Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish first to thank my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for the statement he has just made, which was characteristically straightforward, clear, principled, and passionate, about what is involved in the current crisis in Gaza and the opportunity this Congress has to not just stand with our ally, Israel--which is critically important at this moment--but to take yet another stand against terrorism for the rule of law, for democracy, and for the peaceful settlement of disputes. I could not agree more with everything Senator Kyl has said. I wish to add just a few words in this regard. As Senator Kyl has indicated, the United Nations Security Council was to convene shortly after 5 this afternoon, about an hour ago. I presume it has convened to hear speakers and consider resolutions on what is happening in Gaza today. Secretary of State Rice has gone there to speak on behalf of the United States, which indicates the importance of these deliberations. She will carry with her the policy of our Government since the outbreak of conflict in Gaza that I think has been strong and principled and consistent with the best of American values and, of course, consistent with our national security interest in the global war on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 because what is happening in Gaza is yet another battle front in the larger war against Islamist extremism and terrorism. It is, in another sense, also another battle front in the conflict going on within the Muslim world between the extremists and fanatics and terrorists and the majority of people who are more moderate, more law-abiding, obviously not violent and want to live a safe and a better life. The Government of the United States has been very clear in articulating a policy which I presume and have confidence will be expressed in these Security Council deliberations tonight and the days to follow. No one wants to see violence occur. Yet, as Senator Kyl has said so eloquently, when a country such as Israel has been attacked literally thousands of times with rockets fired from Gaza at innocent civilians over a period of years, a cease-fire is negotiated and it goes on for approximately 6 months--negotiated with great help from Egypt--and then Hamas breaks the cease-fire and begins firing rockets again, the Government of Israel, our democratic ally, essentially said: Enough is enough; we are not going to tolerate this anymore, coming as it is from Hamas which is an openly avowed terrorist group with the aim of destroying the State of Israel. In response to the violence, there is a natural reflex reaction heard often in world councils, and undoubtedly will be heard at the United Nations Security Council at this hour and the hours to follow, that there ought to be a cease-fire. I think we all have to ask ourselves: What is the end of a cease-fire? Of course, we don't like to see violence occurring, but let's remember this is being done by Israel in the exercise of the right of self-defense. The Government of the United States--being President Bush and everyone else who has spoken--has made very clear that, yes, the United States wants a cease-fire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas regarding Gaza but not just a cease-fire for the sake of a cease-fire that one side may follow and the other may not and that simply leads nowhere but back to the conflict that has been occurring. The U.S. Government has been very clear and principled about the fact that the cease-fire our Government seeks is one that is durable and sustainable; in other words, that represents a real resolution of some of the issues in conflict and that also deals with the smuggling into Gaza of additional weapons which are being used to attack innocent civilians in Israel. I know Secretary Rice will be expressing exactly this position. Yes, America wants a cease-fire but, no, not one that leads nowhere. We want a cease-fire that is durable and sustainable and will include a ban on smuggling, activities to carry out a ban on smuggling of weapons by Hamas in Gaza. I am very pleased, very encouraged that as the initial action of this Senate this year, the majority leader, Senator Reid, and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, are working together in a bipartisan way-- totally bipartisan way--to bring before this body, hopefully in the next day or two, a resolution that does exactly what Senator Kyl has said: to express our unwavering commitment to the security, well-being, and survival of the State of Israel and recognizing its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against terrorism, that will reiterate again that Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hopefully do what the Palestinian Authority has done, which is to accept the right of Israel to exist and renounce terrorism and to begin to work toward a two-state peaceful solution. This resolution really will, in essence, I think, say, as Senator Kyl has said, in this hour of crisis to the people of Israel, our allies, that we will stand with you, and also say to the peace-loving Palestinian people that we stand with you, too, and we continue to support a two-state solution--Israel and a Palestinian state--living in peace one against the other, but the Government of the United States-- the Secretary of State, the President, but the Secretary of State who is at the United Nations is not speaking simply for the executive branch of Government but that the Senate, and we have reason to believe our colleagues in the other body, the House, will have an opportunity to say to not just the Israelis we stand with you, but to say to the world community that we as the representatives of the people of America, across party lines, stand together with Secretary Rice as she expresses the position of our Government: Yes, a cease-fire, but only one that is sustainable and durable and deals with the smuggling of additional weapons into Gaza. This will be critically important. I thank our leaders on both sides. I thank Senator Kyl for the work he has done. Again, it has been a privilege to work with him. I also say in a larger context that there is a lot of speculation about why Hamas broke the cease-fire and initiated the rocket fire against Israel deeper into Israel than they have ever done before. I do think, as Senator Kyl suggested, that the answer to that question probably comes as much or more from Tehran than it does from Gaza City and Hamas; that Hamas has become an agent of the Iranian Government. It is trained and supplied by the Iranians and secondarily by the Syrians. Therefore, there is a larger conflict being played out. Iran is noted by our State Department to be the most significant state sponsor of terrorism. The leaders of Iran regularly not only call for the extermination of the State of Israel, but also lead tens of thousands in Tehran and elsewhere in Iran in chants of ``death to America, death to America.'' We have long since learned from the lessons of history that you cannot simply ignore statements that seem so extreme and fanatical that they are unbelievable because very often the people making them do believe them, and given the chance, as we have seen from Osama bin Laden in recent times, who told us throughout the nineties exactly what he intended to do--he happened to have done it on 9/11, but he did it earlier in other places--we have to take these threats seriously. I want to say that a precipitous cease-fire simply for the sake of a cease-fire will allow Hamas to claim a victory. A victory for Hamas is not simply a victory for Hamas; it is a victory for Iran. And a defeat for Hamas, which is in reach if we allow the Israeli action to continue, is a defeat for Iran and a victory for the United States and for the forces of democracy as against terrorism and for the forces of moderation and the rule of law in the Islamic world as against fanaticism and violence. This is all that is being played out. This is why I am so encouraged this resolution is coming forward. It is, yes, a statement of support for our ally Israel, but it is also a statement of policy for the Members of the Senate, across party lines, and I hope with an overwhelmingly positive vote that says the security of the United States is on the line in how this conflict ends. We cannot let it end in a way that strengthens Hamas and Iran. I repeat, there has been a lot of speculation: Did Hamas break the cease-fire because of the end of the Bush administration? There has been some interesting speculation that has said the best thing that could happen for the incoming Obama administration is that Hamas be defeated here because then whatever happens between the new administration and Iran, Iran will not approach that next chapter with a sense of triumphant, but the country would have seen one of its major clients and agents of terrorism defeated. We have the opportunity to speak to all that on this resolution in the days ahead. Most immediately, I hope we will speak to the Members of the Security Council and in the most direct way say: We stand with President Bush; we stand with Secretary Rice. This is not simply the position of a few people at the top of the executive branch of our Government. This position the American Government has taken with regard to the crisis in Gaza is the position embraced by an overwhelming majority of Members of both parties of both Houses. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity today, obviously early on this first day of this new session of Congress, together with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce bipartisan legislation which will finally grant citizens of our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia, voting representation, the proper representation to which they are entitled as citizens. That representative voting would be in the House of Representatives. This bill is entitled ``The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.'' It is identical to a bill which Senator Hatch and I introduced in the 110th Congress. It would, for the first time, give citizens of the District of Columbia full voting representation in the House while adding a fourth congressional seat for the State of Utah based on population statistics from the 2000 census in which they came very close. I think the people of Utah would in fact say they deserve an additional seat. This is the fifth session in which I have introduced legislation to try to correct what I believe is a fundamental wrong--which is to deny the citizens of our Nation's Capital voting representation in Congress. I hope and believe and pray this is the session in which we are going to get this done. Last year, this bill passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 271 to 177, but it fell three votes short of gaining cloture in the Senate, though the vote in favor was 57 to 42. With a new Congress and a new President who was in fact a cosponsor of this bill himself in the last session of Congress, I am hopeful we can pass this legislation, vital to the rights of nearly 600,000 Americans living in the District of Columbia. Keep in mind the population of the District, though small compared to many States, is roughly equal to the State populations of Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming, all of which have, of course, not only representation--that is, voting in the House--but two Senators here. This deals only and exclusively with voting representation in the House. I want to particularly thank my dear friend and colleague, Senator Orin Hatch, for his continued, principled, steadfast support of this bill. He set aside partisanship to join me and others in trying to right this historic wrong. I greatly admire his commitment to this cause. I am also proud to say Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd, Sanders, Kerry, Durbin, and Feingold are today joining as original cosponsors of this legislation. Of course, I pay special honor and thanks to the DC Delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been a tireless champion of full representation for the citizens of the District; of course, a tireless champion for the citizens of the District generally. Delegate Norton is introducing a similar bill in the House today. I do this with a certain special personal pride because Delegate Norton and I were at law school at Yale at the same time just a few years ago. It probably would seem, to the casual observer, hard to believe that we deny the residents of our Nation's Capital of the right to have a voting representative in the House of Representatives. In fact, public opinion polls have been taken over the years that ask people: Do you think the residents of the District of Columbia have voting representation in the House? Overwhelming, the American public says: Of course they do, because they cannot believe there would be a reason to deny them the representation. In recent years, those who have opposed this legislation which would correct a historic injustice have argued that congressional representation is granted only to the States under the Constitution, and therefore our legislation is unconstitutional. With all respect, I believe that simply is not true. The Constitution provides Congress with the authority to bestow voting rights on the District. Multiple constitutional experts, spanning the full ideological spectrum of left to right, including Ken Starr, former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and former Solicitor General, and Viet Dinh, former Assistant Attorney General, and many others have told Congress and the public that this authority, which is, the authority to grant representation in Congress, lies within the District Clause of the Constitution, which is article I, section 8, where it states: Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District. Congress has repeatedly used this authority to treat the District of Columbia as a State for various public purposes. For example, as long ago as 1940, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was revised to broaden diversity jurisdiction to include citizens of the District, even though the Constitution specifically provides that national courts may hear cases ``between citizens of different States.'' In other words, in that act, Congress said no, for purposes of diversity of jurisdiction access to the courts, even though the Constitution says that courts may hear cases between citizens of different States. It would be incomprehensible that citizens of the District of Columbia, because they happen to live in the Nation's Capital, could not gain access to the Federal courts. When challenged, this revision to the Judiciary Act was upheld as constitutional by the Federal courts themselves. Furthermore, the courts have found that Congress has the authority to impose national taxes on the District, to provide a jury trial to residents of the District, and to include the District in interstate commerce regulations. These are rights and responsibilities that our Constitution grants to States. Yet the District Clause has allowed Congress to apply those rights and responsibilities to the District of Columbia because not to do so would make residents of the District, or the District itself, second class in their citizenship. Treating the District as a State for purposes of voting representation in Congress should be no different. The elections of 2008 saw a historic number of citizens carrying out their civic duty by voting for their representatives in Congress. Unfortunately, for over 200 years, DC residents have been denied that most basic right. According to a 2005 KRC Research poll, 82 percent of Americans, when told that residents of the District do not have a voting representative in Congress, say it is time to give that voting representation to the citizens of our Nation's Capital. This has very practical and just consequences. People of the District have been the target directly of terrorist attacks, but they have no vote on how the Federal Government provides for their homeland security. Men and women citizens of the District have fought bravely in our wars, in defense of our security and our freedom over the years, many giving their lives in defense of our country. Yet citizens of the District have no voting representation in Congress on the serious questions of war and peace, veterans' benefits, and the like. Of course, the citizens of the District of Columbia, per capita, pay Federal income taxes at the second highest rate in the Nation. Yet they have absolutely no voice, no voting representation, in setting tax rates or in determining how the revenues raised by those taxes will be spent. This is plain wrong. The Supreme Court has said ``that no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a vote in the election of those who make the laws, under which, as good citizens, we must live.'' We can no longer deny our fellow American citizens who happen to live in the District of Columbia this precious right. With the United States engaged now in two wars, a global war also against terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001, with our country facing the most significant economic crisis since the Great Depression, it is past time to grant the vote to those citizens living in our Nation's Capital so their vote can be rightfully heard as we debate these great and complex issues of our time. This matter has fallen, according to our rules, under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which I am privileged to chair. I hope we will be able to take it up quickly. It is my intention to consider this legislation at the first markup of our committee in the session, and then to bring it to the floor as quickly as possible with a high sense of optimism that on this occasion, if there is another filibuster that we will have, with the help of the new Members of the Senate, more than 60 votes necessary to close it off, and at least have a vote on this question of fundamental rights for 600,000 of our fellow Americans. I want to submit not only an original copy of the bill to the clerk, but also for the Record a statement from Senator Hatch, which I ask unanimous consent to appear as if read.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, much that has been true and honest has been said by our colleagues this morning to support and pay tribute to the unique, the great and historic service of Senator Ted Stevens to Alaska and to our country. I will come back to that, but I wish to take a moment to speak about Ted Stevens as a friend and a neighbor. It happened that when I first came to the Senate 20 years ago, our wives, Catherine and Hadassah, became friends. As usual, they led us in the right direction--which is toward each other. In fact, it was Catherine and Ted's counsel and urging to Hadassah and me that led us, after 6 years living somewhere else, to the neighborhood we live in now, which is where they used to live. In the last several years, they have come back to that neighborhood. Maybe, beyond the news that comes out of the Senate in Washington and the politics that dominates the news, a lot of people back home and around the country do not realize we are actually just normal people-- we live in neighborhoods here, we have friends, and we get to know our friends. I speak of Ted in that regard. Once years ago somebody said: What can you tell me about Ted Stevens? I can tell you a lot and others can about what he is like as a Senator. I will tell you this, that Hadassah and I talked the other day and we said: Who would we call, of our colleagues in the Senate, if something happened in the family? Now I think about it, it was said at 3 a.m. in the morning. That was before the commercials in the last campaign. But this was not about a national emergency, this was about something that happened in the family and you needed somebody's help to come over and watch the kids or something such as that. We said we would call Ted and Catherine Stevens. I never had to make that call, but I have no doubt they would have responded. I have gotten to know Ted Stevens very well. This is a good and honorable man. He is a wise man, reads a lot. And in recent years we have exchanged books, usually adventure novels, with one another. He has a tremendous sense of history, and more than some might appreciate, he has a great sense of humor as well. So I salute him as a good and honorable man, a man of faith who has served our country with great effect. I want to take a moment before I close to talk about the extraordinary service and supportive leadership Ted Stevens has given to the Armed Forces of the United States and, therefore, to the security of every American, the freedom of every American, and I would say the security and freedom of people in countries all over the world who have benefited from the courage of our military, the skill of our military, and even more directly because of the support Ted Stevens and Dan Inouye have given to our allies militarily around the world. The distinguished Republican leader said he could not think of any Senator who had done more for his State in the history of the Senate than Ted Stevens has done for Alaska. I would say something else at this moment. Remember, we have constitutional responsibilities that we swear to uphold when we take the oath of office as Senators. One of the great ones, perhaps the first one, which precedes all others, is to provide for the common defense. I honestly cannot think of two Senators who have done more to protect the security of the United States of America, and therefore our freedom, than Ted Stevens and Dan Inouye. You know, we talk a lot around here about partisanship. All of us agree that there has been too much of it, that it gets in the way of us getting things done. I have been privileged in the years I have been on the Homeland Security Committee to have had a wonderful relationship with Senator Collins, whether she has been chairman or I have been chairman. But this relationship between Ted Stevens and Dan Inouye is unique. Regardless of which one was in the majority and which was in the so-called minority, these two were cochairs. They shared staff, they helped each other, because the party affiliation ultimately did not matter. What did you say your oath was? To hell with politics, I have got to do what is good for Alaska. I am going to say, in so many ways, particularly working with Dan Inouye, you have said throughout this 40 years, particularly in the years you have worked together on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to hell with politics, we, Dan Inouye and I, are going to do what is good for America. I salute you for that. I thank you for that. I love the fact that you said in your remarks that you are confident God has more work for you to do. I share that confidence and that faith. I wish you and your wonderful family, your beloved wife Catherine and your children, all of God's blessings in the years ahead.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I wish today to express my deep gratitude and heartfelt best wishes to my administrative director, Lynn Baker, who will be retiring at the end of the month after 27 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Senate. Lynn is a perfect example of the countless people who serve the Senate as dedicated, nonpartisan employees. Whether it has been as a member of committee staff or in personal offices, the Senate could not function without professional staff such as Lynn Baker. Over the past 27 years, Lynn has worked with many staff and interns, all of whom have benefitted from her experience, wisdom, and guidance. When asked about Lynn, many current and former staffers will tell you that she is always willing to listen and offer advice. She takes great pride in encouraging junior staffers to develop their abilities and pursue their goals. One former staffer remembers that Lynn made her feel like part of the family when she opened her home to this staffer until appropriate housing could be found. It is no wonder that Lynn stays in touch with so many of those with whom she has worked throughout her tenure in the Senate. Lynn graduated with a degree in history from Lake Forest College in Illinois, including a semester abroad in Florence. She subsequently worked in a Washington law firm for 2 years before joining Senator Charles H. Percy of Illinois' staff on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. During a 7-year period on Senator Percy's staff, Lynn also served as office manager for his personal office before she became chief clerk of the Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Government Process. Following a 4-year absence from the Senate, Lynn returned in 1987 as executive assistant and scheduling director for Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota. When she became office manager for Senator Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon, Lynn worked closely with senior Disbursing Office staff to develop the first electronic financial management system and time and attendance system for personal Senate offices. Following Senator Hatfield's retirement, Lynn worked as office manager for Max Baucus of Montana before returning to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs as chief clerk in 1998. Lynn was financial clerk of the committee when I assumed the chairmanship in 2001, and then moved to my personal office as administrative director in 2003. As administrative director, Lynn has made a number of contributions that have helped my office better serve Connecticut. Always open to new ideas, Lynn implemented the acquisition and use of new technologies that enabled my staff to perform their duties more efficiently. She also took the initiative to update and rewrite my office policy manual, and played a leading role in integrating my office with a new software system that will revolutionize the way my staff communicates and works together. Lynn was instrumental in the redesign of my Senate office in 2005, which resulted in an attractive, comfortable, and functional work space. Lynn has formed many lasting friendships throughout the Senate community, where she is beloved and respected for her character, judgment, and professionalism. I know I speak for my staff and many in the Senate family when I say how difficult it will be for us to bid a fond farewell to Lynn. Her patience, warmth, and wise counsel will be greatly missed. However, we all wish Lynn good health and happiness always as she begins her well-deserved retirement. I know that she has much to look forward to with her loving husband, Steve Nousen, and their son, Daniel Baker. I extend to Lynn Baker my personal thanks and congratulations for 27 years of exemplary public service to the U.S. Senate.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, today I wish to honor Mr. John J. Leone, Jr. of Bristol, CT. A dedicated public servant who has served his community for over 40 years, John will retire from his position as president and CEO of the Greater Bristol Chamber of Commerce at the end of the year. John has been head of the Greater Bristol Chamber of Commerce, the third largest chamber in Connecticut, for 18 years. Under his leadership, the chamber grew immensely, going from 450 members to 1,820. John demonstrated a remarkable ability to bring people from all walks of life together behind a project. He played an integral role in securing State and Federal funding for the extension of route 72, which will help commuters in central Connecticut and provide a significant boost to merchants in downtown Bristol. John's tenure with the chamber was the capstone of a lifetime spent serving Bristol. He was the mayor from 1984-1991, where he was elected to four terms. Before being elected mayor, he was a cop for the Bristol Police Department. He has served as secretary of the Bristol Boys and Girls Club and as treasurer of the Metro Chambers of Commerce organization, which is composed of the seven largest chambers in Connecticut. He was also chairman of the Chambers Benefit Leadership Council, which pools together businesses from Connecticut and western Massachusetts for the purpose of purchasing health benefits. Given the deep commitment John has shown for Bristol, it is no surprise that he intends to remain in the Mum City. I couldn't be more thrilled that such a devoted civil leader will still be part of the community. I am sure he will find ways to remain involved. I extend to John Leone my sincerest thanks and heartfelt best wishes on a well deserved retirement. Connecticut is a better place because of him.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to say how pleased and, frankly, relieved I am that the negotiators have reached an agreement on the economic rescue plan for our country. I found, as people began to be terribly anxious, justifiably, around our country, about their life savings, about their businesses, about their jobs, I was getting two messages from the public. One was their fear that we would not act to rescue our economy and them, and then their second fear was about what we would do to rescue our economy and them. The negotiators have both come up with a plan that will rescue our economy, will protect our taxpayers. In it, I am proud to say, is a proposal somewhat similar to one that Senator Cantwell and I put forward for a 9/11-type commission to review the regulations of our financial institutions, to reform them so we learn from this crisis and, to the best of our ability, we make sure it never happens again. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, while the Senator from New Mexico is on the floor, I want to, one, thank him for his characteristically lucid and honorable put-the-national-interest first statement and also to say that I gather, this afternoon, colleagues will be coming to the floor to pay tribute to some who are not running again, as Senator Domenici is not running. I have to go to Connecticut to join my family for a celebration of Rosh Hashanah right after the vote, so I wish to take this moment to thank Senator Domenici for his extraordinary service and to say to him what an honor and a pleasure it has been. Sometimes it is an honor to work with some people but not a pleasure; sometimes it is a pleasure and not an honor. With you, it has been both. You just spoke to our responsibility to our country in this economic crisis, and you spoke from your inner characteristically American core of optimism, that we have the best financial system in the world and we have every reason to be optimistic, but we are really in a crisis. To me, that is the kind of service you have given our country. And you are a characteristic American story because your family does not go back to the Mayflower, as we used to say in my family, like yours. Your family came from Italy to this country, and they gave you a love for this country, a confidence that if you worked hard and used the abilities God gave you, there was no limit to how far you could go. Like so many others, you have served your country with extraordinary honor and effect across a wide range of subject areas. I think particularly of the great work you have done in trying to regularize and make orderly and efficient and responsible our budget process; from that kind of nuts-and-bolts dollars-and-cents to the passionate advocacy you have given for equal treatment in our insurance system for those who need assistance from our medical system for mental illness, to treat mental illness exactly as physical illness. So, Senator Domenici, it has been an honor to serve with you. If I may get a little ethnic, which you and I usually do, I would say, in leaving the Senate this year, you are following in the footsteps of another great Italian-American hero whom I grew up admiring in a different field of endeavor, Rocky Marciano. Remember, Rocky retired undefeated, and you are too.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. I offer thanks and best wishes to other colleagues who are leaving-- Senators Allard, Hagel, and Craig. I particularly wish to say a word about a colleague of the occupant of the chair, Senator Warner of Virginia. Senator Webb was kind enough to ask me to join him in a tribute to John Warner, and I wish to say a few words about him because our lives have intersected so much in service here. I begin by quoting another great Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, who, when he arrived in Paris as U.S. Minister to France--what we would now call an Ambassador--presented himself to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs asked Jefferson, because he was replacing Benjamin Franklin: Do you replace Monsieur Franklin? Jefferson replied: I succeed him. No one can replace him. I would say of another great Virginian, John Warner, that no one can replace John Warner. He is a Senator's Senator, a patriot, a true servant of our country and of his beloved State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, all of which will be forever grateful for his lifetime of service and dedication. Senator Warner began his service to our country at the age of 17. Let me say, generally, without revealing his exact age, that would be more than 60 years ago. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy during World War II. In 1950, at the outbreak of the Korean war, he interrupted his studies of law to return to Active military duty. Similar to so many who served our country in that period--and I meet them all the time in Connecticut, particularly World War II veterans, the ones, for instance, whose families will call and say: My dad or my grandfather thinks he may have been entitled to a medal, but he never got it--they rushed back after the war to return to their families and to their work. We check the records. In almost every case, in fact, these veterans of World War II deserve medals. In almost every case, when we give them to them, as I have had the honor to do on many occasions, the veterans of World War II will say: I didn't want this for myself. I wanted it for my grandchildren. Then they almost always say: I am no hero, I am an ordinary American called to serve our country in a time of crisis. The truth is, these veterans and those who followed them in succeeding conflicts, including the distinguished occupant of the chair, may each think of themselves as ordinary Americans but, in fact, together they have protected America's security, saved our freedom. Those veterans of World War II defeated the threats of fascism and Naziism. Think about what the world would be like if our enemies in World War II had triumphed and think about the extraordinary period of progress and economic growth that followed after the successful conclusion of World War II. John Warner was part of that. His service continued. In 1969, he was appointed Under Secretary of the Navy. From 1972 to 1974, he served as Secretary of the Navy. Throughout the rest of his career, including his long, distinguished, and productive service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner has shown unwavering support for the men and women of the Armed Forces and, of course, in a larger sense, unwavering support for the security of America and the ideal of freedom which was the animating impulse and purpose that motivated Jefferson and all the other Founders to create America, a country created on an ideal, with a purpose, with a mission, with a destiny. John Warner has always understood that. The fact that he is a Virginian is part of that understanding. It has been my great honor to serve with John Warner in the Senate, particularlyon the Armed Services Committee, where over the years I have come to work with him. Senator Warner is a great gentleman, a word that can be used lightly but belongs with Senator Warner, a person of personal grace, of civility, of honor, of good humor, someone who in his service here has always looked for the common ground. As all of us know, when we make an agreement with John Warner, even on the most controversial circumstance, his word sticks. He keeps the agreement, no matter how difficult the political crosscurrent may be. He has had an extraordinary record of productive service to America and to Virginia. One of the things I cherish is that in 1991, after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, I was asked to join with Senator Warner in January of 1991 to cosponsor the resolution which authorized the Commander in Chief to take military action to push Saddam Hussein and Iraqi forces out of Kuwait which they, of course, did successfully, heroically, and with great effect on the stability and future of the Middle East. It turned out that in 2003, when it came time again for the Senate to decide whether we were prepared to authorize yet another Commander in Chief to take military action to overthrow Saddam Hussein--and I don't need to talk about the causes for which we argued for that case-- Senator Warner asked me if I would join him again as a cosponsor. It was a great honor for me to do that, and it passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan vote. In a very special way, notwithstanding this kind of work and work we did together, for instance, to establish the Joint Forces Command, located in Norfolk, VA, to make real the promise of joint war fighting that was inherent to the Goldwater-Nichols legislation but was not quite realized, I worked with Senator Warner and Senator Coats, a former colleague from Indiana, to accomplish that. Fresh in my mind and expressive of the range of John Warner's interest and of his commitment to the greater public good was the fact that at the beginning of this session of Congress, he sought to become the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Climate Change of the Environment Committee, which I was privileged to about to be chair of. We talked about the problem. John didn't, as this challenge to mankind has taken shape, rush to the front of it. He was skeptical. He listened. He read. He concluded the planet is warming, that it represents a profound threat to the future of the American people, people all around the globe, and that it represents a threat to our national security, which has been the animating, driving impulse of his public service. We talked and decided to join together. I call it the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act; he calls it the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which is a measure of the relationship we have had and his graciousness. Without his cosponsorship, we would not have gotten it out of subcommittee, first time ever. We wouldn't have gotten it out of the Environment Committee, first time ever reported favorably on this important challenge to the Senate floor. We wouldn't have been able to achieve the support of 54 Members of the Senate, the first time a majority of Members of the Senate said we have to do something about global warming, including our colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Obama, which means the next President will be a proactive leader and partner with Congress in the effort to do something about climate change. It wouldn't have happened without the support of John Warner, a final extraordinary act of leadership by this great Senator. He has a lot of great years left in him. I hope we can find a way for him to continue to be part of the work all of us have to do: One, to keep our country secure--and there is no one with more expertise and a more profound commitment to that--and, two, to get America to assume its proper leadership role in the global effort to curb global warming. He is a dear friend, a great man. It has been a wonderful honor to serve with him. I pray he and his wife and all his family, beloved children and grandchildren, will be blessed by God with many more good years together.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional moment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am proud to note that Congress, Saturday, voted to pass and send to the President the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. This bipartisan bill reflects the broad congressional support for the outstanding work of our inspectors general and our desire to ensure that these important and unique Government officials are given the tools and the accountability to perform at their very best. I want to commend my colleagues, Senator McCaskill and Senator Collins, with whom I cosponsored this bill in the Senate, for their leadership and hard work on this issue. I also want to recognize the efforts of Congressman Cooper of Tennessee in the House, who has worked diligently on this legislation or some version of it through several Congresses. It has been 30 years since Congress, as part of its post-Watergate reforms, passed the Inspectors General Act of 1978 that created an Office of Inspector General in 12 major departments and agencies to hold those agencies accountable and report back both to the agency heads and Congress on their findings. The law was amended in 1988 to add an inspector general to almost all executive agencies and departments. The experiment has been a great success, hailed as a sort of consumer protector for the taxpayer deep within each agency. IG audits generate billions of dollars in potential savings each year. They also safeguard something even more valuable public trust in our Government by exposing shortcomings in Government practices and official conduct. Some of these efforts generate front page headlines, but most of it unfolds quietly but critically behind the scenes as the IGs help their respective agencies establish effective and efficient programs and practices that make the most of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. It is not an easy job to undertake and, over the years, we have become aware of several instances where the independence of inspectors general appears to be under siege. It is vital that Congress reiterate its strong support for the internal oversight IGs can provide and ensure they have the independence they need to carry out this vital, but often unpopular work. Unfortunately, we are also aware of instances in which the watchdog needs watching--that is, situations where the inspector general has behaved improperly or failed to provide vigorous oversight. This legislation attempts to address both problems. It includes an array of measures designed to strengthen the independence of the inspectors general, such as requiring the administration to notify Congress 30 days before attempting to remove or transfer an IG. This would give us time to consider whether the administration was improperly seeking to displace an inspector general for political reasons because the IG was, in effect, doing his or her job too well. It requires that all IGs be chosen on the basis of qualifications, without regard to political affiliation. The legislation would codify and strengthen the existing IG councils, creating a unitary council that can provide greater support for IGs throughout the Government. The bill would provide greater transparency of IG budget needs, including funds for training and council activities, to help ensure the IG offices have the resources they need for their investigations. The legislation also adjusts IG pay. It prohibits bonuses for IGs to remove a potential avenue for improper influence by the agency head. To compensate for this ban and to reflect the importance of the work they do, most IGs would receive an increase in their regular pay. Currently, some IGs earn less than other senior officials in their agency and sometimes even less than some of their subordinates. Our bill also enhances IG accountability by strengthening the Integrity Committee that handles allegations against inspectors general and their senior staff, and facilitating greater oversight of the Integrity Committee by Congress. Both the House and Senate versions of this bill received overwhelming bipartisan support, and since Senate passage last spring we have worked with the House to craft the consensus language that has now won congressional approval. We have also worked with the administration to address many of their initial concerns, and it is my great hope that the President will promptly sign this bill into law.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security--the first comprehensive DHS authorization bill introduced in the Senate in the 5-year history of this agency created in response to the attacks of 9/11. This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, ranking member Senator Susan Collins, who has long been one of the Senate's great leaders in our efforts to make our nation more secure. I understand there is not time in this session for full consideration and passage of this legislation but we offer it as a blueprint for the next administration and the 111th Congress outlining key areas of improvement we think can make DHS more efficient and effective in its mission to safeguard our homeland. Before I offer more detail on this bill, I would like to briefly review the history of the Department that has brought us to where we are today. The attacks of 9/11 made it clear that oceans are no longer a defense against those who mean to harm our Nation. After a series of hearings, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee proposed legislation pulling more than 22 different agencies responsible for different areas of homeland defense into one Department whose overarching mission was the protection of the American people. Success was not guaranteed. The administration and many in Congress at first opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. But we persevered in our mission and President Bush signed legislation creating the Department in January 2003. We all knew at the time that creating a new Department with a single identity out of 22 different agencies would be difficult. Each agency came into the Department with its own culture--not to mention its own procurement, personnel and computer systems. In some cases, they came after having been neglected in other Departments where homeland security had been an afterthought. There was, and remains, much work to be done. But over the past 5 years, the men and women who work at the Department, under the leadership first of Secretary Tom Ridge and now of Michael Chertoff, have worked hard, often under difficult circumstances, to systematically improve the Nation's security. Our committee has also written and helped pass several pieces of important legislation to strengthen and guide DHS as it evolved into a more mature agency. I would like to briefly mention some of them because I am proud of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's work under former Chairman Susan Collins and during my own tenure as chairman, because we truly worked as partners across party lines. In the 108th Congress, our committee led the effort to enact the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States--otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission--a Commission which, had been created through the Committee's work in the previous Congress. The resulting Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 implemented most of the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including a number directed at the work of the new Department. In the 109th Congress, in the wake of the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, our committee conducted a far-reaching investigation into the actions at all levels of government that contributed to the disastrous response to the hurricane. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held 22 hearings, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, and issued a comprehensive, 700-page report on what went wrong. The committee's findings on shortcomings at FEMA and DHS led us to draft the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which strengthened and elevated FEMA within the Department, brought together into a single agency those charged with preparing for disasters with those responsible for responding to them; required planning for catastrophic events; and helped ensure that the resources of the whole Department would be available in a catastrophe. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act was signed into law in October 2006, and the results of that Act can be seen in the much improved--though admittedly still imperfect--Federal response to the series of recent tornadoes in the Midwest and devastating hurricanes that have hit the Gulf Coast. In the 109th Congress, our Committee helped draft and pass the SAFE Ports Act, to strengthen the Department's port security efforts, and we passed legislation to provide DHS authority to better secure dangerous chemical facilities. In this Congress, after many hearings and much hard work, legislation implementing the final recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was signed into law. This legislation addressed a diverse array of issues at DHS, from homeland security grants to information sharing to interoperable communications to transportation security. So while we offer this authorization bill as DHS readies for its sixth year as a department--and its first Presidential transition--this committee has been working hard all along to give DHS both the support it needed and the oversight--sometimes harsh--to steadily improve its capacity to carry out its critical mission. With this authorization act we continue that important work and I would like to touch on key portions of the bill. This bill can be summarized under three major themes: integration, accountability, and effectiveness. As I have already noted, we knew when we passed the Homeland Security Act that the process of creating a new, unified Department out of many diverse component agencies would be both challenging and time consuming--and the process is not yet complete. Therefore, a number of provisions of this bill would improve the integration of the Department. These provisions are collectively intended to help the Department to perform its missions at a level that is greater than the sum of its parts. First, the bill would create an Under Secretary for Policy, to ensure that there is policy coordination across the Department. The bill would also require the Secretary to develop and maintain the capability to coordinate operations and strategically plan across all of the component organizations of the Department. To this end, it permits the establishment of an Office of Operations Coordination and Planning within the Department, making it easier for the staffs of agencies such as the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, CBP, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and FEMA to work together on key operational activities, such as planning for the upcoming DHS transition. The bill would enhance the statutory authorities of the Chief Information Officer, allowing for greater control over IT investments in the Department. It also gives the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs of DHS new authority to coordinate the international activities of the Department. The bill would establish the Office of the Chief Learning Officer, who would coordinate training and workforce development activities on a Department-wide basis. Finally, the bill would require the establishment of a consolidated headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security, which is long overdue. Currently, the Department is spread throughout 70 buildings and 40 sites across the National Capital Region making communication, coordination, and cooperation among DHS components a significant challenge. The deplorable condition of the present headquarters complex also makes it harder for DHS to recruit and retain talented professionals--directly affecting homeland security--and I will continue to push Congress and the administration to get the funding necessary for the headquarters consolidation to proceed. The second major theme of the bill is accountability. The bill contains a number of provisions intended to enhance oversight and ensure that the Department is held accountable for the decisions that it makes. The bill requires that DHS have certified program managers for all major acquisition programs, and directs the Department to report to Congress on its use of various contracting authorities and on task orders within two of its major acquisition vehicles. The bill creates a statutory requirement for a formal investment review process within the Department, and for investments where there are significant technological challenges, requires a formal testing and evaluation process prior to investment. These provisions will help to ensure that the Department does not again move forward with costly acquisitions without first proving that the underlying technology will work. The bill also requires reports to Congress on a number of other activities, including the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative and the Department's efforts to improve minority representation among its employees. The third major theme of the bill is effectiveness. There are a number of homeland security mission areas where the Federal government needs new or expanded authorities to effectively address threats that face us. For example, the bill addresses growing concerns about the cybersecurity threat by establishing a robust National Cyber Security Center with the mission of coordinating and enhancing Federal efforts to protect government networks, and by enhancing the statutory authorities of the National Cyber Security Division. The bill would enhance our nation's border security by authorizing an increase in the number of CBP officers and ensuring that they receive sufficient and appropriate training. It also recognizes the essential work of the agriculture specialists at the border, who perform plant inspections and help protect against both devastating pests and potential bioterrorism events, authorizes an increase in the number of agriculture specialists and requires measures to improve their recruitment and retention. The bill addresses the threat of improvised explosive devices, IEDs, by including provisions that would authorize the DHS Office of Bombing Prevention, OBP, as well as authorize an increase in its budget to $25 million. OBP would lead bombing prevention activities within DHS, and would coordinate with other Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure that existing gaps in Federal bombing prevention efforts are filled. Building upon changes already being implemented in the Post Katrina Act, the bill also seeks to continue improvement in the Nation's preparedness. It would require that DHS work with other Federal agencies to develop plans for responding to potential catastrophic scenarios, and would authorize a pilot program to assign National Guard planners to State emergency planning offices, to foster better State- Federal planning coordination. In addition, it would authorize the Metropolitan Medical Rescue System to assist States and localities prepare for mass casualty events. It would reauthorize the Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Program, which provides grants to States for mitigation measures designed to reduce losses in disasters. Collectively the measures in this bill will improve the ability of the Department to carry out its missions and become a more mature and effective entity. I believe that the reforms and enhancements contained in this legislation, along with continued, vigorous oversight, will make DHS a stronger agency in the years to come. And reform, not thoughtless reorganization, is the course future Ccngresses should follow when it comes to DHS. Five years into its mission, and ignoring some noticeable improvements in its performance, there are still those who believe DHS should be chopped up and its parts shipped off to other agencies. I believe that is exactly the wrong course to take. It makes no sense to disrupt the development of the Department, and weaken the hand of the next Secretary, at a time when the challenges she or he must face, from preventing nuclear terrorism, to securing our borders, to ensuring more effective responses to catastropies of all kinds remain daunting. It took decades for the Department of Defense to become a coherent whole, and its work is still not complete. Just as DHS and its component arts are beginning to gel into an effective organization ready to deal with disasters visited upon our nation by nature or terrorists, it makes no sense to plunge responsibility for our homeland back into the chaos that existed before 9/11. This is a course I have fought and will fight in the years to come. In their report to the nation, the 9/11 Commissioners wrote: ``The men and women of the World War II generation rose to the challenges of the 1940s and the 1950s. They restructured the government so it could protect the country. That is now the job of the generation that experienced 9/11.'' The Department of Homeland Security was part of that response to the new dangers we face and must remain so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security--the first comprehensive DHS authorization bill introduced in the Senate in the 5-year history of this agency created in response to the attacks of 9/11. This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, ranking member Senator Susan Collins, who has long been one of the Senate's great leaders in our efforts to make our nation more secure. I understand there is not time in this session for full consideration and passage of this legislation but we offer it as a blueprint for the next administration and the 111th Congress outlining key areas of improvement we think can make DHS more efficient and effective in its mission to safeguard our homeland. Before I offer more detail on this bill, I would like to briefly review the history of the Department that has brought us to where we are today. The attacks of 9/11 made it clear that oceans are no longer a defense against those who mean to harm our Nation. After a series of hearings, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee proposed legislation pulling more than 22 different agencies responsible for different areas of homeland defense into one Department whose overarching mission was the protection of the American people. Success was not guaranteed. The administration and many in Congress at first opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. But we persevered in our mission and President Bush signed legislation creating the Department in January 2003. We all knew at the time that creating a new Department with a single identity out of 22 different agencies would be difficult. Each agency came into the Department with its own culture--not to mention its own procurement, personnel and computer systems. In some cases, they came after having been neglected in other Departments where homeland security had been an afterthought. There was, and remains, much work to be done. But over the past 5 years, the men and women who work at the Department, under the leadership first of Secretary Tom Ridge and now of Michael Chertoff, have worked hard, often under difficult circumstances, to systematically improve the Nation's security. Our committee has also written and helped pass several pieces of important legislation to strengthen and guide DHS as it evolved into a more mature agency. I would like to briefly mention some of them because I am proud of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's work under former Chairman Susan Collins and during my own tenure as chairman, because we truly worked as partners across party lines. In the 108th Congress, our committee led the effort to enact the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States--otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission--a Commission which, had been created through the Committee's work in the previous Congress. The resulting Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 implemented most of the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including a number directed at the work of the new Department. In the 109th Congress, in the wake of the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, our committee conducted a far-reaching investigation into the actions at all levels of government that contributed to the disastrous response to the hurricane. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held 22 hearings, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, and issued a comprehensive, 700-page report on what went wrong. The committee's findings on shortcomings at FEMA and DHS led us to draft the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which strengthened and elevated FEMA within the Department, brought together into a single agency those charged with preparing for disasters with those responsible for responding to them; required planning for catastrophic events; and helped ensure that the resources of the whole Department would be available in a catastrophe. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act was signed into law in October 2006, and the results of that Act can be seen in the much improved--though admittedly still imperfect--Federal response to the series of recent tornadoes in the Midwest and devastating hurricanes that have hit the Gulf Coast. In the 109th Congress, our Committee helped draft and pass the SAFE Ports Act, to strengthen the Department's port security efforts, and we passed legislation to provide DHS authority to better secure dangerous chemical facilities. In this Congress, after many hearings and much hard work, legislation implementing the final recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was signed into law. This legislation addressed a diverse array of issues at DHS, from homeland security grants to information sharing to interoperable communications to transportation security. So while we offer this authorization bill as DHS readies for its sixth year as a department--and its first Presidential transition--this committee has been working hard all along to give DHS both the support it needed and the oversight--sometimes harsh--to steadily improve its capacity to carry out its critical mission. With this authorization act we continue that important work and I would like to touch on key portions of the bill. This bill can be summarized under three major themes: integration, accountability, and effectiveness. As I have already noted, we knew when we passed the Homeland Security Act that the process of creating a new, unified Department out of many diverse component agencies would be both challenging and time consuming--and the process is not yet complete. Therefore, a number of provisions of this bill would improve the integration of the Department. These provisions are collectively intended to help the Department to perform its missions at a level that is greater than the sum of its parts. First, the bill would create an Under Secretary for Policy, to ensure that there is policy coordination across the Department. The bill would also require the Secretary to develop and maintain the capability to coordinate operations and strategically plan across all of the component organizations of the Department. To this end, it permits the establishment of an Office of Operations Coordination and Planning within the Department, making it easier for the staffs of agencies such as the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, CBP, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and FEMA to work together on key operational activities, such as planning for the upcoming DHS transition. The bill would enhance the statutory authorities of the Chief Information Officer, allowing for greater control over IT investments in the Department. It also gives the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs of DHS new authority to coordinate the international activities of the Department. The bill would establish the Office of the Chief Learning Officer, who would coordinate training and workforce development activities on a Department-wide basis. Finally, the bill would require the establishment of a consolidated headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security, which is long overdue. Currently, the Department is spread throughout 70 buildings and 40 sites across the National Capital Region making communication, coordination, and cooperation among DHS components a significant challenge. The deplorable condition of the present headquarters complex also makes it harder for DHS to recruit and retain talented professionals--directly affecting homeland security--and I will continue to push Congress and the administration to get the funding necessary for the headquarters consolidation to proceed. The second major theme of the bill is accountability. The bill contains a number of provisions intended to enhance oversight and ensure that the Department is held accountable for the decisions that it makes. The bill requires that DHS have certified program managers for all major acquisition programs, and directs the Department to report to Congress on its use of various contracting authorities and on task orders within two of its major acquisition vehicles. The bill creates a statutory requirement for a formal investment review process within the Department, and for investments where there are significant technological challenges, requires a formal testing and evaluation process prior to investment. These provisions will help to ensure that the Department does not again move forward with costly acquisitions without first proving that the underlying technology will work. The bill also requires reports to Congress on a number of other activities, including the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative and the Department's efforts to improve minority representation among its employees. The third major theme of the bill is effectiveness. There are a number of homeland security mission areas where the Federal government needs new or expanded authorities to effectively address threats that face us. For example, the bill addresses growing concerns about the cybersecurity threat by establishing a robust National Cyber Security Center with the mission of coordinating and enhancing Federal efforts to protect government networks, and by enhancing the statutory authorities of the National Cyber Security Division. The bill would enhance our nation's border security by authorizing an increase in the number of CBP officers and ensuring that they receive sufficient and appropriate training. It also recognizes the essential work of the agriculture specialists at the border, who perform plant inspections and help protect against both devastating pests and potential bioterrorism events, authorizes an increase in the number of agriculture specialists and requires measures to improve their recruitment and retention. The bill addresses the threat of improvised explosive devices, IEDs, by including provisions that would authorize the DHS Office of Bombing Prevention, OBP, as well as authorize an increase in its budget to $25 million. OBP would lead bombing prevention activities within DHS, and would coordinate with other Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure that existing gaps in Federal bombing prevention efforts are filled. Building upon changes already being implemented in the Post Katrina Act, the bill also seeks to continue improvement in the Nation's preparedness. It would require that DHS work with other Federal agencies to develop plans for responding to potential catastrophic scenarios, and would authorize a pilot program to assign National Guard planners to State emergency planning offices, to foster better State- Federal planning coordination. In addition, it would authorize the Metropolitan Medical Rescue System to assist States and localities prepare for mass casualty events. It would reauthorize the Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Program, which provides grants to States for mitigation measures designed to reduce losses in disasters. Collectively the measures in this bill will improve the ability of the Department to carry out its missions and become a more mature and effective entity. I believe that the reforms and enhancements contained in this legislation, along with continued, vigorous oversight, will make DHS a stronger agency in the years to come. And reform, not thoughtless reorganization, is the course future Ccngresses should follow when it comes to DHS. Five years into its mission, and ignoring some noticeable improvements in its performance, there are still those who believe DHS should be chopped up and its parts shipped off to other agencies. I believe that is exactly the wrong course to take. It makes no sense to disrupt the development of the Department, and weaken the hand of the next Secretary, at a time when the challenges she or he must face, from preventing nuclear terrorism, to securing our borders, to ensuring more effective responses to catastropies of all kinds remain daunting. It took decades for the Department of Defense to become a coherent whole, and its work is still not complete. Just as DHS and its component arts are beginning to gel into an effective organization ready to deal with disasters visited upon our nation by nature or terrorists, it makes no sense to plunge responsibility for our homeland back into the chaos that existed before 9/11. This is a course I have fought and will fight in the years to come. In their report to the nation, the 9/11 Commissioners wrote: ``The men and women of the World War II generation rose to the challenges of the 1940s and the 1950s. They restructured the government so it could protect the country. That is now the job of the generation that experienced 9/11.'' The Department of Homeland Security was part of that response to the new dangers we face and must remain so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Smith's small business health care bill, the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act of 2008. The health of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens is too often neglected because they lack the income to access our languishing health care system. This legislation marshals our resources in response to the health care challenge. First, it recognizes that employees, and their families, should not have to forgo health insurance merely because they work for a small business. Second, it provides small business owners the assistance they need to obtain health coverage for their workers. Consequently, this bill offers small business workers and their families, the security many of us take for granted, by providing them access to medical care through a free and independently-regulated market. The health care problem is nearly ubiquitous. Our fellow citizens who lack insurance increasingly find access to care insuperable. As they are denied care they increasingly stress the delivery system by seeking care from providers of last-resort, such as emergency rooms. Emergency room visits reached an all-time high in 2006. Americans visited the ER more than 119 million times that year, and the number of visits to our hospitals' emergency rooms grew 46 percent in the last 10 years. Researchers have examined the link between patient access and utilization of providers of last-resort. Health policy experts have definitively shown that patients who cannot promptly and consistently access quality medical care subsequently choose to forgo care and eventually seek treatment in emergency rooms. Medical care received in emergency rooms and hospitals as a result of neglected ailments nearly always cost more than the care forgone. In the end, patients suffer an increased rate of adverse medical outcomes; outcomes that could have been prevented and medical expenses that could have been avoided. More than half of the Nation's 47 million uninsured individuals are employed by, or have family members who are employed by, a business with fewer than 100 employees. Smaller businesses are substantially less likely to offer their employees health coverage than larger businesses. The smaller a business is, the less likely it offers health benefits. The lack of insurance--and thus access to care prior to safety-net providers--is particularly galling among low-income workers. Research indicates that small business owners want to offer their employees health benefits but do not, because either they cannot afford to or they know their employees lack the income to enroll. In a recent poll conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 47 percent of small businesses said they would be somewhat likely to offer health benefits if they were offered a tax credit and 30 percent said they were much more likely to offer health benefits. A bipartisan approach is the only viable solution in dealing with a problem of this size. I am pleased to introduce this bill along with Senator Smith. I am also pleased to see several other health care bills also brought forward with bipartisan support. In prior years, politics instead of policy limited the practical options for health care reform. As a result, the Congress did not address the problem in a significant way. We must look past the assignment of political victors and losers when we champion health care legislation. In the absence of reform, the real losers are our fellow citizens suffering from preventable diseases because they could not go to the doctor or did not receive care in time. They will not benefit from a merely political victory. However, while we have the means to provide succor but fail to act, they most certainly lose. Any effort to reform health care needs to be deliberate. Our Government was established to prevent rash policy-making. Perhaps with the opportunity design health insurance from scratch, we would not rely on employers to provide coverage as a benefit. Nevertheless, our burden is to transform the system we have in order to make it work for every American. We need to assist employers who are nearly, but not quite, capable of offering insurance coverage and reward employers who have already made investments in the health of their employees. The Affordable Coverage for Small Employees Act will help small businesses and their employees obtain and retain coverage. Moreover, it provides a framework for expanding coverage across the Nation. First, this bill offers tax credits to employers and employees of small businesses in order to abet their purchase of health insurance. Employers paying for a larger portion of their employee's coverage are rewarded with a larger credit. Employees who make a lower income receive more assistance. Without an incentive, it is highly likely that these individuals will not receive the comprehensive coverage they need and the security that comes with it. Financial incentives alone are not enough though. Small businesses face larger administrative costs then large businesses, and consumers in the individual market face higher premiums than consumers in group plans. This bill will create a working and competitive marketplace through regional health boards. These boards will allow for businesses and employees to shop for medical coverage from multiple insurers, and even across State lines. These boards will establish a health-coverage ``exchange'' whose main objectives will be to serve as a central purchasing site for health coverage, to provide information to purchasers and consumers about participating health plans, to facilitate and streamline enrollment, and to ensure health plan compliance with minimum operating and quality standards. Third, in order to protect consumers, an independent advisory board, the National Policy Board, in conjunction with the National Academies of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, will establish a standard benefit package in order that employees receive the coverage they need. An independent body provides the governance needed to regulate this complex marketplace while retaining insulation from the interested parties that would seek to benefit themselves at the expense of others. There already exists evidence that this approach will work. Several States are experimenting with various forms of tax credits to expand coverage. In Oklahoma and Arizona employees and employers are being helped through tax credits to secure insurance. The initial results of these programs have been encouraging. The Federal Government has been paralyzed for too long, debating which policy prescriptions will yield success at an affordable cost. These ``laboratories of democracy'' are leading the way and this legislation follows in their spirit. The road to substantial health care reform has been long but the path in front of us is lit brighter than the path behind us when we travelled it. Over the preceding years, our knowledge of what works, what is feasible, and what is improbable has grown immeasurably. With this knowledge and a kindred spirit, I am certain we can guarantee the best health care for every American.

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 and Voinovich. This legislation would establish the most comprehensive effort ever attempted to treat the causes of fish habitat decline. Healthy waterways and robust fish populations are vital to the well- being of our society. They provide clean water and sustainable fisheries. They also provide recreational value to those who fish wild waters or canoe tranquil streams. Unfortunately, today 40 percent of our fish populations are in decline and half of our waters are impaired. Unless we act in an informed and coordinated fashion, fish habitats will continue to be lost. Our Nation's current efforts to address threats to fish species are often highly fragmented and not comprehensive enough to reverse this downward trend. Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, Federal Government agencies, state and local governments, conservation groups, fishing industry groups, and businesses will work together collectively for the first time to conserve and protect aquatic habitats. This legislation leverages Federal, State and private funds to build regional partnerships aimed at addressing the nation's biggest fisheries problems. By directing critical new resources towards the nation's fish and aquatic communities through these partnerships, we can foster fish habitat conservation efforts and improve the quality of life for the American people. Using a bottom-up approach, the goal of this effort is to foster landscape scale, multi-state aquatic habitat improvements across the country that perpetuate not only fishery resources but the tradition of recreational fishing. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes $75 million annually to be directed toward fish habitat projects that are supported by regional Fish Habitat Partnerships. Based on the hugely successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, this legislation establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board charged with recommending projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships are responsible for implementing approved on-the-ground projects that are designed to protect, restore and enhance fish habitats and fish populations. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act lays the foundation for a new paradigm of how fish habitats should be protected and preserved. This bill will bring together all of the different groups that have a stake in the health and productivity of our nation's fish habitats and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

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 and Voinovich. This legislation would establish the most comprehensive effort ever attempted to treat the causes of fish habitat decline. Healthy waterways and robust fish populations are vital to the well- being of our society. They provide clean water and sustainable fisheries. They also provide recreational value to those who fish wild waters or canoe tranquil streams. Unfortunately, today 40 percent of our fish populations are in decline and half of our waters are impaired. Unless we act in an informed and coordinated fashion, fish habitats will continue to be lost. Our Nation's current efforts to address threats to fish species are often highly fragmented and not comprehensive enough to reverse this downward trend. Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, Federal Government agencies, state and local governments, conservation groups, fishing industry groups, and businesses will work together collectively for the first time to conserve and protect aquatic habitats. This legislation leverages Federal, State and private funds to build regional partnerships aimed at addressing the nation's biggest fisheries problems. By directing critical new resources towards the nation's fish and aquatic communities through these partnerships, we can foster fish habitat conservation efforts and improve the quality of life for the American people. Using a bottom-up approach, the goal of this effort is to foster landscape scale, multi-state aquatic habitat improvements across the country that perpetuate not only fishery resources but the tradition of recreational fishing. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes $75 million annually to be directed toward fish habitat projects that are supported by regional Fish Habitat Partnerships. Based on the hugely successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, this legislation establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board charged with recommending projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships are responsible for implementing approved on-the-ground projects that are designed to protect, restore and enhance fish habitats and fish populations. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act lays the foundation for a new paradigm of how fish habitats should be protected and preserved. This bill will bring together all of the different groups that have a stake in the health and productivity of our nation's fish habitats and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Smith's small business health care bill, the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act of 2008. The health of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens is too often neglected because they lack the income to access our languishing health care system. This legislation marshals our resources in response to the health care challenge. First, it recognizes that employees, and their families, should not have to forgo health insurance merely because they work for a small business. Second, it provides small business owners the assistance they need to obtain health coverage for their workers. Consequently, this bill offers small business workers and their families, the security many of us take for granted, by providing them access to medical care through a free and independently-regulated market. The health care problem is nearly ubiquitous. Our fellow citizens who lack insurance increasingly find access to care insuperable. As they are denied care they increasingly stress the delivery system by seeking care from providers of last-resort, such as emergency rooms. Emergency room visits reached an all-time high in 2006. Americans visited the ER more than 119 million times that year, and the number of visits to our hospitals' emergency rooms grew 46 percent in the last 10 years. Researchers have examined the link between patient access and utilization of providers of last-resort. Health policy experts have definitively shown that patients who cannot promptly and consistently access quality medical care subsequently choose to forgo care and eventually seek treatment in emergency rooms. Medical care received in emergency rooms and hospitals as a result of neglected ailments nearly always cost more than the care forgone. In the end, patients suffer an increased rate of adverse medical outcomes; outcomes that could have been prevented and medical expenses that could have been avoided. More than half of the Nation's 47 million uninsured individuals are employed by, or have family members who are employed by, a business with fewer than 100 employees. Smaller businesses are substantially less likely to offer their employees health coverage than larger businesses. The smaller a business is, the less likely it offers health benefits. The lack of insurance--and thus access to care prior to safety-net providers--is particularly galling among low-income workers. Research indicates that small business owners want to offer their employees health benefits but do not, because either they cannot afford to or they know their employees lack the income to enroll. In a recent poll conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 47 percent of small businesses said they would be somewhat likely to offer health benefits if they were offered a tax credit and 30 percent said they were much more likely to offer health benefits. A bipartisan approach is the only viable solution in dealing with a problem of this size. I am pleased to introduce this bill along with Senator Smith. I am also pleased to see several other health care bills also brought forward with bipartisan support. In prior years, politics instead of policy limited the practical options for health care reform. As a result, the Congress did not address the problem in a significant way. We must look past the assignment of political victors and losers when we champion health care legislation. In the absence of reform, the real losers are our fellow citizens suffering from preventable diseases because they could not go to the doctor or did not receive care in time. They will not benefit from a merely political victory. However, while we have the means to provide succor but fail to act, they most certainly lose. Any effort to reform health care needs to be deliberate. Our Government was established to prevent rash policy-making. Perhaps with the opportunity design health insurance from scratch, we would not rely on employers to provide coverage as a benefit. Nevertheless, our burden is to transform the system we have in order to make it work for every American. We need to assist employers who are nearly, but not quite, capable of offering insurance coverage and reward employers who have already made investments in the health of their employees. The Affordable Coverage for Small Employees Act will help small businesses and their employees obtain and retain coverage. Moreover, it provides a framework for expanding coverage across the Nation. First, this bill offers tax credits to employers and employees of small businesses in order to abet their purchase of health insurance. Employers paying for a larger portion of their employee's coverage are rewarded with a larger credit. Employees who make a lower income receive more assistance. Without an incentive, it is highly likely that these individuals will not receive the comprehensive coverage they need and the security that comes with it. Financial incentives alone are not enough though. Small businesses face larger administrative costs then large businesses, and consumers in the individual market face higher premiums than consumers in group plans. This bill will create a working and competitive marketplace through regional health boards. These boards will allow for businesses and employees to shop for medical coverage from multiple insurers, and even across State lines. These boards will establish a health-coverage ``exchange'' whose main objectives will be to serve as a central purchasing site for health coverage, to provide information to purchasers and consumers about participating health plans, to facilitate and streamline enrollment, and to ensure health plan compliance with minimum operating and quality standards. Third, in order to protect consumers, an independent advisory board, the National Policy Board, in conjunction with the National Academies of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, will establish a standard benefit package in order that employees receive the coverage they need. An independent body provides the governance needed to regulate this complex marketplace while retaining insulation from the interested parties that would seek to benefit themselves at the expense of others. There already exists evidence that this approach will work. Several States are experimenting with various forms of tax credits to expand coverage. In Oklahoma and Arizona employees and employers are being helped through tax credits to secure insurance. The initial results of these programs have been encouraging. The Federal Government has been paralyzed for too long, debating which policy prescriptions will yield success at an affordable cost. These ``laboratories of democracy'' are leading the way and this legislation follows in their spirit. The road to substantial health care reform has been long but the path in front of us is lit brighter than the path behind us when we travelled it. Over the preceding years, our knowledge of what works, what is feasible, and what is improbable has grown immeasurably. With this knowledge and a kindred spirit, I am certain we can guarantee the best health care for every American.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to someone I have known for many years, both because of his guidance of a major company in Connecticut as well as his leadership in the mailing industry--Mike Critelli, executive chairman of Pitney Bowes Inc.--which is headquartered in Stamford, CT. Mike will be retiring late this year, after dedicating 30 years to both Pitney and the mailing industry. Mike and I have come to know each other not only because Pitney Bowes is headquartered in my home State of Connecticut but also because he has been the chairman of the Mailing Industry CEO Council, an organization of chief executive officers of companies in the mailing industry. The Mailing Industry CEO Council, under Mike's able leadership, has been at the forefront of educating policymakers about the mailing industry for years. Although those of us who follow mailing industry issues know by heart now the key statistics--a $900 billion industry representing over 8 percent of the gross domestic product and employing 9 million workers--there was a time when the impact of the industry was less well known. Mike Critelli and the Mailing Industry CEO Council helped to change that. The CEO Council came to town several times a year to meet with me and others in Congress to provide support for the postal reform legislative effort. They helped to spread the word to many of my colleagues who are not on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over postal issues, about the importance of the mailing industry and the impact of the industry on jobs in each of their States. As we moved forward with postal reform legislation in the 109th Congress, having others in Congress actively supporting the mailing industry proved very helpful. As we worked together on the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, my staff and I were always impressed by the attention and care Mike gave to every detail. As a lawyer, Mike took the time to read the various versions of postal reform legislation page by page. He got into the details and commented on specific provisions--and the final outcome was better as a result. He was critically important in brokering some agreements with interested parties that helped get us over the final hurdles towards enactment. In the final days of the 109th Congress, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act passed the House and Senate and was signed into law. Mike Critelli played an essential role in helping to educate others about the importance of the mailing industry and the need for the legislation that enabled it to get done. He began his career at Pitney Bowes as a staff attorney and rose through various leadership positions over the years. He served as general counsel, chief personnel officer, and then became president of Pitney Bowes Financial Services. He was then CEO and chairman and now serves as executive chairman of the board. He has brought the company through many changes--acquisitions and transformations. He has also served as an effective ambassador for the mailing industry. After the deadly anthrax attacks of fall 2001, Mike wasted no time in working with the U.S. Postal Service to advocate on its behalf so that our mailstream would quickly regain the confidence of the American people. Under Mike's leadership, Pitney Bowes has been a leader as well on health care issues. The company invests heavily in the health of its employees and has found that the focus on prevention, wellness, early diagnosis and treatment, and chronic disease management has improved health and minimized costs for employees as well as the company. This has helped to make Pitney Bowes a model for other companies. Mike has also demonstrated a strong commitment to diversity. Under his tenure, Pitney Bowes has been consistently recognized as one of the best corporations in America for diversity. Although this record began before Mike took the helm as CEO, he continued to grow the diversity efforts within the company. Outside of the office, Mike served for several years in a Connecticut chapter of the Urban League and as chairman of the National Urban League Board. As I wish Mike Critelli well as he begins a well deserved retirement, I can't help but be disappointed that Connecticut's business community is losing a great leader. For our sake, I hope he continues in some capacity assisting us with public policy issues of concern to our State.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, S. 3001 is section 256, Assessment of Standards for Mission Critical Semiconductors Procured by the Department of Defense. The objective of this provision is to provide the DOD with assurance of dependable, continuous, long-term access to trusted, mission critical semiconductors from both foreign and domestic sources. In order to assure trust, the provision recommends the use of verification tools and techniques on commercially procured semiconductors. The manufacture of semiconductors has continued to migrate to off- shore foundries, particularly to foundries in China. The few high end semiconductor manufacturers in the U.S. are driven by commercial interests and cannot be depended upon to supply the needs of the Deptartment of Defense for the long term. The U.S. military now comprises only 1 percent of the overall market and therefore no longer drives that market. The DOD is currently depending on a single company, IBM, for high end semiconductors through the DOD Trusted Foundry Program. This program was put in place in 2004 as a stop-gap measure. The February 2005 report by the Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply stated that the Trusted Foundry Program is an interim source of high performance ICs and a good start in addressing the immediate needs for trusted sources of IC supply. The Trusted Foundry Program does not address critical design software and design systems which are also subject to tampering. It is strongly recommended that the Trusted Foundry Program continue to be a key part of the overall strategy and the volume of parts that go through it increased. However, since that report was written, the trend of migration of semiconductor manufacturing overseas has continued, and it is now urgent to augment the Trusted Foundry by a more comprehensive approach for the procurement of trusted parts that includes acquisition of parts from ``nontrusted'' sources. There are several issues which need to be addressed and they are the drivers for this legislative provision. First, the DOD must have assurance of dependable, continuous, long-term access to mission critical semiconductors from both foreign and domestic sources for its potentially vulnerable defense systems. Such access needs to be independent of the commercially driven decisions made by individual companies and foundries. DOD needs for integrated circuits include high end semiconductors, custom application specific integrated circuits, ASICs, and field programmable gate arrays, FPGAs. Second, there must be assurance of trust of the semiconductors installed on systems procured through Defense contractors and subcontractors from ``nontrusted'' sources. Assurance of trust means assurance that the semiconductor has not been tampered with or modified in any way, and performs the functions required--and no other functions. It also requires assurance that the design and design systems, fabrication, packaging, final assembly, and test of semiconductors are free from tampering. The legislative provision addresses each of the concerns stated above. It is recommended that the Department of Defense inventory and implement the best methods currently available for assuring trust. It needs to put in place an overall policy and direction, as well as a plan for the procurement of semiconductors that assures continuous access and trust as described above. It also needs to assure that there is sufficient oversight in implementation of the plan for the acquisition of critical semiconductors, employing new or improved techniques and approaches as they become available through technological advances. Deliverables from the DARPA trusted circuits project, supplemented by procedures to assure trust in design, packaging and assembly need to be employed. It should also be recognized that a comprehensive strategy needs to include acquisition of mass-produced commercial parts which have low risk of sabotage. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is requested to be available to brief Congress on its assessment of methods and standards no later than December 31, 2009. These need to be done in consultation with the intelligence community, private industry, and academia.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to designate a portion of the Rappahannock River in Virginia as the ``John W. Warner Rapids''. These man-made rapids are a testament to Senator Warner's long- standing commitment to protect and preserve the environment, as they are the remains of the Embrey Dam, whose removal he championed. The Rappahannock River in Virginia flows over 180 miles from the Blue Ridge Mountains to the Chesapeake Bay. At historic Fredericksburg, founded in 1728 along the river's fall line, the Rappahannock was blocked by a wooden crib dam built in 1853 and a 22-foot high concrete dam built in 1910. Until the 1960s, the dam was used to generate hydroelectric power, and until 2000 it was used to divert water into a canal as a raw water source for the city. In the 1990s, the city began to develop a new regional water supply; and it was determined that the water facility connected to the dam could be closed. Funding to remove the dam was a significant hurdle. The City sought support from the Federal government and found a strong advocate in Senator John W. Warner. In the mid 1990s, the local river conservation group, Friends of the Rappahannock, invited Senator Warner to a discussion about the removal of the dam. After discussion and a paddle to the site, Senator Warner pledged that if the group could demonstrate community consensus regarding the dam's removal, he would personally support the effort. On February 23, 2004, on Senator Warner's signal, 600 pounds of explosives set by the Army and Air Force Reserves opened a 130-foot breach in Embrey Dam, setting the Rappahannock River to flow free for the first time since 1853. By reopening the Rappahannock River, more than 1,300 river and stream miles immediately became available to migratory fish in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. On July 30, 2005, the Friends of the Rappahannock and the City of Fredericksburg honored Senator Warner in a ``Rappahannock River Running Free'' celebration. The American Canoe Association, established in 1880 and the nation's oldest and largest canoe, kayak, and rafting organization, stated: ``For over 150 years the Rappahannock River has been holding its breath behind a wall of iron, concrete, and wood. U.S. Senator John W. Warner's efforts have allowed the Rappahannock River to breathe free once again. In appreciation of his efforts, the community of paddlers and river users has bestowed upon him their highest honor. So, let it be known, on behalf of the City of Fredericksburg, the Friends of the Rappahannock, the American Canoe Association, and the community of paddlers, that the new rapids formed at the removal of the dam be known, now and forever, and recorded on all maps, as `John W. Warner Rapids' and may all your travels through be smooth.'' On 1 November 2008, Senator Warner will be presented with a bronze plaque that will be affixed to a permanent monument along the banks of the Rappahannock River at the rapids formed by the remnants of the dam. The actions that I have described are a shining example of the commitment Senator Warner has shown to the environment during his 30 years in this body. He recognizes the importance of protecting and preserving natural treasures for the enjoyment of this and future generations. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to be able to work so closely with him in this regard. For many years, Senator Warner and I have served together on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. At the start of this Congress, I became the chairman of that committee's global warming subcommittee. I was honored and delighted when Senator Warner became, at his request, the ranking minority member of that subcommittee. In February of last year, the two of us held a subcommittee hearing on the impacts of global warming on wildlife. Senator Warner spoke with conviction and eloquence about his commitment to wildlife conservation, and about his particular love for rivers and streams. In an example of the courage and statesmanship for which he is rightly known, Senator Warner joined with me to write a bill to reduce the man-made greenhouse-gas emissions that are disrupting wildlife, threatening our national security, and imperiling our economy. Last October, we introduced our Climate Security Act, and the next month both our subcommittee and the full Environment and Public Works Committee reported the bill favorably. That had never happened before with a climate bill in the U.S. Congress, and it would not have happened without the leadership, credibility, patience, and wisdom of Senator Warner. I join many, many others in looking up to him, and I am privileged to call him my friend. The bill that I introduce today is a fitting tribute to the legacy that Senator Warner leaves behind as he retires. I encourage my colleagues to honor him by passing this legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to designate a portion of the Rappahannock River in Virginia as the ``John W. Warner Rapids''. These man-made rapids are a testament to Senator Warner's long- standing commitment to protect and preserve the environment, as they are the remains of the Embrey Dam, whose removal he championed. The Rappahannock River in Virginia flows over 180 miles from the Blue Ridge Mountains to the Chesapeake Bay. At historic Fredericksburg, founded in 1728 along the river's fall line, the Rappahannock was blocked by a wooden crib dam built in 1853 and a 22-foot high concrete dam built in 1910. Until the 1960s, the dam was used to generate hydroelectric power, and until 2000 it was used to divert water into a canal as a raw water source for the city. In the 1990s, the city began to develop a new regional water supply; and it was determined that the water facility connected to the dam could be closed. Funding to remove the dam was a significant hurdle. The City sought support from the Federal government and found a strong advocate in Senator John W. Warner. In the mid 1990s, the local river conservation group, Friends of the Rappahannock, invited Senator Warner to a discussion about the removal of the dam. After discussion and a paddle to the site, Senator Warner pledged that if the group could demonstrate community consensus regarding the dam's removal, he would personally support the effort. On February 23, 2004, on Senator Warner's signal, 600 pounds of explosives set by the Army and Air Force Reserves opened a 130-foot breach in Embrey Dam, setting the Rappahannock River to flow free for the first time since 1853. By reopening the Rappahannock River, more than 1,300 river and stream miles immediately became available to migratory fish in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. On July 30, 2005, the Friends of the Rappahannock and the City of Fredericksburg honored Senator Warner in a ``Rappahannock River Running Free'' celebration. The American Canoe Association, established in 1880 and the nation's oldest and largest canoe, kayak, and rafting organization, stated: ``For over 150 years the Rappahannock River has been holding its breath behind a wall of iron, concrete, and wood. U.S. Senator John W. Warner's efforts have allowed the Rappahannock River to breathe free once again. In appreciation of his efforts, the community of paddlers and river users has bestowed upon him their highest honor. So, let it be known, on behalf of the City of Fredericksburg, the Friends of the Rappahannock, the American Canoe Association, and the community of paddlers, that the new rapids formed at the removal of the dam be known, now and forever, and recorded on all maps, as `John W. Warner Rapids' and may all your travels through be smooth.'' On 1 November 2008, Senator Warner will be presented with a bronze plaque that will be affixed to a permanent monument along the banks of the Rappahannock River at the rapids formed by the remnants of the dam. The actions that I have described are a shining example of the commitment Senator Warner has shown to the environment during his 30 years in this body. He recognizes the importance of protecting and preserving natural treasures for the enjoyment of this and future generations. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to be able to work so closely with him in this regard. For many years, Senator Warner and I have served together on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. At the start of this Congress, I became the chairman of that committee's global warming subcommittee. I was honored and delighted when Senator Warner became, at his request, the ranking minority member of that subcommittee. In February of last year, the two of us held a subcommittee hearing on the impacts of global warming on wildlife. Senator Warner spoke with conviction and eloquence about his commitment to wildlife conservation, and about his particular love for rivers and streams. In an example of the courage and statesmanship for which he is rightly known, Senator Warner joined with me to write a bill to reduce the man-made greenhouse-gas emissions that are disrupting wildlife, threatening our national security, and imperiling our economy. Last October, we introduced our Climate Security Act, and the next month both our subcommittee and the full Environment and Public Works Committee reported the bill favorably. That had never happened before with a climate bill in the U.S. Congress, and it would not have happened without the leadership, credibility, patience, and wisdom of Senator Warner. I join many, many others in looking up to him, and I am privileged to call him my friend. The bill that I introduce today is a fitting tribute to the legacy that Senator Warner leaves behind as he retires. I encourage my colleagues to honor him by passing this legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of amendment No. 5368, which Senator Graham of South Carolina and I have filed. It is an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which we hope to be able to call up in the next day or two. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate recognizing the strategic success of the troop surge in Iraq and expressing gratitude to the members of the U.S. Armed Forces who have made that success possible. It was exactly 1 year ago today, September 10, 2007, that GEN David Petraeus came to Capitol Hill to testify about the situation in Iraq. At that time, General Petraeus laid out the facts. He gave us an accurate and honest assessment of the situation on the ground. He presented the growing evidence that the surge was working and that security there was improving. Many, I fear, did not want to listen to General Petraeus, because many had already made up their minds about the surge. They were wedded to the idea that the surge was a mistake because they were wedded to the idea that the war was a mistake and that, in fact, we had already lost it. They didn't want to hear evidence that General Petraeus presented that day that America could still win this critical fight. As a result, even before GEN David Petraeus set foot on Capitol Hill, this honorable American soldier was met by a hail of preemptive attacks by opponents of the surge and the war. One group, moveon.org, made the absolutely irresponsible and offensive accusation that General Petraeus would try to cook the books to justify the surge. But 1 year later, we know the truth. It was, in fact, moveon.org that was cooking the books, not General Petraeus. The general was right that the surge was working, and his critics were wrong. Had we heeded their advice to abandon the surge and retreat from Iraq in 2007, the United States would have suffered by its own decision a catastrophic defeat in Iraq that would have had terrible consequences far beyond Iraq for years to come. Fortunately, we did not abandon General Petraeus and his brave troops, and as a result, the situation in Iraq has now completely reversed. In the 12 months since General Petraeus came before Congress to testify on this very day a year ago, almost every imaginable indicator of progress in Iraq, particularly political, economic, military, and security, has changed for the better. The surge is not just a tactical success, as some of its opponents have suggested. It is a strategic success for the United States and for the cause of freedom. Because of the surge, our two most threatening enemies in the world today--al- Qaida and Iran--are weaker and America is safer. I don't believe this is a matter of opinion by this Senator. I believe it is now a matter of fact that should be acknowledged. I know some opponents of the surge have recently tried to write off this remarkable success by claiming it doesn't matter. They say the success of the surge is irrelevant because Iraq itself is irrelevant, a distraction from the real central front of the war on terror which they say is Afghanistan. This is a profoundly mistaken and misguided argument. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are important, but I ask my colleagues: Does anyone here believe it is irrelevant if al-Qaida wins or loses in Iraq, a nation that historically has been at the heart of the Arab world? Does anyone here really believe it is irrelevant if Iran succeeds or fails in its efforts to seize control of Iraq? Does anyone really want to tell our brave men and women in uniform in Iraq that the hard-won gains they have achieved over the past year, the lives that have been lost in that effort through their struggle and sacrifice are irrelevant? The answer, to me, is clearly no. So let there be no doubt, the outcome of the war in Iraq is anything but irrelevant. On the contrary, in my opinion, there are few matters more important to the safety and security of the United States today than whether we win or lose in Iraq. If there is anyone in this Chamber who doubts the strategic stakes in Iraq, I urge them to listen to General Petraeus. Listen to General Petraeus who warned us in an interview published today in the Washington Post that ``Iraq is still viewed as the central front for al-Qaida.'' Let me repeat that: ``Iraq is still viewed as the central front for al-Qaida,'' which is to say by al-Qaida. Not Afghanistan, Iraq; not Pakistan, Iraq. This is not the opinion of a Member of Congress. It is not the opinion of a politician running for office. It is the judgment of America's most successful battlefield commander in the war on terror which began 7 years ago tomorrow when America was brutally attacked on 9/11/2001. This is the judgment of a general whom this Senate confirmed as the Supreme Commander for U.S. Forces in the Middle East and South Asia, who is soon to become the Commander in Chief at CENTCOM. What this general tells us is that it is Iraq, not Afghanistan, that is the central front of al-Qaida's war on us as defined by them, by the enemy. One year ago, many in Congress did not want to listen to General Petraeus. In the 12 months since then, however, we have been presented with ample evidence why that was a mistake. I hope we will not repeat that mistake again. So today on the 1-year anniversary of General Petraeus's testimony before Congress, let's resolve to come together across party lines. It is time to recognize reality. It is time to acknowledge that the surge has been a strategic success in the central front of the war on the terrorists who attacked us 7 years ago tomorrow morning. It is time to express thanks to our courageous men and women in uniform who made the surge possible, rather than undercutting their struggle and sacrifices as irrelevant. And it is time to pledge that the hard-won gains secured by the surge will be honored and preserved, not squandered by attempts to impose arbitrary timetables for withdrawal, regardless of what is happening on the ground in Iraq. The good news is that all of the troops who were sent to Iraq as part of the surge, approximately 30,000, have now returned home because of the success of the surge, and they are not being replaced. President Bush announced just yesterday that an additional 8,000 troops will be withdrawn by next February. Again, because the surge has worked, because the Iraq Security Forces are more capable of protecting their own country, because the political leadership of the country has come together to govern--giant steps along the path to what we have been hoping for throughout this conflict. That is why Senator Graham and I have offered this bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. We hope the Senate can unite to take up and adopt this amendment. It is not going to happen today on the 1-year anniversary of the Petraeus testimony, but I hope it will happen soon. Let's stop for a moment, is what we are asking, and acknowledge the historic significance of what has been achieved at great sacrifice by the men and women who have worn the uniform of the United States, by the coalition forces who have been there, and, indeed, by the Iraq Security Forces themselves. Eighteen months ago, Iraq was in chaos. Very few thought we could achieve success there. Yet now in the space of less than 2 years an extraordinary turnaround, one of the most remarkable in the history of the American military, the proud history of the American military, has been brought about. I truly believe the men and women who have served there under General Petraeus, now soon under General Odierno, a wonderfully prepared and able and strong leader, will be viewed by history as America's next or newest ``greatest generation.'' Obviously, there is still much we need to do to secure ultimate victory in Iraq. Of course, we still face other great challenges from terrorists throughout the world and from others, such as autocratic powers rising again. But at this moment, particularly on this day, I wanted to give thanks for the truly historic achievement that belongs to GEN David Petraeus and the men and women of the American military who have served under him. I hope this amendment can be brought up, and when it is, we will come together as Americans who are grateful to our troops for a job well done. I thank the Chair. I thank everyone here who stayed until I finished. I yield the floor and wish everyone a good night.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I honor today the memory of Walter C. ``Bud'' O'Meara, a teacher, coach, and good friend who passed away on August 3, 2008. I am deeply saddened by Walter's death and will keep his friends and family in my thoughts during this difficult time. Growing up in my hometown of Stamford, CT, Walter spent most of his free time at the local YMCA, where he developed a passion for sports. While attending Stamford High School--SHA--in the 1930s, Walter was captain of the basketball team and an all state quarterback. His abilities on the football field earned him a scholarship to Notre Dame, the most storied program in the history of college football, where he played under Coach Elmer Layden, one of the Four Horsemen. After graduating from Notre Dame, Walter joined the U.S. Navy, where he would become a lieutenant in the Naval Air Corps. While in the Navy, Walter married his wife, Grace, whom he had met on a blind date. They would remain married until Grace's death in 2005. As a member of Air Group 19, Walter flew bombers in the Pacific Combat Zone during the Second World War and was awarded the Air Medal for his service. Walter would keep in touch with his friends from Air Group 19 throughout his life. After the war, Walter returned to SHS as a teacher and coach. In 1958, he was named head football coach, and proceeded to lead Stamford High to back-to-back State championships in 1958 and 1959. In addition to his duties as football coach, Walter also coached American Legion Baseball for 9 years. Again, Walter proved adept at getting the most out of his athletes, producing five State championship teams, and two regional champions. While his teams' accomplishments on the field are certainly impressive, Coach O'Meara's greatest contribution to Stamford High was the constant source of friendship and support he provided his students. Years later, his players still fondly recall the influence he had on them not just on the playing field but in life as well. When I attended SHS, all students, whether athletes or not, knew that Coach O'Meara was someone they could approach whenever they needed assistance. When he retired from coaching, Walter continued to serve as an administrator at SHS and managed the Roxbury Swimming and Tennis Club for over 25 years. He also worked as a professional football scout for 9 years. However busy Walter was, he always made time for his family and friends. Those who knew him best said that no matter his professional success, his greatest pride was reserved for his 6 daughters, 11 grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren. While I will miss my good friend Walter O'Meara, I take solace that his example will live on in all of us who were lucky to have known him.