Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask the Chair if I may be informed when 10 minutes has expired.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia. I thank him for an excellent statement. I think his point is well taken. Let's have a full and open debate and in the classic way and in the best Senate tradition. Let amendments come forward. We believe strongly that this problem is too real and too urgent to keep saying no, no, no. We have come some distance in the Senate's consideration or discussion off the Senate floor about this. We are now at the place where almost nobody says this is not a problem, that climate change is not occurring; just about everybody agrees it is. Now the question is, What do we do about it? We have tried to fashion--I like what Senator Warner said--a balanced, kind of middle- of-the-road response to the problem of global warming. In dealing with global warming and climate change, there will also be the energy independence declaration program that America needs to secure our future. You cannot cut greenhouse gas emissions unless you cut dependence on oil, and most of that oil comes to America from abroad. This is an opportunity to deal with a big problem with a big solution and truly to secure and better the future of our country and its people. I often say, when people ask why Senator Warner decided to join in on this, that he responded with remarkable brevity for a Senator. He said two words: Science. Grandchildren. The science speaks loudly that we have a problem. He wants to feel, on his watch, as we all should, that he did something to protect his grandchildren and all our grandchildren from that problem. That is what this legislation gives the Senate an opportunity to do. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, the first thing I would say, in response to Senator Boxer's eloquent faith-based conclusion, is: Amen, Sister. Secondly, in this last 2 or 3 hours that we have begun this very important debate you can see the different arguments forming. There are serious arguments. They are important arguments. So I appeal to our colleagues on both sides of this issue, regardless of whether you have decided to support the bill, vote for cloture on the motion to proceed so we can finally have the kind of debate from which we will all learn and from which the American people will take some encouragement that we are dealing with this problem. It is obvious that one of the main arguments, perhaps the main one, will be its cost. This is an important issue which we want to discuss. The part that I respectfully take issue with is those who call this a tax increase. It is not a tax increase. Senator Warner and I had some choices to make. One was to do nothing. We rejected that. I suppose if you still feel we should do nothing, that, of course, you will want to come out and argue for that. But we decided we had to do something. We had three choices. One was a carbon tax. We rejected that. One, because we do not think it is viable here. Two, it does not guarantee that you are going to reduce carbon emissions. Second, we had an old-fashioned command-and-control option; mandate that this happens, control everything. We rejected that as well because it is inflexible. The third choice was a market-based choice. Set the general ground rules, mandate a reduction in the cap, and leave it to the market. The fees that are raised under this bill are voluntarily accepted by people who decide they need to buy allowances. This is not a tax increase. We rejected a tax increase.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would just add to this debate about the 30 hours that it is going to be a reality, and I would say this: Senator Boxer, Senator Warner, and I are going to be on the floor. This is an important matter. I think most important to the reality we now face of the 30 hours of debate is that our colleagues, no matter what their position on this legislation, should come to the floor, let's debate it, and then let's go to the amendments. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida, I ask unanimous consent that Maria Honeycutt be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Senate's consideration of this legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to my friend Rabbi Stephen Baars, of Bethesda, MD, whom I had the honor of sponsoring as our guest Chaplain for this morning. Given all that Rabbi Baars has done to help others, it was fitting that he was picked to lead the Senate in prayer. No tribute would be complete, however, without giving Senators a greater understanding of his outstanding and unique accomplishments. Born and raised in London, Rabbi Baars originally envisioned himself working in business or sales until, at age 19, he went on vacation to Israel and became enamored with Judaism. When he finally returned to London 6 months later, he had made up his mind to become a rabbi. Shortly thereafter, he moved back to Jerusalem, where he attended rabbinical school for 9 years through Aish HaTorah, a nonprofit network of Jewish educational centers. After completing his studies, Rabbi Baars moved to Los Angeles to work for Aish HaTorah. It was in L.A. that he tried a second career as a stand-up comedian. On the advice of a friend, Rabbi Baars began taking comedy classes at UCLA and performing stand-up in clubs. In fact, he is the only rabbi to have performed at the famous L.A. Improv. Eventually, he would stop performing because he found his spiritual work more rewarding. His comedic skills, however, would play a role in his future work, serving as means for him to get his message across to audiences. In 1990, Rabbi Baars moved to the Washington, DC, region and began teaching Jewish studies classes throughout the DC area. Some of his students included Senators, Representatives, and top business leaders. In 1998, he established a Washington, DC, chapter of Aish HaTorah, and served as its executive director. It was there that he established his most ambitious and creative project yet. In 2002, troubled by America's high divorce rate, Rabbi Baars created BLISS, an innovative, nondenominational marriage seminar that mixes humor with advice taken from the Torah and Talmud. Always an optimist who sees the best in people, Rabbi Baars conducts these seminars and prepares his provocative ``Think Again'' e-mail newsletter with the belief that human beings all contain the skills and attributes they need to be good spouses and parents and that they just need to learn how to reach deep into themselves to utilize these abilities. Rabbi Baars continues to operate BLISS, which has won rave reviews from many of its participants. Not too long ago, he was kind enough to demonstrate a sample presentation to my staff, who very much enjoyed it. He has stated that his goal for BLISS is to help reduce the divorce rate in America to the single digits. Some may mock this goal as naive, but as Rabbi Baars says, ``If you pick a goal that's reasonable to achieve, you didn't look high enough.'' Of course, it should come as no surprise that someone as dedicated to helping families as Rabbi Baars is happily married. He and his wife Ruth have been together for 16 years and have been blessed with seven wonderful children. His wife and family are a constant source of strength and support for Rabbi Baars as he pursues his life's work. Thank you, Rabbi Baars, for all you have done to bring families together. It was truly an honor to have you pray with us today.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I rise today in support of the Food and Energy Security Act. The provisions of the conference report represent a tremendous step forward in ensuring the health of American consumers, for example by providing low-income citizens with better access to healthy food choices by increasing the amount of funding for nutrition programs, increasing food stamp payments, bringing more fruits and vegetables into schools, and providing assistance to low-income seniors so that they can shop at farmers markets. This bill also recognizes the important place that specialty crops have on the dinner table. In addition to the benefits that Americans will see at their tables, this bill also provides unique opportunities to better the environment and look out for those who cannot speak for themselves. The bill continues to support land conservation and expands protection for wetlands, grazing land, wildlife habitats, and forests. The bill increases our investment in biofuels research and production so that we can move away from foreign oil, and instead use American-made cellulosic and sugar-based ethanol and biodiesel. It also strengthens protections for animals by quadrupling penalties for Animal Welfare Act violations and prohibiting dog fighting. For these and other reasons I will support this farm bill legislation. However, I am troubled by the bill managers' use of the narrow provisions in the bill addressing agriculture security to expound in the Joint Explanatory Statement about the proper roles of the Departments of Homeland Security and Agriculture, and the performance of DHS, in this area. Allow me to address a few of my concerns. The managers assert, for example, that DHS has ``claimed Federal jurisdiction as the lead agency'' for activities ``traditionally managed by USDA.'' This statement is unnecessarily dismissive and ignores numerous laws that establish the current Federal framework for addressing threats to agriculture and food security, a framework in which the Secretary of Homeland Security is the principal Federal official to lead and coordinate efforts among Federal departments and agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector to protect critical infrastructure and key resources in all sectors. Among the laws that make up the framework are the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Intel Reform Act, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, Post-Katrina Act, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, PAHPA, and the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, 9/11 Commission Act. Various Homeland Security Presidential directives further undergird the current structure--including HSPD-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, HSPD-7, Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization and Protection, HSPD-8, National Preparedness, HSPD-9, Defense of U.S. Agriculture and Food, and HSPD- 10, Biodefense for the 21st Century. Under these laws and directives, a number of agencies have responsibilities specifically relevant to agriculture and food security. These include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, which is responsible for infrastructure protection for the agriculture sector and matters pertaining to meat, poultry, and egg products; the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, is responsible for the remainder of the food sector, as well as for public health and healthcare; and the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for drinking water and water treatment systems. HSPD-9 details the roles and responsibilities of these and other Federal agencies regarding specific aspects of agriculture and food security, including awareness and warning, vulnerability assessments, mitigation strategies, and research and development. Since enactment and issuance of the aforementioned bills and directives, numerous activities to advance agriculture and food security have been undertaken throughout the Federal Government in reliance on, and within, this framework. That said, I agree with the bill managers that USDA is the agency best equipped to handle routine agricultural disease emergencies. USDA continues to serve that function, and DHS relies on USDA to do so. The managers also assert that agricultural inspections have degraded since the inspectors were incorporated into DHS--as required by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This statement ignores the factual record: While there were initial problems, not entirely unexpectedly, integrating various components into one Department, the situation has improved dramatically, and the agriculture inspection mission has a clear roadmap for how to improve further. The number of agriculture inspectors has increased, as has the number of canine teams, beyond those at the time of the transition. The same high educational standards for agriculture specialists apply, but now they get more field training. The Customs and Border Protection, CPB, primary inspectors, which in their legacy roles have always been responsible for referring agriculture products to secondary screening, now get substantially more training to recognize products and pests that need further examination. The Joint USDA-DHS task force has outlined 10 concrete action plans for further improvement and is making considerable progress in implementing them. Last month, the joint agency task force met with agriculture stakeholders to further refine their recommendations and to draft new recommendations. USDA remains integrally involved in the inspection process, with continuing responsibilities for the training of CBP agricultural specialists and CBP officers, training of canine teams, setting rules and regulations for the agriculture inspection process, and for identifying the pests that CBP agricultural specialists intercept. I do appreciate the managers' recognition that the agricultural specialists within CBP who are responsible for inspecting agricultural products at the border need to remain within DHS. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 brought together in the CBP directorate of DHS customs inspectors from the Treasury Department, immigration inspectors from the Justice Department, and agricultural inspectors from the Agriculture Department. The purpose was to create a single, integrated force at our borders to keep out people and goods that pose a threat. For the first time, all those who protect our borders report up a single chain of command. To do otherwise than to keep the agricultural inspectors within CBP would splinter the integrated border security force we have been building for 5 years, and weaken both our homeland and agricultural security. The managers further suggest that DHS may not be placing sufficient priority on agricultural security and agricultural inspections and they appear to be concerned that DHS may not be paying sufficient attention to the concerns of the agricultural community. In fact, the agriculture mission has repeatedly received the highest level of attention. DHS Secretary Chertoff addressed the agriculture inspection stakeholders' meeting just last month. A directive reiterating the importance of the agricultural mission has been disseminated to every CBP office. A new position--the Deputy Executive Director, Agriculture Operational Oversight at Customs and Border Protection--has just been created to provide oversight of all agriculture inspectors no matter where they serve to ensure that mission needs are being met. Finally, the managers suggest that USDA should oversee DHS's agricultural inspection program and issue comprehensive reports on it to Congress. I cannot recall an example of one executive branch department overseeing and reporting to Congress on another executive branch department. The proposal is unprecedented, unnecessary, and fundamentally misapprehends the roles of the respective independent departments, and threatens what has become a productive partnership between the agencies of the two departments. Rather than pitting Departments against one another, we should be encouraging the cooperation between DHS and USDA that, in fact, is now occurring. USDA and DHS are working together to a greater extent than ever has historically been the case in the relationship between agriculture and border officials. While challenges remain, the current level of partnership should serve as a model for interagency cooperation. With active participation by USDA and the Federal Drug Administration, FDA, DHS is assessing agro-terrorist threats, capitalizing on the substantial assets at its National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasure Center and its connections with the intelligence community that have been applied to other biological and WMD threats to the Nation. USDA is also participating in the DHS- operated National Biosurveillance Integration Center, NBIC, authorized by the 9/11 Commission Act, to bring together information from multiple sources to detect and contain biological incidents as rapidly as possible. The agricultural biosecurity communications center authorized by the bill, as the managers note, is expected to provide a central collection point for USDA generated information and to provide important information to DHS's National Operations Center, which acts as the central source for homeland security situational awareness for the Federal Government. DHS and USDA also engage in research and development together to promote agricultural security. DHS's role includes its sponsorship of the National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease and its Plum Island Animal Disease Center at which both DHS and USDA researchers work collaboratively to address the catastrophic threat of foot and mouth disease. The Office of Homeland Security at USDA, also authorized by the bill, should be helpful in coordinating the homeland security activities of the various offices and agencies within USDA, thereby providing a primary point of contact between USDA and DHS for agricultural security issues. While I find the manager's statement troubling and unfounded, I have worked with the Agriculture Committee to ensure that the bill itself will not endanger homeland and agriculture security.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his powerful and eloquent words. I am privileged now to stand to join him in giving honor and celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel, which is a day truly to celebrate. The 20th century witnessed unprecedented horrors inflicted by man against his fellow man, from the trenches of World War I to the gulag archipelago of the Soviet Union to the killing fields of Cambodia and Rwanda and, of course, the genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany against the Jews of Europe. Against these acts of bloodshed and repression and violence, the creation of the modern State of Israel in 1948 stands as a counterpoint in human history, a soaring act of hope and faith in our capacity as human beings to rise from the ashes of despair and to rebuild and restore that which for so long had seemed hopelessly lost. The modern history of the State of Israel goes back 60 years, but of course the history of Israel goes back more than 4,000 years ago to the first words that God spoke to Abraham as recorded in Genesis 1:21: Now get thee unto the land that I will show thee, and I will make thee a great Nation. That was the covenant that God made with Abraham and which God repeated to Isaac, to Jacob, and then to Moses who, with God's help, delivered the children of Israel out of bondage in Egypt to Mount Sinai where they received the Ten Commandments, their national statement of purpose and destiny, and then after 40 years in the wilderness, returned to the land that God had promised--the land of Israel. It was there in the land of Israel more than 3,000 years ago that King David entered Jerusalem and declared it to be the capital of the Jewish people. And it was there in Jerusalem that David's son Solomon built a holy temple to house the Ark of the Covenant and the Ten Commandments. Thus in one place was established both the political capital of the Jewish people and the religious center of that people's faith. It was also there almost 2,600 years ago on a dark day in history that the temple that Solomon built was destroyed. The Jewish people were forced into exile, returning just 40 years later to their homeland to rebuild the temple. It was during the time of the second temple under Roman rule that Jesus of Nazareth lived, preached, taught, and healed the Jews of Israel. But the temple was to be destroyed once more, and most, if not all, of the Jews were forced to flee the land. For nearly two millennia, the Jewish people in the Diaspora prayed every day that they could return to the promised land. For almost 1,900 years, the State of Israel was thus carried in the hearts of millions of these Jewish exiles, and even more millions of Christians who prayed some of those same prayers for Zion's restoration, particularly here in America. That collective yearning gave rise to a new political movement at the end of the 19th century--the modern Zionist movement. It was led by Theodore Herzl and a small band of followers, Jewish and Christian, throughout the world. Many people said those early Zionists of the modern era were naive dreamers, but Herzl replied: ``If you will it, it is no dream.'' If you will it, it is no dream. Will it they did, and work for it they did. In 1948, 60 years ago this month, their dream became a reality. The story of Israel's rebirth is inextricably bound up in the story of another extraordinary principal, purposeful nation with its own special sense of destiny, and that is, of course, our own beloved country--the United States of America. From the earliest days of our Nation's history, there has been a link between the promise of America and the promise of Israel. The early settlers to America in fact believed they were founding here a new Jerusalem. The first minister to step foot at Plymouth Rock uttered words from the prophet Jeremiah. Many of our Nation's Founding Fathers were themselves Zionists. The President of the Continental Congress, Elias Boudinot, predicted that the mighty power of God would someday return the Jews to their beloved land. And John Adams wrote: I really wish to see the Jews again in Judea as an independent Nation. When the modern State of Israel declared its independence 60 years ago this month, it was officially and most significantly recognized a mere 11 minutes later by a great American President, Harry S. Truman. Americans and Israelis alike are the children of freedom. We are both devoted to our democratic ideals, our culture of economic opportunity, and our political pluralism. These are the principles we cherish and the principles that define not just who we are but who we aspire to be. I think it is the main reason, when our two nations look at each other, we so often see the best of ourselves. It is also why succeeding Presidents of both parties since Harry Truman have given such steadfast support to the State of Israel. I have often said as Presidents come and go, some seem more supportive of Israel, some somewhat less. The current President obviously is one of those who has most steadfastly and significantly supported Israel. But over the long term, the great guarantor of the U.S.-Israel relationship has been the bipartisan, pro-Israel majorities in both Houses of Congress. Throughout her brief history, Israel has also courageously faced enemies who have threatened her existence. Today we once again see the rise of such threats to Israel, including some that are existential. Those threats come from the same Islamist extremists and terrorists who threaten America today and against whom we are fighting the global war on terrorism. History has taught us that we cannot ignore or appease these dangers, so let's never forget that Israel is a living symbol for the ideals we as Americans treasure--the ideals of freedom and human dignity. It is sometimes said that nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests. But I believe the United States of America has a permanent interest in our permanent friendship with the State of Israel because that friendship is based on eternal values. We pledge today on the day of this 60th anniversary of the modern State of Israel, and we pray with God's help that those eternal values and permanent friendships will sustain these two great democratic nations eternally. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a new bill, the Accelerating Cures Act of 2008, to enhance public and private research efforts to develop new tools and therapies that prevent, detect, and cure diseases more quickly from bench to bedside. I introduced an earlier version of this legislation in December 2005, the American Center for Cures Act of 2005, S. 2104. Fundamentally, the Accelerating Cures Act of 2008 has the same intent to promote clinical and translational research within the National Institutes of Health while incorporating many of the recommendations made from the 2003 National Academy of Sciences Report, ``Enhancing the Vitality of the National Institutes of Health: Organizational Change to Meet New Challenges.'' The NIH is a successful, worldwide leader in biomedical research whose mission is to support ``science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.'' Our national investment in NIH is integral to our Nation's capacity to respond safely and effectively to public and population health threats, chronic disease prevention and management, and burdensome orphan diseases. The 2006 NIH reauthorization strengthened the agency even further, and also brought a greater focus on clinical and translational research to its mission. The Accelerating Cures Act of 2008 would build upon the progress of NIH reauthorization and further enhance the ability of the agency to address clinical and translational research barriers. For example, it is estimated to take up to 17 years for a scientific discovery to be translated into a clinical application. This gap will not be resolved unless we take serious action to implement clinical and translational research initiatives, critically evaluate the impact of health care delivery, promote multi- and cross-disciplinary collaboration, increase the number of clinicians engaged in clinical and translational research, and foster efforts that streamline the translational development process to result in product commercialization. The Accelerating Cures Act of 2008 would address these issues by creating new programs that fund high-risk, high-reward research, to oversee and direct promising avenues of translational research, to increase the translational and clinical research workforce, and to provide new funds and authorities to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of various treatments and procedures at the NIH. The bill expands upon existing infrastructure in the Office of Portfolio Analysis and Strategic Initiatives and encourages intra- and inter- agency collaboration to build on strengths of NIH's 27 institutes and centers and other Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense, Food and Drug Administration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Lastly, the Accelerating Cures Act of 2008 uniquely adds resources to guide researchers through the `Valley of Death,' a stage in biomedical development between research and commercialization where the success of an initiative is dependent on feasibility and profitability that can only be established by a market that, by definition, has not yet developed. With the bill's strengthening and broadening of the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs and making available resources such as the Rapid Access to Intervention Development and Translational Development programs, investigators, institutions, small businesses, and other entities, will be better suited to navigate the regulatory and commercialization processes. To summarize, the NIH has been and continues to be our Nation's premier biomedical research investment in areas of basic science and clinical and translational research. My legislation seeks to expand upon existing clinical and translational research efforts not only to meet the healthcare needs of this Nation, but to maintain the NIH's status as the most respected research institution in the World. This bill will not only increase our overall Federal investment in the NIH, but enhance our translational and clinical research capacities overall. I urge my Senate colleagues, patient advocacy groups, and researchers to work together to bring new hope to Americans that we can fight and conquer disease. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President today more than ever, credit unions are a critical component of our nation's financial landscape. At a time when most financial institutions are retreating from the credit markets, credit unions are among the few lenders in the financial industry demonstrating resiliency and strength. For example, while many mortgage lenders are struggling to stay afloat, the delinquency rate on mortgages issued by credit unions is less than one percent, and credit unions are still lending. Nonetheless, certain outdated regulatory rules impede the ability of credit unions to effectively carry out their role as savings and lending institutions for local communities and small businesses. Because I believe that credit unions are a stabilizing force in the domestic economy and play an important role in providing financial services to local community and underserved groups, I am introducing the Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act of 2008, CURIA. The health of credit unions in today's turbulent economy is attributable to a business model that differs significantly from that of other financial institutions. Similar to banks and thrifts, credit unions act as intermediaries in the market for consumer finance. Credit unions, however, are governed by certain rules that take into account their position as cooperative lenders. Notably, credit unions operate as tax-exempt, nonprofit institutions. All credit union earnings are retained as capital or returned to members in the form of higher interest rates on savings accounts, lower interest rates on loans, and other financial benefits. Second, credit unions are member-owned with each member entitled to one vote in selecting board members and other decisions. Third, credit unions do not issue capital stock. Rather, credit unions create capital by retaining earnings. Fourth, credit unions rely on volunteer, generally unpaid boards of directors elected from the membership. Lastly, credit unions are limited to accepting members identified in a credit union's articulated field of membership--usually reflecting occupational, associational, or geographical links or affinity. In short, through a cooperative ownership structure, credit unions offer access to financial services to millions of Americans. As a result of strong ties to their communities, credit unions help meet local needs, and in the process, encourage economic growth, job creation, savings, and opportunities for small business owners. At the end of 2007, over 88 million individuals were members of state or federally charted credit unions in the United States, including close to a million individuals in the State of Connecticut. The legislation I am introducing will help modernize the Federal Credit Union Act, bringing antiquated rules into the era of twenty- first century consumer finance. CURIA would remove several instances of statutory micromanagement that place unreasonable constraints on the ability of credit unions and their boards to function efficiently and in the best interests of their members. The first title would update current capital requirements by implementing recommendations from the National Credit Union Administration, NCUA, the Federal regulatory body that oversees credit unions. For purposes of setting capital requirements, CURIA would implement a rigorous, two-part net worth test that would more closely track an institution's actual asset risk. The second title would promote community development and local economic growth by providing for modest expansion in credit union business lending. The title also includes provisions that would permit credit unions to extend services to areas with high unemployment and low incomes. The third title would provide credit unions with relief from outdated regulatory burdens by authorizing the NCUA to increase maximum loan terms and raise interest rate ceilings in response to sustained increases in prevailing market interest rate levels. The title would further allow greater credit union investment in credit union service organizations, allow limited investments in securities, and update credit union governance rules. Vigorous competition among financial service providers, new technology, and globalization have resulted in a financial marketplace where the products and actors are evolving at a much more rapid rate than the statutes and regulations that govern them. While recent events demonstrate that we must be prudent in our approach to financial regulation, we must not allow our rules to unjustifiably constrain those actors, such as credit unions, that contribute to financial stability, community development, and long-term growth. The Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act is an important step toward modernizing and calibrating our financial regulatory rules, I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President today more than ever, credit unions are a critical component of our nation's financial landscape. At a time when most financial institutions are retreating from the credit markets, credit unions are among the few lenders in the financial industry demonstrating resiliency and strength. For example, while many mortgage lenders are struggling to stay afloat, the delinquency rate on mortgages issued by credit unions is less than one percent, and credit unions are still lending. Nonetheless, certain outdated regulatory rules impede the ability of credit unions to effectively carry out their role as savings and lending institutions for local communities and small businesses. Because I believe that credit unions are a stabilizing force in the domestic economy and play an important role in providing financial services to local community and underserved groups, I am introducing the Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act of 2008, CURIA. The health of credit unions in today's turbulent economy is attributable to a business model that differs significantly from that of other financial institutions. Similar to banks and thrifts, credit unions act as intermediaries in the market for consumer finance. Credit unions, however, are governed by certain rules that take into account their position as cooperative lenders. Notably, credit unions operate as tax-exempt, nonprofit institutions. All credit union earnings are retained as capital or returned to members in the form of higher interest rates on savings accounts, lower interest rates on loans, and other financial benefits. Second, credit unions are member-owned with each member entitled to one vote in selecting board members and other decisions. Third, credit unions do not issue capital stock. Rather, credit unions create capital by retaining earnings. Fourth, credit unions rely on volunteer, generally unpaid boards of directors elected from the membership. Lastly, credit unions are limited to accepting members identified in a credit union's articulated field of membership--usually reflecting occupational, associational, or geographical links or affinity. In short, through a cooperative ownership structure, credit unions offer access to financial services to millions of Americans. As a result of strong ties to their communities, credit unions help meet local needs, and in the process, encourage economic growth, job creation, savings, and opportunities for small business owners. At the end of 2007, over 88 million individuals were members of state or federally charted credit unions in the United States, including close to a million individuals in the State of Connecticut. The legislation I am introducing will help modernize the Federal Credit Union Act, bringing antiquated rules into the era of twenty- first century consumer finance. CURIA would remove several instances of statutory micromanagement that place unreasonable constraints on the ability of credit unions and their boards to function efficiently and in the best interests of their members. The first title would update current capital requirements by implementing recommendations from the National Credit Union Administration, NCUA, the Federal regulatory body that oversees credit unions. For purposes of setting capital requirements, CURIA would implement a rigorous, two-part net worth test that would more closely track an institution's actual asset risk. The second title would promote community development and local economic growth by providing for modest expansion in credit union business lending. The title also includes provisions that would permit credit unions to extend services to areas with high unemployment and low incomes. The third title would provide credit unions with relief from outdated regulatory burdens by authorizing the NCUA to increase maximum loan terms and raise interest rate ceilings in response to sustained increases in prevailing market interest rate levels. The title would further allow greater credit union investment in credit union service organizations, allow limited investments in securities, and update credit union governance rules. Vigorous competition among financial service providers, new technology, and globalization have resulted in a financial marketplace where the products and actors are evolving at a much more rapid rate than the statutes and regulations that govern them. While recent events demonstrate that we must be prudent in our approach to financial regulation, we must not allow our rules to unjustifiably constrain those actors, such as credit unions, that contribute to financial stability, community development, and long-term growth. The Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act is an important step toward modernizing and calibrating our financial regulatory rules, I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from South Carolina and also my friend from Arizona. This is a very important question, and I thought it was a very compelling part of the testimony offered both by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker yesterday. If I may approach this by going back to the colloquy between my two friends earlier, they put their finger on a very important point. Let me go even a little further back. After 9/11/01, after we were attacked, one of the insights we had was there is a violent civil war, both theological and political, going on within the Muslim world between a small group of fanatics, violent jihadists and the rest of the Muslim world who are pretty much like the rest of all of us. They want to live better, freer, more opportunity- filled lives for themselves and their children. We went into Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We are there now to essentially help the Iraqis--and remember, Iraq is not just another country. It is one of the historic centers of the Arab world--to help this great country and its leaders and people to take hold of their own destiny and, in doing so, reject the extremists, the jihadists, the suicide bombers, and create for the Muslim world a different path to the future than the extremism and suicidal death and hatred and primitivism that al-Qaida, the current leadership of Iran, and others of that sort present to them. Part of what the testimony yesterday, I think, from Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus said is that thanks to the backing of the United States through the surge, the Iraqis are taking control of their destiny. As my colleagues pointed out, the moderates are winning. They have al-Qaida on the run out of Al Anbar Province. The businesses are reopening. The children are going back to school. They have hopes of a better future. One of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee said to General Petraeus: What is going on here? I thought we were in Iraq to fight al- Qaida. Now you are telling me we pretty much have beaten al-Qaida, we have them on the run, and now you are telling us we are there to fight Iran. That question missed the point, the point my colleagues have made in their colloquy. The point is, we are there for an affirmative reason. We are there to help the Iraqis establish a self-governing, self- defending moderate country, an antiterrorist country. We do have al- Qaida on the run, but as the two witnesses made clear yesterday, Iran is not on the run. In fact, Iran is an expansionist, fanatic power not only working through these special groups in Iraq but through Hezbollah in Lebanon and through Hamas in the Palestinian areas. They were tremendous statements yesterday, very strong. Ambassador Crocker: Iran continues to undermine the efforts of the Iraqi Government to establish a stable, secure state. This takes me--and then I will yield back to my colleagues--to what seemed to be the frustration of some of our colleagues on the committee yesterday. They were trying to get General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to tell us again: We are going to get all our troops or most of our troops out by X date. Fortunately, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are not accountable to political calculus. They have been given the responsibility for this mission. They have American lives on the line. They have lost American lives. The answer General Petraeus gave us is clearly the right one: I wish I could tell you how many brigades more I can pull out after July, but I can't until I see what conditions on the ground are. Maybe I can bring out some more, but maybe I can't. If I do it prematurely, we will run the risk of chaos and a loss of all we have gained in Iraq; frankly, a disrespect of the lives of Americans who have been lost there. Their families and loved ones always tell us: Don't let them to have died in vain. The No. 1 winner, if we pull out prematurely, would be Iran. They are all over Iraq. They have their hands in just about everything. If we leave and chaos ensues, as Ambassador Crocker said yesterday: Iran has said publicly it will fill any vacuum in Iraq, and extremist Shi'a militias would reassert themselves. We cannot let that happen. I thank my colleague.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend. Briefly, I recount a conversation with a friend of mine this morning. He said, watching the hearings yesterday, that he thought those who have been critical of our effort in Iraq seemed quite restrained yesterday. I said they were, and I think it is because the record General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were giving us was one of remarkable progress militarily, politically, and economically. It was hard to criticize, so the criticisms were kind of around the side: Why can't you tell us when we will get out exactly? Why didn't President Maliki consult more before he went south? What I wish is that our colleagues had accepted the facts General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave us of the extraordinary progress in Iraq, which is very critical to our security because it creates a victory for the moderates, the good guys in the civil war within the Islamic world, and it protects our security in that sense because, remember, it is the fanatics who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11. Let's hope for another day when there will be an agreement on the facts, and maybe we can get together to figure out how we can accelerate progress in Iraq so what all of us want can happen, which is we bring as many of our troops home as quickly as possible, with honor and after success. What can Congress do? I would say two things, after listening yesterday. One is to pass a supplemental. The second is to stay out of the way and not force our military and diplomatic leaders to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Don't impose deadlines.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a visionary in the field of music education, Dr. Walter Pavasaris. Dr. Pavasaris, a native of New Britain, CT, has been selected to receive the Massachusetts Music Educators Distinguished Service Award. Walter M. Pavasaris has been a music educator and curriculum coordinator in Massachusetts for the past 31 years. During that time he has taught all levels of K-12 music, including both general and instrumental, as well as teaching undergraduate and graduate level courses in various collegiate settings. In Walter's position as coordinator of fine and performing arts for the Lexington Public Schools, he is responsible for the implementation of the K-12 curriculum in the areas of music, visual arts, and drama. He leads a faculty of 41 highly motivated professional artists/educators. In addition to his responsibilities in Lexington, Walter also serves on the music education faculty at the Boston Conservatory of Music. In 1971, Walter graduated from the University of Hartford, Hartt College of Music, with a bachelor of music education degree. While at Hartt he studied double bass with Bert Turetzky, Leland Tolo, and also traveled to Boston and Tanglewood to study with William Rhein, associate principal double bassist of the Boston Symphony. While completing his undergraduate degree at Hartt, Walter was active as a freelance musician playing in a variety of small combos and big bands in the greater Hartford, CT, area. Additionally, he played in the Smith College Orchestra, Springfield, MA, Symphony and New Britain, CT, Symphony. In his senior year Walter was recognized by Hartt College of Music as an Outstanding Music Educator based on his outstanding leadership, participation, and scholarship in the field of music. Following his graduation from Hartt College of Music, Walter won an audition and was selected to become a member of the U.S. Military Academy Band at West Point, NY. During the next 3 years he played sousaphone in the marching band and double bass in the concert band and chamber orchestra. While at West Point, Walter was a member of the Hudson Valley Philharmonic Orchestra. During this time, he studied with New York Philharmonic double bassist Orin O'Brien. Upon his discharge from the Army, Walter began his graduate studies at the University of Michigan majoring in stringed instruments. While at Michigan, he was a teaching fellow in the String Department. He studied double bass with Larry Hurst. During his years at Michigan, Walter played in a variety of orchestral ensembles and was the double bassist in the wind ensemble conducted by H. Robert Reynolds. He earned his master of music in string instruments in December 1976. In September of 1977, Dr. Pavasaris joined the music faculty of the Belmont, MA, public schools. During his first few years in Belmont, his teaching responsibilities included being the director of orchestras and string teacher for grades 3 to 12, and conducting one of the middle school bands. As string enrollments flourished, his responsibilities shifted to overseeing the entire string and orchestral curriculum in grades 3 to 12. In addition to teaching large heterogeneous grouped weekly string lessons in each of the elementary schools, Walter encouraged his students to also be part of the very popular ``Saturday Morning'' music program, which he administered during many of the years he was in Belmont. It was in this program that all elementary students, studying an instrument, received a small homogenously grouped lesson as well as the opportunity to participate in either the All-Town String Orchestra or Band. During his years in Belmont, the Belmont High School and Chenery Middle School Orchestras expanded their music making both within and outside the community. Under his baton, the middle and high school orchestra ensembles consistently earned superior ratings at numerous State, regional, and international music festivals. Additionally, the Belmont High School Orchestra was selected to perform at the All- Eastern MENC Conference in Boston in 1983. In 1990, Walter was appointed coordinator of fine and performing arts for the Lexington Public Schools. His primary responsibilities include advocating for the arts and creating and implementing curricula in the areas of music, visual arts, and drama. Along with advocating for the arts among a wide array of constituencies, he also supervises and evaluates the K-12 fine and performing arts faculty. Throughout his tenure in Lexington, the arts have maintained an integral place within each student's basic education. Coordinating an outstanding professional faculty with a supportive administration and community, Walter has continuously modeled his passion and belief that music is a lifelong endeavor that transcends, gender, age and ethnicity. Throughout his professional life, Dr. Pavasaris has positively impacted many young music educators while serving on the faculty of many institutions within the greater Boston area, including the Boston Conservatory of Music, New England Conservatory of Music, and Boston University. As a member of the music education faculty at the Boston Conservatory of Music since the late 1980s, Walter has taught a variety of methods classes as well as classes in string pedagogy and conducting. He also had an integral part in redefining, reshaping, and changing the direction of the music education curriculum at TBC to address the needs of the contemporary educator. For 11 years, Dr. Pavasaris enthusiastically conducted the Boston University All- University Orchestra. The orchestra, which was comprised of nonmusic majors, played for the shear enjoyment of making good music. Whether teaching conducting, string pedagogy, or instrumental methods, Walter's students have experienced his enthusiasm and passion for the artistry of being a musician and educator. As a conductor, Walter has had the distinct privilege of conducting festival orchestras in all four Massachusetts districts as well as throughout New England. In 1992 and from 1999 to 2001 Walter was the guest conductor of the U.S. Youth Ensemble String Orchestra during their European Tours. During the 2004 and 2005 seasons he served as music director of the Nashoba Youth Orchestras. Currently, he is the music director and conductor of the Arlington, MA, Philharmonic Orchestra, a post he has held since 1980; associate music director and associate conductor of the Metrowest Orchestra; and conductor of the northshore Youth Symphony Senior Orchestra. In 1992, Dr. Pavasaris was the recipient of the Paul Smith Memorial Conductor of the Year Award presented by the Massachusetts Instrumental and Choral Conductors' Association. In 1996, the Massachusetts Music Educators' Association named Dr. Pavasaris as a recipient of the Lowell Mason Award acknowledging his numerous contributions to music and music education. Throughout his career, Walter has had the good fortune to be associated with many wonderful colleagues and students. He is however, most thankful for the patience, understanding, and encouragement of his wife Beverly and son Christopher, who currently works in my office as a staff assistant. Making music is an endeavor that can be enjoyed, cherished, and celebrated regardless of age, gender or ethnicity. It is inspiring to realize that the personal and professional contributions of Dr. Pavasaris will only continue to grow through the works of very people that Walter has come into contact with. It is with great pride that I recognize such a dedicated visionary in the field of music education.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Budget Committee for its efforts to fund a strong homeland defense, and to introduce an amendment with my friend Senator Collins on one issue where we think additional work is needed--funding to continue building the new Federal Emergency Management Agency. First, I want to praise the Budget Committee for working within our difficult budget environment to find adequate funding for critical homeland security needs, especially support to our State and local partners in homeland security. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, includes some useful increases for targeted programs, but comes up short overall. It is basically a steady State budget with the glaring exception of homeland security grants, where the administration has once again proposed aggressive and unwise cuts to core Federal grant programs that States, tribes, cities, and towns rely on to keep their citizens safe. If the President's budget were enacted, it would mean a 48-percent drop in overall grant funding--seriously limiting the ability of State and local officials to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism and natural disasters and to protect their communities the way they should be protected. The threats we face have not diminished over the years and neither should the funding to combat those threats. Most dramatically, the fiscal year 2009 budget request cuts the State homeland security grant program, SHSGP, from $950 million to $200 million--a whopping 79-percent reduction from fiscal year 2008. SHSGP grants are basic preparedness grants to States, and the failure to fund them would significantly undermine national preparedness efforts. I am pleased that the budget resolution before us rejects those proposed cuts and funds SHSGP at its current level of $950 million, which also happens to be the level we authorized in the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, which for the first time set forth statutory requirements for the grants' allocation and use. The budget resolution also rejects proposed cuts to other vital grant programs including grants to firefighters, for emergency management, and for port and transit security. All of these important programs are restored to fiscal year 2008 levels, adjusted for inflation, in the pending budget resolution, and I thank the Budget Committee for that. On the critical matter of interoperable communications, the Budget Committee has done better still--increasing funding for the interoperable emergency communications grant program, IECGP, from $50 million this year to $200 million in fiscal year 2009. State homeland security directors recently identified the development of interoperable communications as their top priority, and it is a complex problem that will be resolved only through strong--Federal leadership, coordination at all levels of government, and a substantial commitment of dedicated funding. This grant program, which was authorized in the recent 9/11 Act, will help achieve this critical goal. I also want to thank the Budget Committee for providing funds to begin building a new DHS headquarters at the St. Elizabeths West Campus. We cannot expect DHS to succeed at its many challenging missions without the fundamental management tools that are taken for granted by much smaller organizations. Today, DHS is spread throughout 70 buildings across the national capital region making communication, coordination, and cooperation between DHS components a significant challenge. A unified headquarters, which would bring together many of the Department's components into a single facility and allow employees to work more efficiently and interactively. I believe it is a critical cornerstone of the efforts to improve management at the Department of Homeland Security. I am concerned, however, that the budget resolution does not provide enough to continue reforms underway to strengthen and rebuild FEMA, which is why Senator Collins and I are offering this amendment today, to increase FEMA's operations, management and administration account by $141 million. Following Hurricane Katrina, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee conducted an extensive bipartisan investigation into the failed response at all levels of government, especially and including FEMA's response. We found that FEMA was woefully unprepared-- and in fact had never been prepared--to deal with a catastrophe on the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina, lacking essential capabilities and resources. Our committee subsequently made significant recommendations to strengthen FEMA's capabilities and resources. Congress implemented many of those recommendations in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which was intended to recreate FEMA into a stronger, more robust agency that would, for the first time, be equipped to prepare for and respond to a true catastrophe. The legislation also reunited the agency's preparedness and response functions; strengthened FEMA's regional offices and emergency response teams; and fortified its emergency planning and preparedness responsibilities. Last year, FEMA received a much needed funding increase, enabling it to take the essential first step in the long process of rebuilding. While the budget resolution would sustain FEMA operations at current levels, it does not include the increases needed for it to continue strengthening its core capabilities. Our amendment proposes an additional $141 million to fully fund the Administration's requested increase to pay for modernizing the agency's IT systems; strengthening and expanding key teams and other personnel that handle disaster operations, logistics and other vital capabilities; and converting certain temporary disaster support employees to permanent staff, which should help provide a more stable and professional workforce for this program. The cost of the amendment would be offset by reductions in a government-wide, general account. The President's request does not provide enough to strengthen these core FEMA capabilities, and I would readily support a larger increase. But at a minimum, we should all be able to agree on the administration's proposed figure to correct the significant deficiencies we witnessed during the response to Hurricane Katrina. Therefore, Senator Collins and I are offering this amendment to ensure that FEMA continues its transformation into the agency envisioned by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which is an agency prepared to respond to the many potential catastrophes--from natural disasters to manmade terrorists acts--that we face today. Without additional funds, significant deficiencies exposed by Hurricane Katrina will persist and FEMA simply will not be able to protect the American people the way we want it to. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to improve our homeland security.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Chair, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business on another subject for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Again, I thank the Presiding Officer for staying in the chair for a period of 10 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this morning we learned of the death of William F. Buckley, Jr. I wanted to come to the floor and reminisce a bit about Bill Buckley, whom I have been privileged to know for more than 40 years, and to pay tribute to a devoted and patriotic American, a remarkably creative and eloquent man of letters, a person with an extraordinary sense of humor and a kind of spirit to him that infused anyone around him. He was a person who believed in the power of ideas and loved the exchange of ideas. He lived a remarkable life, with great effect for this country that he loved, and a tremendous impact on people who read his novels, his books, and his columns in the National Review, or watched him for so many years on that wonderfully thoughtful, cerebral, provocative TV program ``Firing Line,'' which was open not just to conservatives such as Bill Buckley, but to people with all shades of opinion who were willing to engage him--Bill Buckley, WFB--on the field of ideas. A remarkable man. I was privileged to get to know him more than 40 years ago when I became the editor--at Yale, of course, editor wasn't a good enough title. I was called the chairman of the board of the Yale Daily News. And there was a gentleman at the Yale Daily News named Francis Donahue--Tackie Donahue--and he had been there forever as the permanent business manager. I remember the day after I was chosen, he told me he had informed Bill Buckley of this in one of his regular memos back and forth to Buckley. I was fascinated by this and began a communication with Bill Buckley at that time, and he took a wonderfully warm, kind of brotherly interest in those who were at the Yale Daily News, as he had been in the early 1950s. He invited me and a couple of our friends from the news to come to his house in Stamford, CT, for a dinner or two, which were stimulating, thrilling evenings. Our friendship went on, and I will come back to that, but Buckley's life is an extraordinary life. He came out of Yale, became very well known for a book he wrote about what he thought was the hostile environment at Yale toward people of faith, toward people who were conservative, et cetera, et cetera, ``God and Man at Yale.'' He went from that to starting the National Review in the mid-1950s. I believe it was 1955. I remember reading once that he had said in the founding issue that the publication would derive from original ideas of the moral order. Bill Buckley was a person who studied history, studied literature, learned from it, and also was infused with a deep and profound commitment to his Roman Catholic faith. That, I think, was the origin of the moral order which he gave expression to in all that he did in writing for the National Review and speaking out and conducting himself as a provocative, loving American. He believed that ideas mattered, and they did. The National Review, in some sense, gave birth to the modern American conservative movement. But it wasn't always a Republican movement. His was a matter of ideals and ideas and philosophy--conservatism. Incidentally, he rejected extremism. To his everlasting credit, he took on the extremists of the John Birch Society, which wasn't popular for him to do at the time he did it. I am just remembering words of Buckley. He said he was a conservative ideologically, not always favorable to Republican candidates. I remember reading about an editorial he wrote in the National Review endorsing General Eisenhower for President. While everyone else was echoing the slogan ``We Like Ike,'' Buckley's editorial said, ``We Prefer Ike.'' So it was a relative judgment that he made. He was thrilled, of course, much more by the candidacy of a former Member of this body, a distinguished Member, Senator Barry Goldwater, and most of all by the candidacy of President Reagan. At one point, in the mid-1960s, he ran for mayor of New York. And again as a kind of joyous, thought- provoking, elegant, eloquent exercise in being involved in the marketplace of public ideas, perhaps most famous, though perhaps not the most substantive thing he said in that campaign, is when they asked what he would do when he was elected. Bill Buckley famously said: I will demand a recount. And that is a good message for all of us when we approach campaigns. Well, I continued to be involved with him in communication in many ways. My wife and I had the privilege of spending wonderful evenings with him and his late wife Patricia at their home in Stamford, CT. These were classic evenings of great food, some drink, and good spirited conversations--cigar and brandy to follow--but always open to ideas and always with a ready willingness to laugh. In fact, he passed away earlier today, apparently in his study in his magnificent home on Wallace Point in Stamford, CT, probably working on a column or some other piece of writing. I was particularly grateful to him for all that I learned from him, all the good times I had with him, and in some sense, you might say I would not be a United States Senator were it not for Bill Buckley, although Buckley would not say that. When I ran for the Senate in 1988, let's just say with the diplomacy that marks this Chamber that Bill Buckley was not a fan of the incumbent Republican Senator, and he called me up and said--I wish I could impersonate him--Joe, I'm thinking of endorsing you. Do you think that will help? I said: Well, now, that's very good of you. Then he interrupted and said: Please understand this is the only time I am likely to endorse your career. So I said that it probably would; what do you have in mind? Well, he actually wrote a column, a very good column in the National Review, and I think in his syndicated column. He also, with the puckishness that was part of him, started something he called Buck PAC, which was, he said, a PAC open to anyone in Connecticut whose name was Buckley and who was committed to the defeat of the incumbent Senator at that time. He printed bumper stickers and the like and helped out in the campaign. I said to him after I won that election--and I won it by very little--that I thought that in a close election--as the Presiding Officer of the Senate knows, there are so many reasons one is successful--but I said: You have reason, Bill, to take part of the credit. I won by less than 1 percent of the vote. And I said: You know, I would go so far as to say you played a rabbinical role for me in this campaign. Well, what do you mean by that? So I said: Your endorsement of me and the columns you wrote said to Republicans in Connecticut who really didn't like the incumbent Senator, it is kosher to vote for Lieberman. And he laughed. I remember that well. There is so much I could say about his contribution to our country, to his openness to ideas, to his civility. One could disagree with Bill Buckley, as I did quite frequently, and never lose respect or affection, dare I say love, for a wonderful human being. We would all benefit from that. I perhaps would close this impromptu tribute to Bill Buckley, mourning his loss today, by offering condolences to his family: Chris Buckley, his son, who is a wonderful writer and confuses me as well as others with the multisyllabic words that he uses just as his father did; his sisters, Priscilla L. Buckley of Sharon, where the family has longed lived; Patricia Buckley Bozzell of Washington; Carol Buckley of Columbia, SC; his brothers, Judge James Buckley of Sharon, CT, and F. Reid Buckley of Camden, SC; and a granddaughter and grandson. I pray that they will be strengthened by their faith and comforted by good memories and pride and the extraordinary person in Bill Buckley. I think most fitting of all, I will end with a quote from President Reagan on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the National Review in 1985. Reagan says when he first picked up his first issue of National Review, he received it in a plain brown wrapper and still anxiously awaited his biweekly edition but no longer in a plain brown wrapper. But this is what Reagan said of Buckley: You didn't just part the Red Sea--you rolled it back, dried it up, and left exposed, for all the world to see, the naked desert that is statism. And then, as if that weren't enough, you gave the world something different, something in its weariness it desperately needed, the sound of laughter and the sight of the rich, green uplands of freedom. I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to bid farewell in this Senate Chamber to a great American and a dear friend, William F. Buckley, Jr. I pray with confidence and the faith that Bill Buckley had that his soul will be taken up truly in the bonds of eternal life. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the measure introduced by Senator Feingold. It has been only a year since GEN David Petraeus arrived in Baghdad and took command of American forces in Iraq. But in these brief 12 months, he and the American and coalition troops under his command have brought about a tectonic shift in Iraq that has altered the course of the war there and, with it, the future of at least two great nations-- Iraq and the United States of America--and the lives of hundreds of millions of people in those two nations and so many others threatened by violent jihadist terrorists in the Middle East and beyond. When the surge first began a year ago, many doubted that the violence then raging in Iraq could be brought under control. Even as American troops began implementing this bold new counterinsurgency strategy, some opponents of the war inside and outside of Congress declared that the war in Iraq was already ``lost,'' that the surge had already been ``tried and failed,'' and that it mattered more, frankly, that we get out of Iraq than that we succeed in Iraq. They could not have been more wrong. Thanks to the surge, the bravery and skill of American and Iraqi troops and the will of the Iraqi people to be free from terrorists, conditions on the ground in Iraq have been totally transformed from those of a year ago. A year ago, al-Qaida in Iraq was entrenched, in control of, exercising murderous control in Anbar Province and Baghdad. Now those evil forces of Islamist extremism are facing their single greatest and most humiliating defeat since 2001. This is not just my opinion. It is a matter of fact. In Baghdad, a fact: sectarian killings are down 95 percent in the last year; suicide bombings are down nearly 70 percent; IED attacks have been cut nearly in half. In the face of those extraordinary improvements in Iraq--and many more I will speak of in a moment in the social and political and economic life of that great country--however, antiwar forces here in America have reacted not with sighs of relief and gratitude but, instead, by doing everything in their power to downplay or diminish our hard-won gains in Iraq. Rather than admit the possibility that they had been wrong about the surge and about the capability of reestablishing security in Iraq, they, instead, reached for another rationale for retreat. What they argued was the lack of political progress in Iraq and, therefore, that the surge had failed. But this argument has also now been defeated by facts on the ground in Iraq. In the first place, the Iraqi people have taken over their local and provincial governments in a grassroots up democratic revolution. At the national level, a response is occurring. It took too long, but it is now significant. Benchmark legislation has surged forward in the Iraqi Parliament. The budget law, passed; the debaathification law, passed; the provincial powers and election law, passed; the amnesty law, passed. Thanks to the surge, the Sunni Arabs, who once constituted the core of the insurgency, have now risen, because we stood by them, to join with us and go ahead on their own to fight against al-Qaida and put al-Qaida-- the same al-Qaida that attacked us on 9-11-01--on the run. Thanks to the surge, the Shiites, who had turned in desperation to militias and death squads for protection from al-Qaida and Iranian- backed extremists, are now rejecting those militias, death squads, and extremists. They want a better, more peaceful life for themselves and their families. And the American-led surge has put that within their reach. Last week, Moqtada al-Sadr announced he is extending his unilateral cease-fire. He did not do this as a favor to the United States of America or the Maliki Government in Baghdad. He did it because in Iraq today, thanks to the surge, and all that has been part of it, the rules of the game have changed. Violence and extremism are no longer the clear path to power in Iraq. In fact, they are becoming the path to political oblivion in Iraq. The people of Iraq want peace and stability and hope. What then has been the reaction of antiwar groups here at home to these enormous achievements in Iraq? Are they now ready to admit they were wrong about the surge? Even if they were opposed to the war in Iraq in the first place, are they now ready to acknowledge that we are there, we are succeeding, and it would be wrong and hurtful to the United States for Congress to force a retreat now that would, in Churchill's terms, ``snatch defeat from the jaws of victory''? To judge by the resolution now before us, the answer to that question is no. On the contrary, even as the facts on the ground have changed so much for the better, the resolution before us offers the same familiar prescription for retreat and surrender--ordered by Congress, not by our military leaders in the field or here at home--and it orders that, no matter what the consequences for the freedom of the Iraqi people, the future of the Islamic world, and the future national security of the United States of America. Some claim the war in Iraq is a distraction from the ``real'' war on terror. Al-Qaida disagrees. And so do I. Al-Qaida's leadership has repeatedly made clear they consider Iraq to be the central front of their campaign against us and most of the rest of the civilized world. According to our intelligence agencies, al-Qaida in Iraq remains al- Qaida's most visible and capable affiliate worldwide and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the American homeland--us here at home. I know there are some who hear these arguments, watch what is happening, and say: Oh, no. The sponsors of this legislation certainly understand exactly how much political and military progress we are making against al-Qaida and Iranian-backed extremists in Iraq and how much is riding on the line there for America and most of the rest of the civilized world faced by this threat of violent jihadist terrorism. But this argument goes that the sponsors of this kind of resolution feel compelled to offer it to show antiwar groups in the United States that they have not forgotten them. I refuse to believe that. I refuse to believe--I do not believe it-- that my colleagues would so trifle with the honor of American soldiers who have served and are serving in Iraq--too many of whom have given their lives in that service--or they would play such a political game with our national security. I respect my colleagues too much to take this legislation as anything other than what it says. It orders a retreat within 120 days. It actually imposes so-called caveats on American forces after that 120 days, which are exactly the kind of caveats, limitations, on what they can do that we are now arguing with our European allies to stop in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, some of our NATO allies are there, but they can only do certain things. They cannot enter into battle, et cetera. They cannot go out into the field with the Afghani National Army. We are saying you cannot fight a war that way. Listen to what one section of this matter before us offered by the Senator from Wisconsin says. Our troops, after the 120 days, can provide training to members of the Iraqi Security Forces ``provided that such training does not involve members of the United States Armed Forces taking part in combat operations or being embedded with Iraqi forces.'' That is a caveat, a limitation, exactly what we are arguing with our European allies to stop doing in Afghanistan. The fact is, the legislation, this measure now before this Chamber, flies in the face of the recommendations of our proud and tested commanders on the ground in Iraq. If enacted, it would unravel all the hard-won gains our troops have made in the past year. It would hand victory to the suicide bombers and fanatics who are now on the run. It would betray the millions of Iraqis who are standing with us today because they desire a better, freer life for themselves and their children. And it would endanger the lives of and hopes of hundreds of millions more who live in the Middle East and throughout the Islamic world who yearn for a life of peace and justice, not a life of extremism, death, and primitivism that al-Qaida offers them. I wish to close, if I may, with a word directed to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, the Democratic Members of this Senate. I have thought a lot about this war, and I cannot help but wonder, in a moment such as this, what some of the political heroes of my youth, who were Democrats, would think if they were here and could see and listen to this debate and read this resolution. I think of President Kennedy, who declared: We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. In my opinion, that is exactly what we are doing in Iraq today. I ask my colleagues: Do these words have meaning, have significance or are these just words? I think of President Harry Truman, who proclaimed, at the outset of the Cold War: It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. Are these too just words? Isn't that exactly what is happening in Iraq today? The people of Iraq, liberated from the terrible dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, hoping to secure a better future for themselves, now, with our assistance and encouragement, ``are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities''--read here: al-Qaida--``or by outside pressures''--read here: Iran. Are these just words? I hope not. I do not believe they are. There was a time when these were not just words, but they were the convictions that lay at the heart of the Democratic Party's foreign and national security policy. The legislation now before this Chamber, if implemented, would not, in my opinion, only betray our friends in the Middle East, it would not only betray America's own vital national interests against our deadliest enemies, al-Qaida and Iran, it would also betray the best ideals of the Democratic Party that I joined decades ago. They were strong and liberal ideals, and I use those words intentionally. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy, great Democratic Senators such as Hubert Humphrey and ``Scoop'' Jackson, believed that the party stood for being liberal at home and liberal abroad. What did that mean? Liberal in the classic sense of the term ``freedom,'' which is what America is all about: the self-evident truth that we are all endowed by our Creator with the rights to life and liberty. So I wish to appeal particularly today to my Democratic colleagues in the Senate to reject this resolution, and in that sense to return to what I believe are the strongest, proudest, most purposed moments of the history of the Democratic Party in recent decades on matters of foreign and national security policy. In sum, a year ago, the Bush administration acknowledged its mistakes in Iraq and changed course there. It is now time for opponents of the war and the surge to do the same. It is time for them to admit that the surge has worked and that America's security and freedom are on the line in Iraq today, that we are winning there, and it would be a disastrous mistake to impose the policies ordered by this resolution, this amendment, which would deprive our brave American men and women in uniform and the brave soldiers of other countries, including Iraq, of the victory that they are winning now for the people of Iraq, the people of America, and the cause of freedom, which is America's cause. I implore my colleagues, vote against this resolution. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I regret having missed the final vote for the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 2007. I support the passage of this bill and would have voted in the affirmative. It has been over 15 years since the Indian Health Care Improvement Act has been reauthorized. It is critical to strengthen the provision of care, through the Indian Health Service, IHS, to American Indian and Alaska Native populations, who suffer from significant health disparities compared to the general U.S. population, including a life expectancy that is 2.4 years lower, and significantly higher death rates from tuberculosis, alcoholism, diabetes, suicide, and infant mortality. The Indian Health Service derives its authorities from the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and its mission is to improve the health status of American Indians and Alaskan Natives by constructing, maintaining, and managing health care delivery and sanitation systems through a network of 49 hospitals, 6,500 IHS, tribal, and private contract facilities. The IHS provides ambulatory, emergency, dental, and preventative health services to 58 percent of the 3.3 million American Indians and Alaska Natives; however, it is confronting these challenges with significant health care workforce shortages. Anywhere from 12 to 32 percent of positions for dentists, nurses, optometrists, physicians, and pharmacists, among other health professionals, are currently vacant. Thus, the passage of this legislation is critical to strengthening the IHS and providing critical services to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Specifically, the reauthorization will improve the recruitment and retention of health providers in the IHS, provide support for American Indians and Alaska Natives to enter the health professions, provide funds for the construction of health and sanitation facilities, expand Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP reimbursement and enrollment to all American Indians and Native Alaskans health programs, eliminate Medicare and CHIP cost-sharing and premiums for American Indians and Native Alaskans served by tribal health programs, improve IHS information systems, billing, and patient care and training, mandate that the Departments of the Interior and Health and Human Services design a comprehensive approach to behavioral health assessment, treatment, and prevention services, establish a National Bi-Partisan Commission on Indian Health Care to study the delivery of services to American Indians and Native Alaskans, require an annual report to Congress on the enrollment and health status of American Indians and Native Alaskans served by Federal health programs, reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund to support health promotion and disease prevention programs, cancer screenings, epidemiological and health services research, and catastrophic healthcare, and modernize health care delivery for American Indian and Native Alaskan seniors requiring long-term care, hospice, home/community-based care, and assisted living. I commend the work of both the Senate Indian Affairs and Finance Committees and, most importantly, Senators Dorgan and Murkowski for their leadership and commitment to this bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I wish a happy 70th birthday to Mr. Dennis Swanson, a kind and generous man who has been one of the leading innovators in television broadcasting over the last 30 years. Mr. Swanson, who currently serves as president of stations operations at FOX Television Stations, Inc., has been called a ``mastermind'' of the broadcast industry. It is high praise, and very well deserved. With keen foresight, tremendous business acumen, and a willingness to take chances, Swanson has improved the fortunes of every station he has worked for. Most importantly, he did this not by offering viewers programs that appealed to the lowest common denominator, but instead he developed creative, high-quality programming that appealed to the needs of the stations' communities. In 1976, Swanson was hired as executive producer of KABC, Los Angeles' ABC affiliate. At that time, the station had never finished higher than third in local news ratings, and Swanson saw that the station needed to do something to offers its viewers a new perspective. In 1977, with the debate over Proposition 13 raging throughout California, Swanson invited the measure's author, Howard Jarvis, to come on the 5 p.m. newscast and debate the measure's opponents every day for a month. In addition, Swanson worked hard to improve the quality of the station's reporting. These efforts paid off when in 1978 he was awarded the George Foster Peabody Award, the most prestigious award in broadcasting, for KABC's reporting on the Los Angeles Police Department. KABC became the No. 1 station in the region, and Swanson was promoted to station manager in 1981. In 1983, Swanson was asked to take over WLS-TV, an ABC owned and operated station in Chicago with low ratings. It is here that Swanson made perhaps the best broadcasting decision of his career and one that reveals his strong character. Impressed by her audition, Swanson offered a morning show to a woman from Baltimore with a unique name. As Swanson recalled years later, Oprah Winfrey wasn't sure she was ready for such a job. She was concerned that her color and appearance would prevent her from winning over viewers. Swanson would have none of that, ``I'm not in the color business,'' he told her. He assured her that he didn't want her to change her appearance, but to simply ``be the person I saw audition.'' As we all know, the decision to hire Oprah was an unqualified success, rocketing WLS to the top of the Chicago market and eventually reaping billions in revenues for ABC. It also launched the career of one of the most influential and inspirational figures in America today. In 1986, Swanson moved to New York to take the helm at ABC Sports. During his tenure, ABC's top sports program, ``Monday Night Football,'' became one of America's top-rated primetime programs, consistently ranking in the top-10 highest rated shows. He also pulled one of the most remarkable developments in sports programming history when he convinced the International Olympic Committee to stagger its winter and summer games so the Olympics would occur every other year. This decision has been credited with keeping the public interested in the games and promoting the Olympics' message of sportsmanship and friendly competition. Additionally, Swanson was integral in the development of the Bowl Championship Series, an agreement between the four major college football bowl games that allows for the top two teams to play for the national championship at the end of each year. In 1996, Swanson went to work as general manager for WNBC, NBC's flagship station in New York. The station was running second to longtime market leader WABC-TV, but needed a creative spark to put it over the top. As he had done in L.A. and Chicago, Swanson focused on providing viewers with high-quality community programming. He convinced network executives to broadcast the Christmas tree lighting at Rockefeller Center live during prime time. It was a huge hit. True to form, the station under Swanson broadcast other community events, such as the St. Patrick's Day Parade and the Puerto Rican Pride day parade, ensuring that many New Yorkers who were unable to attend the parades could still feel like part of the festivities. When Swanson left WNBC in 2002, the station, like those he left in Chicago and Los Angeles, was the ratings leader for its market. After leaving WNBC, Swanson served as executive vice president and chief operating officer of Viacom Television Stations, Inc., where he oversaw 39 television stations throughout the country. While his tenure there was brief, having left for FOX in 2005, at the time of his departure Viacom's stations in New York and L.A. were increasing in market share, as were several stations in smaller markets. He now is in charge of FOX's 35 local television stations. For all the success he has had, focusing solely on Mr. Swanson's professional success doesn't even allow one to scratch the surface of his rich life. Far from the apocryphal career-obsessed television executive of popular lore, for him serving the community was not just a strategy for increasing television ratings but a way of life. He has served on the boards and advisory committees of various organizations, including the Broadway Association, Inc., the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, the Committee for Hispanic Children and Families, Inc, and the Ireland-United States Council for Commerce and Industry. He has also been active in efforts to promote minority voices in the media, serving as chairman of the Emma L. Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in the Media since its founding in 1991. Those who know him best say Mr. Swanson has two passions: his family and the U.S. Marine Corps. Having served in the Marines as an officer in the early 1960s, he often credits the corps with helping make him the man he is today. He has given back, raising millions for the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation and the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund. But first and foremost for Mr. Swanson is his family. Despite his busy schedule, he strives to spend as much time as possible with Kathy, his wife of 46 years, their three children and nine grandchildren. He makes it a point to be with them for every holiday and special event. All of his grandchildren have their grandfather attend their events, whether they are hockey games in Connecticut at 6 a.m. or theatrical plays and lacrosse games in northern Virginia or ballets and soccer games in southern California; Dennis is always there for them When looking upon all that Mr. Swanson has accomplished both professionally and personally, it is difficult to imagine that there is more that he can do. Yet his dedication and creativity have proven resilient over the years, so one can only expect bigger and better things from him. I look forward to seeing what kind of new and innovative ideas he develops in the future. Happy birthday, Dennis Swanson. May your 70th year be your best one yet.