Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the extraordinary service and remarkable character of Reverend George Poulos of the Church of the Archangels in Stamford, CT, who recently retired after over a half decade of service. Reverend Poulos has come to hold a special place in our hearts and minds over his 53-year career. Over the years, he has been a spiritual father and friend to thousands of Connecticut families. As parish priest for Church of the Archangels, Reverend Poulos has officiated over 2,000 baptisms, 1,000 weddings, and 800 funerals. Although his formal tenure as parish priest ended earlier this week, Reverend Poulos remains intimately connected to the birth, life, and remembrance of the Stamford community. I have known Reverend Poulos for many years and treasure the example he has set in his career of devoted service; I am grateful for all the wisdom he has offered me personally. The Church of the Archangels where Reverend Poulos served as parish priest is a magnificent structure built in the 11th century Byzantine style; in fact, it is the only true Byzantine-style church in the Western Hemisphere. As a 16-year-old, I watched the amazing structure emerge just down the street from the house where I grew up. When you enter the church, the left side wall reads: ``AGIASON TOUS AGAPONTAS THN EFPREPEIAN TOU OIKOU SOU,'' which means, ``Bless those who love the beauty of thy house.'' Reverend Poulos has offered us a rare kind of love that helps the Stamford community practice reverence, celebrate growth, and appreciate all the beauty of this life. Our State and this Nation are blessed to have leaders like Reverend Poulos in our communities. As he retires from his church to spend time with his wife Christine, his five sons, and six grandchildren, I thank him for his service and assure him that his important contributions and generous spirit will never fade from our memory.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Washington is a city of big names and big personalities, many of whom are used to the recognition and praise that comes with a high-profile career in public service. But, as we all know, hundreds of thousands of unsung public servants work behind the scenes every day to secure the future of America and improve the lives of its citizens. Today, I want to pay tribute to one of those public servants, who is as deserving of the public's gratitude and recognition as any officeholder with a household name: Erma Mary Paliani. On July 3, Ms. Paliani, who currently works for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, Office of Investigations, will retire after serving her country for over 67 years. Ms. Paliani, or ``Ms. Erma'' as she is affectionately referred to by her coworkers at ICE, is the longest serving employee in the Department of Homeland Security and the eighth longest serving employee in the Federal Government. Her dedication to public service is truly an inspiration and should serve as an example to us all. Born in Ambridge, PA, in 1917, Ms. Paliani entered public service as a student at Ambridge Senior High School, serving as a youth worker for the National Youth Administration of the War Department in 1936. In 1940, she officially began her Federal career working for the War Department's Museum Project. In March 1947, Ms. Paliani joined the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, Philadelphia office. And 2 years later, she was transferred to the INS headquarters in Washington DC, where she has spent the last 60 years working to make our Nation's immigration system work more efficiently. At the INS, Ms. Paliani quickly gained a reputation for her friendly demeanor, gentle smile, and steadfast commitment to government service. She is now retiring from her job as secretary to the deputy assistant director for the Critical Infrastructure and Fraud Division. Her long and productive tenure has been honored by many top government officials, including Attorney General Janet Reno, INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and President Bill Clinton, who, in a note written to Ms. Paliani on the occasion of her 80th birthday, wrote that her devotion to her work ``. . . serves as an example of caring and leadership to which we can all aspire.'' I couldn't agree more. I extend to Ms. Paliani my sincerest thanks for her years of service and her dedication to this country that we love, and I wish her all the best on a well deserved retirement. I know that her friends and coworkers at ICE will miss her greatly, but I am confident that she will continue to serve as a model of hard work and commitment for all public servants to emulate. Thank you, Ms. Erma Mary Paliani. The country is a better place because of you. We are all grateful for your selfless dedication to your government and your Nation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, which I am introducing today along with my colleagues Senators Bond, Casey, Stabenow, Cardin, Whitehouse, and Sanders. This legislation will significantly advance ongoing efforts to restore and protect fish habitat, improve the health of our waterways and ensure that we have robust fish populations far into the future. Today, nearly half of our fish populations are in decline and half of our waters are impaired, which is why it is especially important that we work together to protect and restore remaining habitat. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act will leverage federal, state and private funds to support voluntary regional conservation partnerships, which in turn will allow federal and state governments, the recreational and commercial fishing industries, the conservation community, and businesses to work together--for the first time--to effectively conserve aquatic habitats. Our legislation authorizes $75 million annually for fish habitat projects. Based on the highly successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, the bill establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board to recommend science-based conservation projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. Regional partners will then work to implement those conservation projects to protect, restore and enhance fish habitats and fish populations. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act will go a long way toward ensuring the viability of our fish and their habitats for generations to come. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation and reverse the decline of our ailing waterways and fisheries.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, which I am introducing today along with my colleagues Senators Bond, Casey, Stabenow, Cardin, Whitehouse, and Sanders. This legislation will significantly advance ongoing efforts to restore and protect fish habitat, improve the health of our waterways and ensure that we have robust fish populations far into the future. Today, nearly half of our fish populations are in decline and half of our waters are impaired, which is why it is especially important that we work together to protect and restore remaining habitat. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act will leverage federal, state and private funds to support voluntary regional conservation partnerships, which in turn will allow federal and state governments, the recreational and commercial fishing industries, the conservation community, and businesses to work together--for the first time--to effectively conserve aquatic habitats. Our legislation authorizes $75 million annually for fish habitat projects. Based on the highly successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, the bill establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board to recommend science-based conservation projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. Regional partners will then work to implement those conservation projects to protect, restore and enhance fish habitats and fish populations. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act will go a long way toward ensuring the viability of our fish and their habitats for generations to come. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation and reverse the decline of our ailing waterways and fisheries.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to describe and explain my amendment to H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The central purpose of this legislation is to give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products. I support the bill's goals and am an original cosponsor of the Senate counterpart, S. 982. Because the regulation of tobacco products under H.R. 1256 passes muster under budget rules only because of the increase in tax revenues generated by one federal employee retirement program, I want to make sure that the overall retirement system treats federal employees fairly. To accomplish this, I and colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--Senators Collins, Akaka, and Voinovich--have developed this bipartisan amendment to make a number of much-needed corrections and improvements to the federal employee retirement program. In addition to Senators Collins, Akaka, and Voinovich, I would also like to thank Senators Murkowski, Mikulski, Inouye, and Begich, who have all asked to be included as cosponsors of this amendment. The central purpose of our amendment is to bring justice to federal employees who--because of quirks in the law, errors, and oversight-- have lost out on retirement benefits for which they would otherwise be eligible. Many of the provisions of this amendment have the very strong support of federal employee unions and organizations of managers. Our amendment would add back into the pending substitute amendment several of the reforms to the federal retirement system that were already passed by the House in its version of H.R. 1256. In addition, the amendment includes two very significant reforms to the federal employee pay and retirement systems that our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently approved by voice vote without dissent. I have prepared a complete written summary of these provisions, and I will ask consent that it be printed in the record. Now I want to focus on those that are most significant. One of the most important reforms in our amendment would lift retirement penalties now experienced by long-time federal employees under the Civil Service Retirement System who want to switch to part- time work at the end of their careers. The amount of an employee's annuity is based, in part, on the highest rate of salary that the employee received over a 3-year period. Because an employee's salary ordinarily reaches its highest rate at the end of the employee's career, employees count on that end-of-career work period to help determine the amount of annuity. However, as the law now stands, employees who have a substantial period of service before April 1986, and who now switch to part-time work at the end of their career, get part of their annuity determined on the basis of the amount of salary received, which, for the part-time work, is only a fraction of the rate of salary received. With retirement credit for part-time work so reduced, many employees have little incentive to stay on part-time, and simply opt to retire altogether. Our amendment would fix this problem by using the rate of salary, not the amount of salary, for determining the entire amount of the employee's annuity. This would remove the disincentive that now discourages federal employees near retirement from working on a part- time basis while phasing into retirement. Our amendment is not only fair to the employee, but also good for the government, by helping to retain valuable employees who wish to phase down their work but to continue offering their talent and experience to serve the government and to train future leaders. This is one of the provisions in our amendment that was passed by the House as part of its version of H.R. 1256, and this provision is also very similar to a bill introduced by Senator Voinovich, S. 469, which was unanimously approved by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee late last month by voice vote. A second provision in our amendment would correct an injustice in calculating the retirement dates and benefits for nonjudicial employees of the DC courts, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and the DC Public Defender Service. Legislation in 1997 and 1998 converted these individuals from being employees of non-federal agencies into being federal employees. The converted employees were brought under the Federal Employees Retirement System, which essentially began calculating their eligibility for retirement and the amount of their benefits anew, without recognition of their previous service. Some employees of these three agencies could have retired years ago had they received credit for their years of service with the DC government. Instead, they are still serving to make up for time lost when they were transferred into the federal service. One provision in our amendment would simply require that the time served by these employees before their date of transfer from DC to federal service will count towards their overall federal retirement eligibility as ``creditable service.'' This is a fair and just correction. Another important provision in our amendment will equalize the treatment of participants in the old Civil Service Retirement System and participants in the newer Federal Employees' Retirement System. This provision would allow FERS participants to apply their unused sick leave in determining their length of service for the purposes of computing the amount of retirement benefit--something Civil Service Retirement System participants are already allowed to do. This reform would not only bring equity to all federal employees participating in the two retirement plans. It also would help reduce the inevitable absenteeism that results from the current ``use it or lose it'' policy for sick leave under the FERS program. Our amendment also provides relief to approximately 170 U.S. Secret Service agents and officers who have lost out on tens of thousands of dollars in retirement benefits because they did not receive what they were promised when hired. This provision would restore this group of agents and officers to the retirement system they were promised and paid into over 22 years ago. Historically, Secret Service nonuniformed agents, like other federal employees, joined the Federal Civil Service Retirement System, whereas uniformed officers of the Secret Service were covered under the District of Columbia Police and Fire Retirement Plan, because their division had originally begun as an adjunct to the DC police force. Nonuniformed agents who accrued 10 years of protection time could also transfer into the DC plan, and many did so, because the DC plan is more generous and more flexible than the federal system. New-hires to the Secret Service continued to be promised that they could retire under the DC Metro plan up until 1987. In that year, when the Federal Employee Retirement System was created to replace the older CSRS, the law did not permit Secret Service agents hired between the years of 1984 and 1987 to opt into the DC plan, but instead required them to be covered by the new federal retirement system. We ask a tremendous amount from the men and women of the Secret Service, many of whom have some of the most challenging jobs within the federal government. It is not too much to expect that the federal government abide by its promises in return. Accordingly, this amendment will enable the affected Secret Service agents to convert to the DC Metro plan if they so choose. Finally, our amendment incorporates two additional bipartisan reforms of the federal pay and benefits system that our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently approved without dissent. First, the amendment incorporates a bill introduced as S. 507 by Senator Akaka, and cosponsored by Senators Murkowski, Inouye, and Begich, called the ``Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act of 2009.'' This legislation will bring federal employees in Hawaii, Alaska, and other ``nonforeign'' U.S. territories in line with federal employees in the lower 48 states with regard to pay and pension. Federal employees in the lower 48 states receive locality pay, which is taxed and counts towards employees' pensions Federal employees in nonforeign areas instead receive a nonforeign cost of living allowance, which is neither taxed nor counted towards pensions. This puts nonforeign area employees at a substantial disadvantage when it comes time to retire. To correct this situation, the legislation would move federal employees in nonforeign areas from the nonforeign COLA system to locality pay that would both be taxed and count toward pensions. Locality pay would be phased in over a 3-year period and the nonforeign COLA would be phased out. Although all future employees would be covered by the act, existing employees in nonforeign areas could choose to continue receiving the nonforeign COLA rather than being transitioned to locality pay. We have also included in this amendment a bill, S. 629, which was introduced by Senator Collins and cosponsored by Senators Voinovich, Kohl, and McCaskill, named the ``Part-Time Reemployment of Annuitants Act of 2009.'' This legislation would authorize Federal agencies to reemploy retired Federal employees, under certain limited conditions, without offset of annuity against salary. The purpose is to help agencies weather the upcoming wave of retirements by hiring back retirees on a limited basis. Under present law, most annuitants who return to work have the amount of their pension offset against their salary. Congress has enacted certain limited exceptions to this general rule, and our amendment would grant all agencies the power to hire annuitants at full salary and annuity if certain conditions are met. The bill includes several limits intended to ensure that the authority is used for the intended purpose, to fill particular staffing gaps and needs. A reemployed individual may not work more than a maximum of 520 hours--i.e., 65 days--in the first 6 months after retirement, or more than 1,040 hours--i.e., 130 days--in any 12-month period, or exceed a total of 3,120 hours--i.e., 390 days--for any one individual. These limits represent working at about half time. Moreover, reemployed annuitants at an agency may not comprise more than 2.5 percent of the agency's total workforce, and may not exceed 1 percent of the agency's total workforce unless the agency head submits a written justification to OPM and Congress. The legislation would sunset after 5 years. Federal employees, wherever they work, are a dedicated group of people who are asked to make a number of sacrifices for the sake of their country. Those in the Secret Service, obviously, sacrifice more, sometimes with their lives. Our amendment will update and bring retirement parity and fairness to many federal employees. This amendment will provide a measure of justice for hundreds of thousands of public servants. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam President, to reiterate, I rise today to describe and explain and speak on behalf of the bipartisan amendment to this underlying bill I am proud to introduce, along with Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, and Senator Voinovich. The central purpose of the legislation before us, of course, is to give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products. I support the aims of the bill strongly and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Senate counterpart, S. 982. Because the regulation of tobacco products is estimated to result in some reduction in tobacco excise taxes, the bill before us, H.R. 1256, passes muster under budget rules only because of an increase in revenues generated by a change that is made in the proposal in the Federal Employee Retirement System. The aim of Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, Senator Voinovich, and myself, in proposing this amendment is to make sure that while that revenue-raising change occurs, that the overall retirement system treats Federal employees as fairly as possible. So we have developed this bipartisan amendment to make a number of corrections and improvements in the existing Federal employee program. In addition to the Senators I have mentioned, I also thank Senators Murkowski, Mikulski, Inouye, and Begich, who have also become cosponsors of this amendment. The central purpose of the amendment is to bring justice to Federal employees who, because of quirks in the law--frankly of errors or oversights--have lost out on retirement benefits for which they would otherwise be eligible. Many of the provisions of this amendment have the very strong support of the groups representing Federal employees and managers as well. Our amendment would add back into the pending substitute amendment several of the reforms to the Federal retirement system that actually were already passed by the House in its version of H.R. 1256. In addition, the amendment includes two very significant reforms to the Federal employee pay and retirement systems that our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently approved by voice vote without dissent. I should state here for the record that the committee now has very broad jurisdiction which has been added to, in recent years, when we became the Homeland Security Committee, but in the original governmental affairs jurisdiction of the committee we not only have general oversight of the activities of government, of the Federal Government, this is the committee responsible for the civil service, for those who work every day to enable our Federal Government to work for the citizens of our country. I have a complete written summary of the provisions that are in this amendment. I will offer it a little bit later, but now I want to focus on a few of the most significant changes. One of the most important reforms in the amendment would lift retirement penalties now experienced by long-time Federal employees under the Civil Service Retirement System when they want to switch to part-time work at the end of their careers. It is very important, as we face a time of increasing retirement from Federal service and increasing demand on Federal service. The amount of an employee's annuity is based in part on the highest rate of salary an employee received over a 3-year period. Although an employee's salary naturally reaches its highest rate at the end of an employee's career, employees count on that end-of-career work period to determine the amount of annuity they will live on in retirement. However, as the law now stands, employees who have a substantial period of service before April 1986, and who now switch to part-time work at the end of their career, get part of their annuity determined on the basis of the amount of salary received, which, for part-time work, is only a fraction of the rate of salary received. With retirement credit for part-time work so reduced, a lot of employees have very little incentive to stay on part time when we need them to do so, and they will, therefore, retire altogether. Our amendment would fix this problem by using the rate of salary, not the amount of salary, for determining the entire amount of the employee's annuity. That would remove the disincentive to continue to serve that now exists. A second provision in our amendment would correct an injustice in calculating the retirement dates and benefits for nonjudicial employees of the D.C. courts, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, and D.C. Public Defender Service. These are fair and just corrections. Another important provision in the amendment would equalize the treatment of participants in the Civil Service Retirement System with treatment of participants in the newer Federal Employees Retirement System. To the average American, this vocabulary is probably not too comprehensible. To the millions of Federal employees, the difference between the CSRS and FERS is quite well understood and significant. The provision that we have in this amendment would allow for its participants to apply their unused sick leave in determining their length of service for the purposes of computing the amount of retirement benefits--something Civil Service Retirement System participants are already allowed to do. So that is an inequity this amendment would eliminate. The amendment also provides relief to approximately 170 U.S. Secret Service agents and officers who have lost out on tens of thousands of dollars in retirement benefits because they did not receive what they were promised when hired. This provision would restore this small group of agents and officers to the retirement system that they were promised and paid into over 22 years ago. We obviously ask so much of the men and women of the Secret Service that we should treat them fairly. Finally, our amendment incorporates those two additional bipartisan reforms of the Federal Pay and Benefit System that our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently approved without dissent. First, the amendment incorporates a bill introduced as S. 507 by Senator Akaka, who I know is on the floor and I believe may speak on this when I am done, cosponsored by Senators Murkowski, Inouye, and Begich, called the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act of 2009. These obviously are colleagues from Alaska and Hawaii, so it has unique relevance there. The legislation would bring Federal employees in Hawaii and Alaska and other ``nonforeign'' U.S. territories in line with Federal employees in the lower 48 States, as we call them, with regard to pay and pension. Federal employees in the lower 48 receive locality pay, which is taxed and counts toward employee pensions. Federal employees in nonforeign areas, such as Alaska and Hawaii, instead receive a nonforeign cost of living allowance, which is neither taxed nor counted toward pensions. This puts Federal workers in places such as Hawaii and Alaska at a substantial disadvantage when it comes to retirement. To correct this situation, this legislation would remove Federal employees in nonforeign areas--Alaska, Hawaii, et cetera--from the nonforeign COLA system to locality pay that would both be taxed and would count toward pensions. We have also included in this amendment a bill, S. 629, which was introduced by Senator Collins and cosponsored by Senators Voinovich, Kohl, and McCaskill, which is called the Part-Time Reemployment of Annuitants Act of 2009. This is relative to something I talked about earlier. It would authorize Federal agencies to reemploy retired Federal employees under certain limited conditions without offset of annuity against salary. In other words, we have some retired employees who, after a long period of service, have built up specialized skills we need and will need more and more in the years ahead, as a generation retires from Federal service. Yet now there is an economic disincentive for those retired employees to come back part time or for limited periods of time to serve the American people. Under present law, most annuitants who return to work have the amount of their pension offset against their salary. Congress has enacted certain limited exceptions to this general rule. Our amendment would grant all agencies the power to hire annuitants at full salary, while maintaining their full retirement benefit, if certain conditions are met. The bill includes several limits to ensure that this authority is used for the intended purpose, which is to fill particular staffing gaps and needs and not used to frustrate the desire of a new generation of Federal workers to come in. A reemployed individual may not work more than a maximum of 520 hours, 65 days, in the first 6 months after retirement or more than 1,040 hours, 130 days, in any 12-month period or exceed a total of 390 days for any one individual for the entirety of their retirement. Each of these proposals that are part of this amendment treat Federal employees fairly. They correct inequities; in some cases, oversights. The fact is, in many countries of the world, developed countries particularly, one of the most respected professions, lines of work one can go into is civil service, what we call the civil service. We are not where we should be in this country. These are the people who make the Federal Government work. We should treat them fairly and, in this unique circumstance, when we are taking some more out as a result of a change in the Federal retirement system to offset the loss of excise taxes on tobacco, there is some money left over which we can use to correct these inequities on Federal employees. That is why I am so pleased this is a bipartisan amendment. I hope, when it comes to a vote, it will receive overwhelming bipartisan support. I thank Senator Akaka, who is an extraordinary Senator in general but has been a wonderful, productive, contributing member of this committee and a great advocate for the most progressive human capital management; that is, the best management of our Federal workforce.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business about supporting President Obama in his efforts to protect the safety and security of the American people, the American military, and the civilian personnel serving us all abroad. This goes to the question of the pending lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union that would require the publication of various photographs of treatment by Americans of detainees. On May 13, President Obama announced that he would not release nearly 2,100 photographs depicting the alleged mistreatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Detainees are what we normally call ``prisoners of war,'' except they have a lower status than that under the Geneva Conventions. Many of these photographs were the subject of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU, while others were discovered during internal Department of Defense investigations into detainee abuse. Last fall, as part of that lawsuit, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ordered the release of many of those photographs. Instead of appealing that decision to the Supreme Court at that time, government lawyers agreed to release the images, as well as others that were part of the internal Department of Defense investigation. Senator Lindsey Graham and I strongly objected to that decision and wrote a letter to the President explaining our position. We know that photographs such as the ones at issue in the ACLU lawsuit are, in fact, used by Islamist terrorists around the world to recruit followers and inspire attacks against American service men and women. In particular, there is compelling evidence that the images depicting detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib was a great spur to the insurgency in Iraq and made it harder for our troops to succeed safely in their mission there. After consulting with his commanders on the ground, including General Petraeus and General Odierno, President Obama decided to reverse the decision of the government lawyers and fight the release of these photographs. Of course, I feel very strongly that he made not only a gutsy decision but the entirely right decision. The President said, in making that decision: The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in great danger. I strongly believe this decision was the right one by the President, acting as Commander in Chief. It will protect our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and it will make it easier and safer for them to carry out the missions we have asked them to do. In fact--and this has become public in recent days, and I heard it earlier around the time the President made the decision--after learning that the release of these photographs was either possible or likely, before President Obama's decision to appeal, Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki said, according to these press reports, that ``Baghdad will burn'' if the photos are released, jeopardizing many of the remarkable security gains our military and civilian personnel have achieved in Iraq in recent years, putting our troops and personnel in danger. To support the President's decision and establish a procedure to protect the release of similar photos in the future, for the exact same reason, Senator Graham--my colleague and friend, who is now on the floor--and I introduced the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act. That legislation would authorize the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to certify to the President that the disclosure of photographs such as the ones at issue in the ACLU lawsuit would endanger the lives of U.S. citizens and members of the armed services deployed abroad. Essentially, our bill would codify the exact process that President Obama went through in arriving at his decision to fight the release of these photos. Also, the language in the bill Senator Graham and I introduced is clear, we believe, in that it would apply to the current ACLU lawsuit and block the release of these photographs, preventing the damage to American lives that would occur from that release. The Senate unanimously supported the inclusion of a slightly modified version of the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act in the supplemental appropriations bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate then approved the supplemental bill by a vote of 86 to 3 before we broke for the Memorial Day recess. I rise today, along with my friend and colleague from South Carolina, to strongly encourage our colleagues in the Senate and in the House on the conference committee to include the modified version of the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act in the conference report that is currently being negotiated. We know there are those who are urging the conferees to delete this provision, or to water it down. That would be a terrible mistake. As President Obama well understands, nothing less than the safety and security and lives of our military service men and women is at stake-- not to mention our nonmilitary personnel deployed abroad, not to mention Americans here at home and throughout the world, who may be at risk of terrorist attack by an individual recruited to Islamist extremism and terrorism, as a result of the anger spurred by the release of these photographs. Bottom line: American lives are at stake. Senator Graham and I feel so strongly about this. I will speak for myself here and then allow him, in a moment, to speak for himself. Any decision to eliminate this provision from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, or to water it down so it has no meaning, would lead me, certainly, much as I support what is in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, to oppose that act, because I think a failure to back up President Obama in this matter would, as I have said, compromise safety and, ultimately, the lives of a lot of Americans, particularly those in uniform. Let me be clear. By including the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act in the conference report for the supplemental appropriations bill, Congress will not be condoning the behavior depicted in the photographs. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Such behavior has already been prohibited by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act as well as by executive orders issued by President Obama. We expect that those responsible for the mistreatment of detainees will be held accountable. And that is exactly what the Department of Defense has done with the internal investigations that are finished or are underway. But the bottom line is that the release of these photographs, and potentially others that may be discovered, will endanger the lives of our military personnel and every U.S. citizen. Every American, whether in a military uniform or not, will always be a target for al-Qaida or supporters of al-Qaida around the world. The public release of these pictures, which we know will be spread on violent jihadist Web sites around the world immediately after they are published, will only energize the efforts of our enemies. With the inclusion of the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act in the supplemental appropriations bill conference report, Congress has the opportunity to support the President in his primary mission as Commander in Chief--and, frankly, our number one mission as well--to protect the safety and security of the United States. I strongly urge my colleagues to include our amendment--which had unanimous support in this Chamber--in the final conference report. I yield the floor for my friend from South Carolina.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the confirmation of Gina McCarthy to head the Office of Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency. I have had the opportunity to work with and get to know Ms. McCarthy during her tenure as the commissioner of Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection. Ms. McCarthy has worked tirelessly to make Connecticut's air, land and water cleaner, which in turn has made Connecticut the wonderful place it is today to live, work and raise a family. Among her achievements, I would like to highlight Ms. McCarthy's pioneering work to address climate change in New England. She is widely recognized as a chief engineer of the very successful Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Since her appointment in 2004, Ms. McCarthy has worked to dramatically improve Connecticut's environment. She has restored and defended the integrity of many of Connecticut's most cherished natural treasures. She devoted herself to protecting Long Island Sound, a source of nourishment and recreation to the millions who live and work along its coastline. As commissioner, Ms. McCarthy devised strategies for dealing with our State's solid waste, and she worked to improve Connecticut's air quality. She also made great strides to reinvigorate our parks and open spaces. Gina arrived in Connecticut with a wealth of experience after holding a number of health and environmental positions in Massachusetts at the local, State and Federal levels. She worked for the Stoughton Board of Health and Conservation, Massachusetts' Hazardous Waste Facility Site Safety Council, the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Program and the New England Governor's Environment Committee. Ms. McCarthy also served as the under secretary of policy at the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and as the deputy secretary of operations to the Office for Commonwealth Development where she oversaw the development and implementation of Massachusetts' first Climate Protection Action Plan. We have been lucky to have Gina in Connecticut and I am excited that the entire country will now benefit from her talents at the EPA. In her new position, Ms. McCarthy will be responsible for developing national programs, technical policies and regulations to control air pollution and prevent exposure to radiation. She will continue her work to address climate change and improve energy efficiency--a double charge that is both timely and imperative to the continued health of our planet. She will also develop strategies to reduce industrial and vehicle-generated air pollution as she works to improve indoor and outdoor air quality. I am excited to have someone of Ms. McCarthy's character and credentials leading these essential efforts and I am filled with confidence in her ability to address them productively. I strongly support the nomination of Gina McCarthy to head the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1156.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am very pleased to rise now to offer this amendment on behalf of a bipartisan group: Senators Thune, Begich, Graham, and Burris, all of us members of the Armed Services Committee. I take the floor today to speak on their behalf and mine for a constituency that every Member of the Senate represents; and that is, the men and women who serve in the U.S. Army. On September 11, 2001, the Army's active-duty strength was just 480,000, after a decade in which we in Congress cut it nearly in half after the Cold War ended. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, many Members of Congress urged a major expansion of the military and the Army for the years of war that were clearly ahead. But, unfortunately, that did not happen. We watched with growing concern as our soldiers--members of a force too small for the missions we had assigned to them--served through repeated deployments, heroically, but under increasing stress. Finally, 3 years ago, the administration and Congress increased the size of the active-duty component of the U.S. Army from 480,000--the level on 9/11--to 547,400. That was to be realized over a period of years. In February of this year, the Army reached that goal well ahead of the schedule that had been originally anticipated, fortunately, because every man and woman who joined the Army is necessary and has been critically necessary. So now we actually have 549,000 active-duty soldiers. Recall that I said the statutory end strength of the Army is 547,400. So the Army now is literally at a strength greater than its current authorization. This achievement expresses the patriotic commitment of the American men and women who have answered the call of duty. In other words, recruitments and reenlistments have been so high that there are more people in the Army than the statutory end strength. But there is still not enough. I will explain why. Growing the force was clearly necessary to support our troops in the Army, our soldiers who are bearing the major responsibility for the wars we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But these increased numbers simply have not proved sufficient to relieve the continued strain on our soldiers. That is what this amendment intends to do during the remainder of this fiscal year, covered by this supplemental appropriations bill. I want to talk about dwell time. It is a term the military uses. What is ``dwell time''? It is down time but not R&R time. It is time that is spent back here at home in the bases, with the families, not just recovering from the last deployment, but also, obviously, preparing and training and upgrading for the next. And perhaps most significantly to the men and women of the Army, it is precious time for our soldiers to spend with their families. Today, dwell time of members of the U.S. Army is about slightly more than 1 to 1. That means for every year of deployment, they are back home at the base, training, preparing, spending time with their family, for a year--1 to 1. General Casey said--and everybody in our military says--that is simply inadequate; too much duty, too quickly, too much stress on our men and women in the U.S. Army, in the military. General Casey said he has the goal to get the ratio to 1 to 2--2 years at home for every 1 year out at war--and to do so by 2011. In fact, he would like to take it higher than the 1 to 2--beyond that-- hoping that our conflicts we are in in Iraq and Afghanistan do not require that many American military by that time. Incidentally, the dwell-time ratio is particularly dire for a category in our Army called ``enablers.'' They are involved as Army aviators, engineers, people involved in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance work. They really are under dwell-time pressure. As the Presiding Officer knows, the Obama administration is implementing what I consider to be a very responsible strategy, and a correct strategy, for drawing down our force in Iraq. But if you combine the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the planned increase in Army presence in Afghanistan, as we slowly decrease in Iraq, Army deployments will actually increase for the rest of this year. This is what General Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, said to the Armed Services Committee the other day: It is a simple question of supply and demand. If the supply of the Army stays only constant or even goes down, and yet the demand--which is the increasing deployments for at least the remainder of this year, and probably well into next year--goes up, the dwell time--the time these soldiers of ours, heroes of ours, have to spend away from the war zone back at base--will not rise from the unacceptable level it is at now. Our military leadership has made clear in public statements that things are going to get worse before they get better. Army Chief of Staff Casey recently warned that the number of deployed soldiers will actually, as I said, rise through the rest of the year. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that the Army faces a ``very rough time'' over at least the next 2 years before it reaches what Admiral Mullen called the ``light at the end of the tunnel.'' Keep in mind, these predictions do not reflect or absorb the possibility of a new crisis or new crises elsewhere in the world outside of Iraq and Afghanistan--what such a crisis would place in the way of additional demands on our soldiers--a possibility that recent experience warns us to at least keep in mind as a possibility. So we are in a situation now where we have a constant level of soldiers on Active Duty, demand in the short term going up, and, therefore, dwell time--time away from the battlefield--not rising. This equation leads to strain and stress on our soldiers. Unfortunately, there are facts that show this strain and stress. The Army is on track this year to overtake the grim record of suicides of our Active-Duty Army personnel that we saw last year, in 2008. The murder a week or two ago of five soldiers by a fellow soldier in Baghdad was a devastating example, I fear, of the stress on our deployed force. We hear increasingly stories of the stress on the families back home. Any of us who have visited military bases, spoken to the families, hear this constantly as a growing appeal to do something to increase the dwell time. The fact is, we are not, and that really does hurt. I think we can say--as was said the other day at an Armed Services Committee hearing by witnesses before us from the Defense Department who were talking about all we are doing to improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, including housing for their families, health care, childcare, et cetera, et cetera--benefits--all true. So we are improving the benefits to our men and women in the U.S. Army, but so long as there are not enough of them, which there are not today, the major factor of stress, which is how often, how many times are they going to be sent back to Iraq and Afghanistan, or how frequently, will not change. That is what this amendment aims to do something about. I wish to make clear what is obvious to everyone: that our Army is not broken. This is the greatest--this is the next greatest generation of the American military, performing with unbelievable skill, heroism, resilience, agility, and personal compassion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Army is not broken, but it is, as General Casey said the other day, out of balance. Secretary of the Army Geren said--summarizing this part of his testimony before the Armed Services Committee--the U.S. Army is ``busy, stretched, and stressed.'' And he is right. We have to give those heroes in uniform some help, and the best help we can give them is more people in uniform fighting alongside them. Here is a strange twist. In the face of the current crisis in manpower, the administration has been forced to effectively direct the Army to not only stop growing but to actually shrink by the end of the year as deployments overseas increase, dropping back from over 549,000 soldiers to the statutory limit of 547,400. In other words, this supplemental appropriations bill closes a gap that existed in the Army's ability to pay for the 547,400 they are entitled to, but they are still over by 1,600 soldiers. Therefore, there is a guidance out that directs the Army to take drastic measures to cut back; in fact, reducing their recruiting goals this year by 13,000 soldiers, which the Army knows it can meet, and cutting its retention goal by 10,000 troops, which the Army also knows it can meet. So here we have this ironic--really worse than that--moment where we need more troops and more soldiers and the Army is going to be forced to cut back. I must tell my colleagues that I think it is going to be hard to shrink the Army in this way by the end of this year because so many of our troops are reenlisting, which is quite remarkable--so committed to the cause, proud of their service, want to keep fighting for the United States alongside the others in their unit. Obviously, some are affected by the economy and the instability and difficulty in finding job opportunities in the economy. So I think it would be a terrible mistake to order the Army to cut its ranks at this time, which would mean less dwell time for our soldiers. That is why Senators Graham, Begich, Thune, Burris, and I introduced this bipartisan amendment which would enable the Army to maintain its current strength and continue to grow for the remainder of this fiscal year as the Secretary of Defense determines. No compulsion here. Current law forces the Army to get smaller before the end of the year. This amendment would say it can grow beyond the 547,400 within the limit of the waiver that the Army has, and it provides the money to do that, which is an additional $400 million for the remainder of this fiscal year--frankly, a small price. It is a significant amount of money, but when we think about the impact it will have on the lives of just about every man and woman wearing the proud uniform of the U.S. Army, it is more than worth it. I wish to explain, while I have a moment and while I see no one else on the Senate floor, that the amendment literally will increase the minimum end strength for the Active-Duty Army from the statutory level it is at now up to 547,400. When that point is reached, it gives the Secretary of the Army a 2-percent waiver, and that means that working with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army could actually raise the Army as high as 558,000 by the end of the fiscal year. I don't expect that to be possible in the next few months, but it gives that latitude and the money to back it up. The second part of the amendment provides additional funds to help the Army cover the immediate personnel shortfall it faces because of the toll the ongoing conflicts are taking on the force. If I may add just this final argument of reality. The Vice Chief of Staff, Peter Chiarelli, told the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness last month that the Army has about 30,000 soldiers among that current 549,000 who are, for one reason or another--three reasons, actually--not available to meet the requirements of the Army, not able to be directly involved. For example, nearly 10,000 soldiers now either serve as Wounded Warriors or support their recovery, while thousands more are not deployable because of injuries they have suffered, often not in conflict, but that are, nonetheless, though less severe, disabling enough that they can't be deployed. So the truth is, there already is a 30,000-gap beneath the 549,000 that is on the books as actively deployed. The best way to honor the sacrifice and service of these soldiers will be to ensure that their brothers and sisters in arms go to battle with reinforcements who can take their place; to guarantee that the Army can build those enabler units I talked about that the service needs most now on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq--and both battlefields are now beginning to compete for those uniquely trained enablers; and to provide the Army leadership with the flexibility it needs to have the manpower for the theater while giving our troops more time at home. I wish to go to two final questions. Would growing the force today relieve the strain on the force when it matters most? And is this a proposal we can afford? In terms of the first, we know the greatest demand in the theater falls upon our most junior soldiers, such as the Army's privates and specialists who face the most difficult dwell time ratios in the force and keep going back and forth. If we commit to growing the force now, these are the types of troops we can recruit, train, and deploy in this time of greatest need, and we can retain them. In short, if provided the additional personnel, the U.S. Army can definitely use them and use them well. In terms of the second question, of course, I am concerned about the long-term costs of increasing the size of the force. The price of military personnel has risen over the past decade because we better recognize the service of our soldiers, and we are taking better care of them. Nonetheless, I don't see how we can explain to our soldiers and their families that we in Congress decided that we could not afford reinforcements at a time when the force is so stressed under the strain of war and still performing so brilliantly. The Army is not broken, I wish to stress. It is out of balance, and it needs our support to come into balance. This amendment would provide the funds to give the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense the option--not mandatory--to raise the number of Active-Duty military personnel, from now until the end of this fiscal year, to a level above--slightly above--the 547,400 now statutorily authorized. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in giving this amendment unanimous support. I honestly think it is just about the best thing we can do for the heroes of the U.S. Army who serve us every day to protect our security and our freedom. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Objection.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from South Carolina for his kind words, first, but also for working together on this in a bipartisan way. Senator Graham serves in the Senate, but he also serves in the U.S. Air Force. When we travel with him, he usually remains behind to do some time and be of service in the battle zones. That is the kind of person he is. He is an extremely skilled lawyer. We approached this trying to do what was right from a legal point of view but also understanding what the President, to his great credit, understood and expressed in the decision he has made on these photos. These are old photos. They portray, I fear, behavior that is unacceptable and, in fact, has been made illegal by the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act, which Senator Graham played the leading part in drafting. This behavior portrayed in the pictures already has also been made illegal by Executive order of President Obama. So what purpose is served by putting these pictures out now? What good purpose? None. It is a kind of voyeurism, frankly, to see the pictures just for the sake of seeing the pictures. Maybe in a normal time that would be OK; it probably would be. Disclosure and transparency are values our country, our Government, holds high. But there is something different now, and this is what President Obama recognizes. We are at war. When you are at war, you have to ask the question the President asked General Petraeus, General Odierno, and others: Will the public release of these pictures endanger America, American military personnel, and American Government personnel serving overseas? The answer came back loud and clear: Yes, it will. So the President, with strength and decisiveness, stepped onto what I am sure he knew was politically controversial ground. He did what he thought was right for the country as Commander in Chief. As Senator Graham said, we applaud him greatly for that. We are at war, and you don't do the things when you are at war that you might do at other times. This proposal basically codifies into law the process President Obama suggested in reaching the decision he made to fight the release of these pictures. Last week, the President made exactly the right decision as Commander in Chief that will protect our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere and make it easier for them to carry out the missions that we have asked them to do. After consulting with General Petraeus, General Odierno and others, the President decided to fight the release of photographs that depict the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Those photographs are the subject of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Last fall, the Second Circuit court of appeals ordered the release of those photographs. Instead of appealing that decision to the Supreme Court, government lawyers agreed to release the images as well as others that were part of internal Department of Defense investigations. I strongly believe that the President's decision to fight the release of the photographs was the right one. Today, Senator Graham and I introduced this amendment to H.R. 2346, the supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, that will codify the President's decision and establish a procedure to prevent the detainee photos from being released. Before the President decided to fight the Second Circuit decision, Senator Graham and I sent a letter to the President making the case that the release of the photographs serves no public good. The behavior depicted in those photographs has been prohibited by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act as well as by Executive orders issued by President Obama. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has investigated the allegations of detainee abuse for the purpose of holding those responsible accountable. We also know that the release of the photographs will make our service men and women deployed overseas less safe. There is compelling evidence that the images depicting detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib was a great spur to the insurgency in Iraq and made it harder for our troops to succeed in their mission there. Now we learned valuable lessons from those pictures. And as I said, Congress and this President have taken steps to prevent that abuse from ever happening again. But the same is not true about these pictures. These pictures depict past abuses that have already been addressed and we know that the release will only empower the propaganda operations of al-Qaida and other Islamist terrorist organizations. Even before 9/11, terrorist groups like al-Qaida recognized the immense value of using propaganda to recruit and radicalize followers around the world. Since 9/11, the al-Qaida propaganda operation has only gotten more sophisticated. Should pictures like these be released, we know that they will be circulated immediately on al-Qaida connected Web sites and many other Web sites that readily post images just like this. And to be clear, it is not al-Qaida leadership we are worried about-- they are committed to destroying America regardless of what happens with these photos. Rather it is the thousands of young men--and some women--around the world who may not otherwise be inclined to sympathize with or support al-Qaida but may change their minds after seeing these photos. Those recruits are the ones that keep al-Qaida and other Islamist terrorist groups vibrant and capable of planning and executing attacks against us. By introducing this legislation today, we do not condone the behavior depicted in the photographs. We expect that those responsible for the mistreatment of detainees will be held accountable. And that is exactly what the Department of Defense has done with the internal investigations it has conducted. This bill--the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act--would establish a procedure just like the one that led to the President's decision not to release the photos. This legislation would authorize the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to certify to the President that the disclosure of photographs like the ones at issue in the ACLU lawsuit would endanger the lives of our citizens or members of the Armed Forces or civilian employees of the U.S. Government deployed abroad. The certification would last 5 years and could be renewed by the Secretary of Defense if the threat to American personnel continues. Also, the language in the bill is clear that it would apply to the current ACLU lawsuit that gave rise to the President's decision last week. Let me state clearly that we cannot become complacent about the stark reality that we are still at war with enemies who continue to seek to attack America and kill Americans. In the heated partisan environment in Washington, we are unfortunately sometimes more engaged in finger pointing and recriminations than being focused on defeating the vicious determined enemy we face. I applaud President Obama for the actions he has taken in the past week on the photos and the military commissions and I believe that this legislation will provide him with an important tool to assist him in leading the war on terror. Bottom line: I hope, again, this can be a bipartisan amendment, which it is, but I hope it will be supported by Members across the aisles. When we do that, we are all going to be saying we know we are at war and that we have no higher responsibility than to protect the security of our country and our military personnel, which would be endangered if these pictures go out. For a quick moment, I speak as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, which I am privileged to lead. These pictures will be a recruiting device for al-Qaida and the rest of the terrorist ilk. These pictures will go up instantaneously on jihadist terrorist recruiting Web sites. Not just people elsewhere in the world but people in the United States will be drawn to those Web sites and perhaps recruited through these pictures into a life of terrorism, where the essential target will be America and Americans. There is no reason to let that happen, and this amendment will make sure, in an orderly and fair way, that it doesn't happen while we are at war. Again, I thank my friend from South Carolina. I gather we are waiting for word on whether we can introduce the amendment soon.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favour of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which I am introducing with my colleague and friend on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Susan Collins. Last year, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on this legislation, but time ran out before we were able to move the measure to the Senate floor. I also want to thank my former cosponsor, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, with whom I and more than 20 other Senators introduced identical legislation in the 110th Congress. We expect about 20 cosponsors again this year, and I want to express my appreciation to them for helping us get an early enough start in the 111th Congress so that we can pass the bill, hopefully, this year. This legislation makes eminent sense for two reasons: It will help the Federal Government attract the best and the brightest and it is the fair and right thing to do from a human rights perspective. Let me explain. The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act would provide the same employee benefit programs to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees that are now provided to the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees. In other words, same-sex domestic partners--living in a committed relationship and unrelated by blood would be eligible to participate in health benefits, long-term care, Family and Medical Leave, federal retirement benefits, and all other benefits for which married employees and their spouses are eligible. Federal employees and their domestic partners would also be subject to the same responsibilities that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements. When the domestic partners of Federal employees are granted the same benefits and obligations as the spouses of federal employees, the Federal Government will be able to attract from a larger pool of applicants the best possible employees to carry out the Government's responsibilities to the American people. In the coming years, as a large percentage of federal employees become eligible for retirement, a new generation of employees will be hired, and the Federal Government will be competing with the private sector for the most qualified among them. This legislation will help put the Federal Government on equal footing to compete for those new recruits and then retain them. From a human rights perspective, this legislation is one more step on the long road to bring the gay and lesbian community equality under the law. We are not talking about an insignificant number of people. According to UCLA's Williams Institute, over 30,000 federal workers live in committed relationships with same-sex partners who are not Federal employees. We often hear--and I have often said--that Government should be run more like a business. While the purpose of Government and business are different, I believe Government has a lot to learn from private sector business models including in the matter before us today. The fact is that a majority of U.S. corporations--including more than half of all Fortune 500 companies--already offer benefits to domestic partners. General Electric, IBM, Eastman Kodak, Dow Chemical, the Chubb Corporation, Lockheed Martin, and Duke Energy are among the major employers that have recognized the economic reward of providing benefits to domestic partners. Overall, almost 10,000 private-sector companies of all sizes provide benefits to domestic partners. The governments of 13 States, including my home State of Connecticut, about 145 local jurisdictions across our country, and some 300 colleges and universities also provide these benefits. Surveys show that many private sector employers offer these benefits because it is the right thing to do. You can bet each one knows that the policy makes good business sense; it is good management policy, it is good employee policy, and it is good recruitment and retention policy. In fact, employers have told analysts that they extend benefits to domestic partners to boost recruitment and retain quality employees--as well as to be fair. If we want the Government to be able to compete for the most qualified employees, we are going to have to provide the same benefits that job seekers can find elsewhere. The experts tell us that 19 percent of an employee's compensation comes in the form of benefits, including benefits for family members. Employees who do not get benefits for their families are, therefore, not being paid equally. Of course, the supporters of this legislation understand that covering domestic partners will add some increment to the total cost of providing federal employee benefits. And we understand that we have to be particularly careful about government spending right now and perform rigorous cost benefit analyses of all, not just new, federal expenditures. Based on the experience of private companies and state and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would increase the cost of those programs by less than one-half of one percent. The Office of Personnel Management says the cost of health benefits for domestic partners over 10 years would be $670 million. In the name of fairness and raising the appeal of federal employment, this is affordable legislation. Among the many stories I have heard about the impact of this inequality on real people, I particularly remember the words of Michael Guest, who was ambassador to Romania in the Bush Administration and Dean of the Foreign Service Institute before he left public service. In his resignation letter, Mr. Guest made a moving and eloquent case for extending benefits to same sex partners. I believe Ambassador Guest was the first publicly gay man to be confirmed for an U.S. ambassadorship from the U.S. When he resigned the Foreign Service in 2007, he said, and I quote here from his farewell address to his colleagues ``. . . I have felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who is my family--and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary's leadership and a shame for this institution and our country.'' Those are convincing words from a talented and loyal former public servant--who once described the Foreign Service as the career he was ``born for . . . what I was always meant to do.'' It is a great loss to the nation that he felt compelled to leave the Foreign Service-- particularly at a time when our nation so desperately needs talented diplomats to help meet the challenges we face abroad. He may have left public service for many reasons--but one of them should not have been that his federal employee benefits did not allow him to care for the needs of his family in an adequate manner. The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act makes good economic sense. It is sound policy. And it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favour of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which I am introducing with my colleague and friend on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Susan Collins. Last year, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on this legislation, but time ran out before we were able to move the measure to the Senate floor. I also want to thank my former cosponsor, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, with whom I and more than 20 other Senators introduced identical legislation in the 110th Congress. We expect about 20 cosponsors again this year, and I want to express my appreciation to them for helping us get an early enough start in the 111th Congress so that we can pass the bill, hopefully, this year. This legislation makes eminent sense for two reasons: It will help the Federal Government attract the best and the brightest and it is the fair and right thing to do from a human rights perspective. Let me explain. The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act would provide the same employee benefit programs to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees that are now provided to the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees. In other words, same-sex domestic partners--living in a committed relationship and unrelated by blood would be eligible to participate in health benefits, long-term care, Family and Medical Leave, federal retirement benefits, and all other benefits for which married employees and their spouses are eligible. Federal employees and their domestic partners would also be subject to the same responsibilities that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements. When the domestic partners of Federal employees are granted the same benefits and obligations as the spouses of federal employees, the Federal Government will be able to attract from a larger pool of applicants the best possible employees to carry out the Government's responsibilities to the American people. In the coming years, as a large percentage of federal employees become eligible for retirement, a new generation of employees will be hired, and the Federal Government will be competing with the private sector for the most qualified among them. This legislation will help put the Federal Government on equal footing to compete for those new recruits and then retain them. From a human rights perspective, this legislation is one more step on the long road to bring the gay and lesbian community equality under the law. We are not talking about an insignificant number of people. According to UCLA's Williams Institute, over 30,000 federal workers live in committed relationships with same-sex partners who are not Federal employees. We often hear--and I have often said--that Government should be run more like a business. While the purpose of Government and business are different, I believe Government has a lot to learn from private sector business models including in the matter before us today. The fact is that a majority of U.S. corporations--including more than half of all Fortune 500 companies--already offer benefits to domestic partners. General Electric, IBM, Eastman Kodak, Dow Chemical, the Chubb Corporation, Lockheed Martin, and Duke Energy are among the major employers that have recognized the economic reward of providing benefits to domestic partners. Overall, almost 10,000 private-sector companies of all sizes provide benefits to domestic partners. The governments of 13 States, including my home State of Connecticut, about 145 local jurisdictions across our country, and some 300 colleges and universities also provide these benefits. Surveys show that many private sector employers offer these benefits because it is the right thing to do. You can bet each one knows that the policy makes good business sense; it is good management policy, it is good employee policy, and it is good recruitment and retention policy. In fact, employers have told analysts that they extend benefits to domestic partners to boost recruitment and retain quality employees--as well as to be fair. If we want the Government to be able to compete for the most qualified employees, we are going to have to provide the same benefits that job seekers can find elsewhere. The experts tell us that 19 percent of an employee's compensation comes in the form of benefits, including benefits for family members. Employees who do not get benefits for their families are, therefore, not being paid equally. Of course, the supporters of this legislation understand that covering domestic partners will add some increment to the total cost of providing federal employee benefits. And we understand that we have to be particularly careful about government spending right now and perform rigorous cost benefit analyses of all, not just new, federal expenditures. Based on the experience of private companies and state and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would increase the cost of those programs by less than one-half of one percent. The Office of Personnel Management says the cost of health benefits for domestic partners over 10 years would be $670 million. In the name of fairness and raising the appeal of federal employment, this is affordable legislation. Among the many stories I have heard about the impact of this inequality on real people, I particularly remember the words of Michael Guest, who was ambassador to Romania in the Bush Administration and Dean of the Foreign Service Institute before he left public service. In his resignation letter, Mr. Guest made a moving and eloquent case for extending benefits to same sex partners. I believe Ambassador Guest was the first publicly gay man to be confirmed for an U.S. ambassadorship from the U.S. When he resigned the Foreign Service in 2007, he said, and I quote here from his farewell address to his colleagues ``. . . I have felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who is my family--and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary's leadership and a shame for this institution and our country.'' Those are convincing words from a talented and loyal former public servant--who once described the Foreign Service as the career he was ``born for . . . what I was always meant to do.'' It is a great loss to the nation that he felt compelled to leave the Foreign Service-- particularly at a time when our nation so desperately needs talented diplomats to help meet the challenges we face abroad. He may have left public service for many reasons--but one of them should not have been that his federal employee benefits did not allow him to care for the needs of his family in an adequate manner. The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act makes good economic sense. It is sound policy. And it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Brian Forrest, who is with me from the Army for a year, be given floor privileges during the proceedings on the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish today to honor Pleasant Valley Elementary School in South Windsor, CT. Pleasant Valley, or ``PV'' as it is affectionately referred to by many in South Windsor, will be celebrating its 50th anniversary this June. To mark this momentous occasion, I feel it is fitting to reflect back on all this school has done for its students and its community. Pleasant Valley's motto is ``Pleasant Valley School, a place to learn, to grow, and to care,'' and many of the students, parents, and faculty that have been involved with the school would attest that it has more than succeeded in creating such an environment. For 50 years, Pleasant Valley has helped the children of South Windsor develop a love of learning and discovery while instilling in them the skills and work ethic needed to succeed in South Windsor's excellent secondary schools. When Pleasant Valley first opened in September 1958, it taught grades one through eight. While it was tough managing a large group of kids with such large age differences, those who attended or worked at the school during this time fondly recall basketball games, spelling bees, school plays, dedicated teachers, and, of course, friendships that would last a lifetime. Eventually, Pleasant Valley would become responsible for teaching students in kindergarten up to the fifth grade, and would always remain a vibrant, innovative place of learning. Over the years, Pleasant Valley's staff has consistently launched inspired new initiatives designed to connect with their students. In 1981, PV started the Read at Home Program, which was put together to encourage students to read on their own. The theme for the program's first year was ``footsteps to reading,'' which allowed students to post a paper foot on the school's walls for every book they read. By the end of the year, students had managed to cover almost the entire school, including the principal's office. In 1989, the school established the Special Friends Program-- the first in South Windsor--to provide a safe setting, counseling, and friendship to at-risk students and those students experiencing sudden changes in their lives. In the 1990-1991 school year, Nancy Mason, the school nurse, and Priscilla Spencer, the school's gym teacher, introduced an inventive project designed to teach students about both geography and physical fitness. The students were told that the school's mascot--Popcorn the Panther--was going to take a walking trip across the United States in which he would travel a mile for every mile that each student walked or ran. For the rest of the year, students were required to walk or run at least half a mile during every recess period and were encouraged to walk more. Prizes were given to the class and grade that contributed the most miles to Popcorn's journey. Throughout the year, teachers would have friends and family members who lived around the country send postcards ``from Popcorn'' so that students could see the fruits of their efforts and learn about various regions of the country. This successful program concluded with a large welcome home ceremony at the end of the school year, with several students joining Popcorn, played ably by an older student, for his final walk back to school. At a time when much of our focus is understandably on improving schools that are not living up to standards, it is important to take time out to recognize those schools that have consistently provided a quality education to their students and that are constantly striving to find new ways to inspire students to reach new heights. For 50 years, Pleasant Valley School of South Windsor, CT, has been one of these schools; providing students with the ideal setting in which to develop their abilities, meet friends, and cultivate new interests. It truly is a place to learn, to grow, and to care. I congratulate all of Pleasant Valley's students, alumni, faculty, parents, and volunteers on a remarkable 50 years and look forward to seeing how they tackle the challenges of the future. Their dedication is truly an inspiration and should serve as an example to us all.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish today to honor the ``Techno Ticks,'' the FIRST Robotics team from Lyme-Old Lyme High School in Old Lyme, CT, which won the Chairman's Award at the 2009 International FIRST Robotics Championship. The Chairman's Award is the most prestigious honor given out at the FIRST competition, which this year included 348 teams from most states in the United States as well as Brazil, Israel, Canada, and Mexico. It is awarded to the team that best represents a model for other teams to emulate, and which embodies the goals and purposes of FIRST. FIRST--For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology--was established in 1989 to inspire young people's interest and participation in science and technology through a variety of mentor- based programs that help young people develop skills in science, technology, and engineering. Every year, the FIRST Robotics Competition challenges teams of high school students to design and build robots from a kit of hundreds of parts. The teams then control their robots in a game against other teams. The goal of this program is not just to teach students about robotics, but help them to develop general problem solving abilities as well as self-confidence, communication skills, and leadership. Before participating in the International Competition, the Techno Ticks won the Chairman's Award at the Connecticut FIRST Robotics Competition for the 7th year in a row--a record amongst the more than 1700 FIRST teams now in operation worldwide. This remarkable record of success is a testament to the hard work and dedication of head coach William Derry and all the students and faculty who have been a part of the Techno Ticks over the last 11 years. The team has also benefitted from the efforts of many volunteers and supporters, including mentors from local businesses that generously share there time and expertise with the team. At a time when our Nation's ability to sustain a growing economy and create good jobs at home increasingly depends upon our achievements in science and technology, the FIRST competition has helped to instill in many young people a thirst for discovery that leads so many to pursue a career in the physical sciences. It is hardly surprising that so many former Techno Ticks have gone on to study engineering. Two years ago, I was fortunate enough to attend the Connecticut regional competition in Hartford, and I couldn't help but be amazed by the creativity and dedication the Ticks and all the other teams put into building their robots. I offer my congratulations to Coach Derry and the Lyme-Old Lyme Techno Ticks for winning the Chairman's Award at the 2009 International FIRST Robotics Championship and commend all the faculty members, volunteers, mentors, and supporters who were instrumental in their victory.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I call up amendment No. 904.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am honored to be joined in introducing this amendment by my colleagues, Senators Cornyn, Thune, and the distinguished occupant of the chair, Senator Begich. This amendment would ease the strain on the U.S. Army which today is carrying the bulk of the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan for us by establishing a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase Army Active-Duty end strength by 30,000 personnel. Although we have depleted the so-called Grow the Force initiative and the Army is now at an end strength of 547,000, the so-called well time for our soldiers has not improved. They still have little more than 1 day at home for every day they spend in the theater. Our soldiers and their families----

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Our soldiers continue to serve under an unacceptable strain. I ask my colleagues to ease that strain by adopting this amendment.