Marines are transitioning toward the significantly improved capabilities of the UH-1Y. General Conway points out that the Corps has already sent three UH-1Y to Afghanistan and will deploy its full squadron of them this November. This is a plane the Marines desperately need in combat today. I also want to read from a letter I received from Major General Bockel, retired, Army Reserve, now acting director of the Reserve Officers Association. General Bockel says in his letter to me: The Reserve Officers Association, representing 65,000 Reserve Component members, supports the Lieberman-McCain Alternate Engine Amendment. This amendment restores critical funding to procure helicopters that the United States Marine Corps urgently needs in Afghanistan. I suspect the Reserve Officers Association will no more support an effort to ask our special operations forces, as the second-degree or side-by-side amendment Senator Bayh will offer, to pay the bill for an unnecessary second engine than he was to see our Marines foot the bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Major General Bockel's letter.