Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007, which my good friend from the other side of the aisle, Senator Smith, and I introduced last Congress and are introducing again today, along with 19 other cosponsors. This legislation is another step in the process to make the Federal Government more competitive in an ever-changing business world. It would require the Government to extend employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. It is sound public policy and it makes excellent business sense. Under our bill, Federal employee and the employee's domestic partner would be eligible to participate in health benefits, Family and Medical Leave, long-term care, Federal retirement benefits, and other benefits to the same extent that married employees and their spouses participate. Employees and their partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements. The Federal Government is our Nation's largest employer and should lead other employers, rather than lagging behind, in the quest to provide equal and fair compensation and benefits to all employees. That thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their careers to public service and who live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners receive fewer protections for their families than those married employees is patently unfair and, frankly, makes no economic sense. Just ask the leaders of more than half of the Fortune 500 companies who already extend employee benefit programs to their employees' domestic partners. The fact is that most of America's major corporations now offer health benefits to employees' domestic partners, up from 25 percent in 2000. Overall, more than 9,700 private-sector companies provide available benefits to employees' domestic partners, as do several hundred State and local governments and colleges and universities. General Electric, Chevron, Boeing, Texas Instruments, IBM, Raytheon, BP, Hospital Corporation of America, Lockheed Martin, Duke Energy Corp., and AT&T are among the major employers that have recognized the economic benefit of providing for domestic partners. The governments of 13 States--including, I might add, my home State of Connecticut--and about 145 local jurisdictions across the land, as well as multiple educational institutions, have joined the trend. They aren't all doing this just because it is the right thing to do. They are also doing it because it is good business policy. Non-federal employers have told surveyors that they extend benefits to domestic partners to boost recruitment and retain quality employees--as well as to be fair. The Federal Government needs to compete against the private sector companies to recruit and retain the ``best and the brightest,'' to safeguard the Nation by serving in essential areas such as homeland security, national defense, and environmental protection and to help make sure that American taxpayers get their money's worth. The Government will always be at a definite disadvantage in competing for and retaining highly qualified personnel if it cannot match the domestic-partner benefits programs provided by leading non-federal employers. Furthermore, coverage of domestic partners adds very little to the total cost of providing employee benefits. Based on the experience of private companies and State and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that offering benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees would increase the cost of those programs by less than \1/2\ of 1 percent. Our former ambassador to Romania and Dean of the Foreign Service Institute recently felt obliged to quit the Foreign Service because the State Department does not offer the kind of domestic partnership benefits that this bill would provide. Let me read a line from his farewell speech. He said, ``. . . I have felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who is my family--and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary's leadership and a shame for this institution and our country.'' Those are powerful and poignant words, and it is a tragedy that a loyal and talented public servant--who described the Foreign Service as the career he was ``born for . . . what I was always meant to do''-- felt he had to leave the Service because his Federal employee benefits would not enable him to adequately care for the needs of his family. I call upon my colleagues to express their support for this important legislation. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up to the private sector, not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy senses. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the famous test pilot Chuck Yeager once said: ``Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. But a perfect landing is one where you can fly the plane the next day.'' When it comes to homeland security, the Omnibus appropriations bill which Congress approved last night is a good landing in the sense that we can all go home for the recess having improved funding for the Department of Homeland Security over the President's wholly inadequate budget request. But it is not a perfect landing because it leaves some important initiatives stuck on the ground due to either a lack of funding or misplaced priorities. First the good news: Overall the omnibus includes $38.7 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, for fiscal year 2008, including $2.7 billion in emergency funds for border security and other needs. This is significant improvement over the President's $34.3 billion request, with the additional money going to help our first responders and State and local governments purchase equipment and receive the training they need to effectively respond to man-made or natural disasters; to better protect our ports and railways; to increase security on our borders and in our airports, and to confront the looming threat of terrorists attacking us at home with improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Specifically, the bill includes $950 million for FEMA's State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP--the full level authorized in the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, which Senator Collins and I authored. SHSGP grants provide critical support for prevention, planning and response efforts by State and local governments. They help fund training, exercises and equipment for our Nation's first responders and support fusion centers that allow officials to share information that can prevent terrorist attacks. The omnibus also includes a combined $750 million for the assistance to firefighters grants and SAFER grants programs, both of which provide vital support to the nation's courageous fire fighters. Also, the emergency management performance grants program, which supports all-hazards planning and preparedness, received an increase of $100 million over last year's level for a total of $300 million. And a new interoperable communications grant program, included in the 911 implementation bill, will receive $50 million in funding a positive step towards what I hope will be a greater commitment to provide dedicated funding for what is still the number one priority of state and local officials. FEMA which is in the midst of a much needed transformation prescribed in the Post Katrina Emergency Management Act, which I also co-authored with Senator Collins also does well in the Omnibus, receiving $724 million $189 million above its fiscal year 2007 level. This includes an additional $100 million for FEMA's core operations programs, which are critical to the agency's efforts to turn itself into a world-class response agency capable of leading our Nation in preparing for and responding to a catastrophe which it clearly was unable to do with Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Rail and transit security grants receive $400 million, $225 million above 2007. These much needed investments will help improve security in transportation modes which have been largely neglected, relative to airline security, even though terrorists have time and again demonstrated that they are primary targets. Port security grants are funded at $400 million as authorized by the SAFE Port Act $190 million above last year's level. The legislation also includes $13 million for the secure freight initiative and global trade exchange programs--funding which will further help close another glaring weakness in our homeland defenses. I am a vocal proponent of comprehensive immigration reform. This includes reforms to strengthen of our borders. The omnibus moves us closer to that goal. The bill provides $6.8 billion for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, to improve security at the borders, including funds to continue limited use of National Guard troops on the border and hire 3,000 additional border patrol agents. The bill also provides $1.2 billion for border security fencing to complete 370 miles by the end of fiscal year 2008 and almost $15 million for additional unmanned aerial systems to patrol the border. And the omnibus includes $475 million for the U.S. VISIT program used to track the entry and exit of foreign visitors and $36 million for a new electronic travel authorization for travelers from Visa Waiver Program countries which was authorized by the 911 implementation bill. I am also pleased that another initiative I advocated--the development of a national strategy for use of closed circuit televisions to enhance national security--was included in the final omnibus package. The omnibus also helps us strengthen chemical security by providing $50 million--a significant increase over the President's original request--to protect chemical facilities from terrorist attacks. We know that chemical sites pose a serious homeland security vulnerability and we must ensure that DHS can help them enact meaningful security measures as soon as possible. I am also pleased that this legislation safeguards the ability of states and localities, who are our partners in homeland security, to enact stricter chemical security standards where appropriate. Finally, the omnibus also includes a $10-million increase for the Office of Bombing Prevention that Senator Collins and I added as an amendment on the floor. We have to confront the fact that highly lethal and simple-to-make IEDs have become the preferred weapon of terrorists and the Department of Homeland Security must have adequate resources to help State and local officials defend against this likely threat. But, as I said earlier, there are some problems with this bill and I hope we can improve upon it next year. To begin with, this bill contains a record amount of earmarks for homeland security--$443.8 million by my count. Earmarks can be valuable, but I fear that at this kind of record level we run the risk of being forced to take money away from more important initiatives. For instance, the pre-disaster mitigation grant program, which was not previously earmarked, now contains 96 specific earmarks totaling $51.3 million--nearly half the total appropriation for this program designed to mitigate the impact of future disasters. Also, regrettably, the omnibus appropriations bill does not include funding for a consolidated headquarters for DHS, which is essential to establishing a unified culture at the Department. Currently, DHS is spread throughout 70 buildings across Washington and the Capital region, making communication, coordination, and cooperation between DHS components a significant challenge. The elimination of this funding simply prolongs an unacceptable status quo and hinders the homeland security mission, and I will work hard to restore this funding in future appropriations. Finally, I am deeply disappointed that the omnibus bill unnecessarily delays full implementation of the Western Hemisphere travel initiative, WHTI, until June 1, 2009. Inadequate inspection of travelers to the United States from Canada, the Caribbean, and Mexico was identified by the 9/11 Commission, the GAO, and the State Department as a critical vulnerability to our travel systems. The language hardening the implementation deadline included in the Omnibus bill ties the hands of DHS and prevents it from finalizing additional security enhancements before such date. Again, the Omnibus appropriations bill is a good landing but not a perfect one and I hope as we begin wrestling with next year's budget we can make the appropriate fixes that will get certain needed programs off the ground.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is with great respect that I recognize G. Raymond ``Ray'' Empson, who for the past 11 years has served as president of the national nonprofit organization, Keep America Beautiful, Inc., and has announced his well-deserved retirement effective December 31 of this year. Keep America Beautiful, the organization that many remember as the originator of the famous ``Crying Indian'' public service advertisement in 1971, has been an important part of the fabric of American communities since 1953. Rooted in a nonpartisan and ``hands-on'' approach to improving communities and the environment, KAB forms public-private partnerships that engage everyone in improving not just the physical beauty of their hometowns, but their economic vitality and civic engagement, as well. I am proud that the state of Connecticut is home to the organization's national headquarters in Stamford. During Ray Empson's tenure, Keep America Beautiful has grown to over 570 local affiliate organizations in communities from coast to coast. Through his leadership, and expansion of the signature event, The Great American Cleanup, KAB and its affiliates have removed millions of tons of litter from the American landscape; planted millions of trees that improve our communities; conserved our natural resources by recycling tons of raw material; improved hiking, biking and nature trails; and most importantly, educated millions of Americans of all ages in sustainable behaviors that prevent litter and reduce waste. Given all these accomplishments, I can't help but think of Ray Empson's retirement in bittersweet terms. While I am certainly happy for him and wish him all the best, I can't help but think what a loss it will be for the country when he steps down. I am certain, however, that his commitment to the environment and his dedication to improving the quality of life in America's communities will serve as a strong example to all those who know him and have worked with him and will guide the future leadership of KAB. Thank you G. Raymond Empson. America is a better place because of you.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007, which my good friend from the other side of the aisle, Senator Smith, and I introduced last Congress and are introducing again today, along with 19 other cosponsors. This legislation is another step in the process to make the Federal Government more competitive in an ever-changing business world. It would require the Government to extend employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. It is sound public policy and it makes excellent business sense. Under our bill, Federal employee and the employee's domestic partner would be eligible to participate in health benefits, Family and Medical Leave, long-term care, Federal retirement benefits, and other benefits to the same extent that married employees and their spouses participate. Employees and their partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements. The Federal Government is our Nation's largest employer and should lead other employers, rather than lagging behind, in the quest to provide equal and fair compensation and benefits to all employees. That thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their careers to public service and who live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners receive fewer protections for their families than those married employees is patently unfair and, frankly, makes no economic sense. Just ask the leaders of more than half of the Fortune 500 companies who already extend employee benefit programs to their employees' domestic partners. The fact is that most of America's major corporations now offer health benefits to employees' domestic partners, up from 25 percent in 2000. Overall, more than 9,700 private-sector companies provide available benefits to employees' domestic partners, as do several hundred State and local governments and colleges and universities. General Electric, Chevron, Boeing, Texas Instruments, IBM, Raytheon, BP, Hospital Corporation of America, Lockheed Martin, Duke Energy Corp., and AT&T are among the major employers that have recognized the economic benefit of providing for domestic partners. The governments of 13 States--including, I might add, my home State of Connecticut--and about 145 local jurisdictions across the land, as well as multiple educational institutions, have joined the trend. They aren't all doing this just because it is the right thing to do. They are also doing it because it is good business policy. Non-federal employers have told surveyors that they extend benefits to domestic partners to boost recruitment and retain quality employees--as well as to be fair. The Federal Government needs to compete against the private sector companies to recruit and retain the ``best and the brightest,'' to safeguard the Nation by serving in essential areas such as homeland security, national defense, and environmental protection and to help make sure that American taxpayers get their money's worth. The Government will always be at a definite disadvantage in competing for and retaining highly qualified personnel if it cannot match the domestic-partner benefits programs provided by leading non-federal employers. Furthermore, coverage of domestic partners adds very little to the total cost of providing employee benefits. Based on the experience of private companies and State and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that offering benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees would increase the cost of those programs by less than \1/2\ of 1 percent. Our former ambassador to Romania and Dean of the Foreign Service Institute recently felt obliged to quit the Foreign Service because the State Department does not offer the kind of domestic partnership benefits that this bill would provide. Let me read a line from his farewell speech. He said, ``. . . I have felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who is my family--and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary's leadership and a shame for this institution and our country.'' Those are powerful and poignant words, and it is a tragedy that a loyal and talented public servant--who described the Foreign Service as the career he was ``born for . . . what I was always meant to do''-- felt he had to leave the Service because his Federal employee benefits would not enable him to adequately care for the needs of his family. I call upon my colleagues to express their support for this important legislation. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up to the private sector, not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy senses. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Virginia. I rise to support the amendment I am privileged to cosponsor with the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, which would give our troops, General Petraeus in the field, the funding they need to carry on the fight they are carrying on so successfully. As a result, I rise to oppose the amendment introduced by my friend from Michigan and others. Nine months ago, when General Petraeus took command in Baghdad, people of good conscience could disagree about whether his new counterinsurgency strategy would succeed, unless you decided that everything was lost in Iraq or it did not matter if we lost in Iraq. I think most of us do not feel that way. We know it would matter, because we are engaged in a battle with al-Qaida, the same al- Qaida that attacked us on 9/11, and Iran, the most significant state sponsor of terrorism, according to our own State Department, supporting militias and extremists in Iraq. So it matters. But 9 months ago, people who cared about whether we won or lost in Iraq could argue about whether the surge strategy would work. After so many mistakes, frankly, in the conduct of the war in Iraq, many Americans, many Members of this Chamber, were understandably skeptical about the possibility of this new counterinsurgency strategy succeeding. Now, however, the evidence is unequivocal. I will say it is remarkable. In some cases it is downright miraculous. The surge is working. As a result, it is time to support General Petraeus, his plan, and his troops, not to second guess, not to editorialize about it, not to add conditions or goals to it. Let's do something that we in Congress do not do very well, which is to remain silent in the face of something that is working. With all respect, the Levin amendment is a classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, because we are on the road to victory in Iraq. The extra American troops have played a critical part, the broad- scale counterinsurgency strategy. And what has happened? Violence is down. I think this number has been cited, but this week, MG Joseph Fil, who is the commander of our operations in Baghdad, said that attacks in the capital city have fallen nearly 80 percent since November of 2006; murders in Baghdad Province are down by 90 percent over the same period; and vehicle-borne bombs which have killed so many of our troops and the Iraqi people have dropped by 70 percent. There is a people's uprising occurring in Iraq today. It started with the awakening in Anbar. It has now gone on to Baghdad and other provinces throughout the country. I know those sponsors of this amendment have said they want to send it as a message to the Iraqi national political leadership to get with it, to reconcile. Of course, we are all frustrated by their lack of progress in doing that. A lot of us thought that the political changes in Iraq would come from the top down. But what has happened is something not to disparage, not to ignore. What has happened is classically democratic, in the best traditions of America. The political changes in Iraq are coming from the bottom up, from the grassroots up. Local councils are governing in area after area. The local people have taken charge of their destiny. They have kicked out al-Qaida. They have kicked out al-Qaida because they decided that al-Qaida was their enemy. And we, much to their surprise, turned out to be their friends, their supporter. They understand we do not want conquest in Iraq. We want to liberate them from the forces of extremism. The same is happening throughout the country. I urge my colleagues, let success alone. Let it work. Oppose the Levin-Reed amendment and support the McConnell-Lieberman amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations bill. I know it has been difficult to reach a compromise on this bill, and I realize that many funding levels for important programs were reduced so we could reach an agreement. Despite these cutbacks, I believe we can still be proud of this bill. It contains considerable funding for counterterrorism and crime prevention, scientific and medical research, Pell grants, title I schools, special education, small business programs, consumer product protection, Amtrak, State and local first responder grants, and low- income energy assistance. To meet the President's top line budget number, my colleagues had to make hard choices. To their credit, the bill before us today prioritizes the most critical domestic programs in the Federal Government. The omnibus also contains an additional $3.7 billion in emergency funding for veterans, constituting the largest increase in veterans' spending in the history of our Nation. $1.9 billion of the increase is targeted for VA medical services. This much needed funding will improve treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, two of the most prevalent injuries from the global war on terrorism. I am also proud of what this bill will do for the people and communities of Connecticut. The money I requested will assist many worthy local efforts, such as hospital renovations, the construction of a small craft maintenance facility at Naval Submarine Base New London, a community college manufacturing technology program, and improvements to several intermodal transportation facilities. I would like to clarify conference language concerning two specific projects in the bill. Currently, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies conference report lists a State and tribal assistance grant project as ``$300,000 for The City of Southington for wellhead cleanup.'' This language should be interpreted as if it stated ``$300,000 for the Southington Water Department for wellhead cleanup.'' The Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies conference report lists an Office of Museum and Library Services project as ``$97,000 for the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, CT for educational programs and interactive school programs at the Old State House.'' This language should be interpreted as if it stated ``$97,000 for the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, CT for educational programs and interactive school programs at the Old State House and the Connecticut Historical Society Museum.'' Once again, I commend the efforts of my colleagues on the consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. They deserve hearty congratulations for their demanding work and considerable willingness to compromise.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is with sadness and affection that I note the imminent departure from the Senate of my dear friend and distinguished colleague Trent Lott of Mississippi. Trent and I came to the Senate together almost 20 years ago. Over that time, I have come to respect Trent's leadership abilities, but most of all I have treasured his friendship and counsel. Trent and I come from different places but we share a deep love for our country and a deep respect and appreciation for this institution in which we have been privileged to serve. Trent not only represented his beloved home State, but he became a national leader because his colleagues recognized that he had extraordinary abilities to make this institution work. Like all successful and effective Senators, Trent understood that for this institution to work for the American people, the 100 Members of this body must find a way to cooperate; despite the differences in region, ideology, party, and even personality. Trent had a seventh sense of what motivated his colleagues and how they might approach an issue that was before the Senate. Sometimes, it was uncanny how prescient Trent could be about the outcome of a particular vote on the Senate floor. He understood that one could compromise in order to achieve results without compromising core principles. Yes, Trent was a conservative Republican partisan when he needed to be. But Trent also knew there were times when it was critical to put partisanship aside for the national interest. Particularly in the area of national security, Trent comprehended that Republicans and Democrats must find a way to unite to promote America's interests. In addition to being an effective legislator, Trent is a man of considerable charm and warmth. Hadassah and I have great memories of the times we spent with Trent and his wonderful wife Tricia. When we would travel abroad, Trent was a terrific companion and always carried himself with honor, style, and grace. I even remember a moment when we were staying in a hotel in Scotland when we were forced to hurriedly exit in the middle of the night because of a fire alarm. Yet, there was Trent, perfectly coiffed and unruffled. Our leader! Although Trent was always devoted to the institution of the Senate, he was also devoted to another critical American institution--the family. Trent did not merely talk about family values--he lived them. Trent saw no contradiction in being a good Senator and being a good husband and father. That is to his tremendous credit, and, for all of us, a tremendous lesson. Above all, Trent appreciated the miracle of America. He rose from modest means in Grenada, MI, to ascend to the legislative heights in Washington, DC. However, Trent never abandoned the values of faith, family, and hard work that were his inheritance from his beloved parents, Chester and Iona Lott. Trent, as you begin this new chapter in your life, I wish you well. Your example of doing what is necessary to make this institution work is something we have all benefitted from. The people of Mississippi and the people of America are grateful for your service. And Hadassah and I look forward to continuing our friendship with Trish and you for years to come. May God bless you and yours, dear friend.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the work by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, who chairs the Committee on Rules and Administration, and by other Senators over many years to accomplish this merger of the U.S. Capitol Police and the Library of Congress Police. The U.S. Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police Merger and Implementation Act of 2007 provides that employees of the Library of Congress Police shall be transferred to the United States Capitol Police. I would like to ask my colleague Senator Feinstein about provisions under which the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police will make certain final determinations regarding the incoming Library of Congress Police employees that shall not be appealable or reviewable in any manner. It is my understanding that these provisions would generally prevent individuals from appealing or seeking review of the determinations of the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, but would not limit the right of any individual to seek any appropriate relief under the Congressional Accountability Act if these determinations by the Chief allegedly violated that act. The Congressional Accountability Act was enacted in 1995 to provide to congressional employees the same rights and protections that are available to other employees in our Nation, including protection against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion, or age. My understanding is that the merger legislation would in no way limit the right of any employee covered under the Congressional Accountability Act to initiate an action regarding any alleged violation of rights protected under that Act. I have also been told that this interpretation of the legislation is shared by the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, and that Library of Congress employees transferring to the U.S. Capitol Police will be informed and educated about their rights and protections under the Congressional Accountability Act.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator for her assistance and courtesy.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the legislation to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. The agreement promises to significantly strengthen our commercial and noncommercial ties with Peru and represents a new era for U.S. free trade agreements. This agreement will significantly increase our goods trade balance with Peru. As a result of U.S. unilateral preference programs, about 98 percent of imports from Peru presently benefit from duty-free treatment. The agreement will move beyond one-way preferences to reciprocal commitments. Immediately, 80 percent of the consumer and industrial products our firms export to Peru will be duty free; remaining Peruvian tariffs will phase out over 10 years. The International Trade Commission estimates that, upon the agreement's full implementation, U.S. exports to Peru will increase by $1.1 billion, while U.S. imports from Peru will increase by $439 million. Exporters across our country depend on world markets. In my home State of Connecticut, this agreement will open an important new market for our manufactures of transportation equipment, machinery, and electronics, among other products. The gains are likely to be even more significant for America's service industries. Take, for instance, the insurance industry, which has played a vital role in Connecticut's economy. The agreement will enable U.S. insurance companies to establish a presence in Peru while ensuring strong regulatory transparency, including license approval within 120 days. Similarly, Connecticut's vibrant financial services industry stands to benefit from the agreement's robust financial services chapter. Among other benefits, the chapter's provisions will enable U.S. asset managers to provide cross-border portfolio management services, even without establishing a physical presence in Peru. But the agreement's implications transcend commercial boundaries. It will strengthen our alliance with Peru, a key ally in Latin America, contribute significantly to Peru's economic development, and extend our commitment to transparency and rule of law in Latin America. The most recent free trade agreement this Chamber considered was with Oman in 2006. Consistent with my longstanding record of supporting trade as good for America's economy, and economic development in Arab and Muslim countries as important for peace in the world, I voted in favor of legislation to implement the Oman FTA. But during consideration, I voiced my concerns about the Oman FTA's labor provisions, announcing in this Chamber that: ``I will not continue to support future free trade agreements unless the Administration becomes serious about negotiating labor and other improvements. . . .'' By including basic worker rights recognized by the International Labor Organization, with full enforceability equal to all other provisions, I am satisfied that the Peru FTA addresses my concerns. The inclusion of strong labor provisions, as well as unprecedented inclusion of multilateral environmental agreements, means this agreement's significance will extend beyond Peru. Indeed, this FTA represents a strong standard for our future bilateral free trade agreements. I applaud House Ways and Means Chairman Rangel and House Trade Subcommittee Chairman Levin for achieving consensus with the administration to address these key issues. I have high hopes for expanding our trading relationship with Peru and for continuing to responsibly open markets across national borders. And I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to enact legislation implementing FTAs that the administration has already signed with Colombia and Korea.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Rev. Edwin ``Doc'' Edmonds, a retired pastor and civil rights leader from New Haven who passed away Tuesday, November 6. Reverend Edmonds, or ``Doc,'' as his friends called him, was one of the smartest, warmest, and most effective people I have ever had the pleasure to know, and led a truly inspirational life. Born and raised in Texas, Edwin Edmonds was an excellent student, graduating high school at 15 years of age. In college he began losing his eyesight until he was legally blind. Despite having much difficulty reading and writing his assignments, he prevailed and graduated from Morehouse College in 1938, only 1 year later than expected. He would then go on to earn a bachelor's of sacred theology and a doctorate in social ethics from Boston University. In 1950, he was ordained in the Methodist Church. While teaching Sociology at Bennett College in Greensboro, NC, Reverend Edmonds became deeply involved with the civil rights movement, where he was elected president of the Greensboro chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In 1958, he met the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and the two exchanged letters until Dr. King's tragic death. He also was an adviser to the ``Greensboro Four,'' a group of brave college students committed to racial equality who would later lead the famous sit-in at a segregated lunch counter at a Woolworth's department store. This courageous protest is widely believed to be the first sit- in of the civil rights movement. Many Greensboro historians consider Reverend Edmonds a pioneer in the fight for equal rights for the city's minorities. In 1959, Reverend Edmonds moved to New Haven to become pastor of the Dixwell Avenue Congregational Church, which is now known as the United Church of Christ. As pastor, Mr. Edmonds soon became a fixture in the local community and quickly gained a reputation as one who was always willing to help those in need. His youngest daughter, Toni Walker, who serves as a representative in the Connecticut General Assembly, recalls that people in need often stayed at their home as guests. ``As long as they needed help, they were able to get it,'' Walker remembers. Reverend Edmonds' congregants all knew that he was around to address not just their spiritual needs, but also everyday needs such as housing and jobs. Under his leadership, the church built a housing development and a creative arts center for the community. In addition, he was involved with many community service groups, such as the Urban League, the New Haven Clergy Association, the Amistad Committee and the New Haven Inter-Faith Ministerial Alliance. He was also a long-time member of the New Haven Board of Education, serving as its chairman from 1979 to 1988. Even after retiring from the church in 1994, Mr. Edmonds remained active in his community. In 2000, after a meeting with single mothers who had to defer going to school to raise their children, he helped to establish Edwin R. and Maye B. Edmonds Scholarship Fund for single parents. I bid farewell to ``Doc'' Edmonds and will keep his friends and family in my thoughts and prayers. I take solace in knowing that he will live on in all the people he helped to inspire to serve their community. As Clifton Graves, an activist and professor in New Haven who has known and looked up to Reverend Edmonds since he was a boy, said of his death: ``We mourn this loss, but we celebrate his life and the contributions he made not only to New Haven but to Connecticut and indeed, around the country.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, I join a bipartisan group of Senators in support of the Healthy Americans Act. This legislation marks the beginning of what I hope will be a growing bipartisan effort to address one of our most daunting domestic challenges--health care reform. Historically, the issue of health care and how to solve our growing crisis has divided us, but we must find a way to come together and provide leadership on an issue that is central to the lives and finances of millions of Americans. There are over 47 million uninsured people in America today; another 16 million are underinsured. Diminished health and shorter life spans due to lack of health insurance cost an estimated $65 to $130 billion annually. Meanwhile, an estimated $35 billion in uncompensated care is delivered to uninsured individuals annually. The ever-rising costs of health care are being felt by all Americans, not only those who are uninsured. When I speak to constituents in my home State of Connecticut, I am struck by the number of currently insured families who worry about maintaining that coverage. With premiums rising more rapidly than wages, it is increasingly difficult for these families to continue to afford their coverage. And the costs are certain to continue rising. Health spending between 2006 and 2015 will total $30.3 trillion and will grow at an average rate of 7.2 percent--2.3 percent higher than the average annual GDP growth rate. To bring the growth in health care spending into line with the annual GDP growth rate, we would need to decrease health care spending by $3 trillion over this period. But while we spend more than any other nation in the world on health care, Americans do not receive the highest quality of care. A 2003 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that in the U.S., appropriate medical care is provided to individuals approximately 50 percent of the time. It is clear that we must work across party and ideological lines to cover those that are uninsured in this Nation, provide health security to those hardworking families with insurance, bring the rising costs of health care under control, and provide high quality care to all. In the past, I have advocated for, and have proposed, targeted reforms to our health care system. I proposed the creation of a program called MediKids to insure all children in America from the moment of their birth to 25 years of age. Families would choose from a menu of private health care plans and pay based on their income. And for the millions of uninsured adults in the U.S., I proposed the establishment of a program called MediChoice, which would create large pools of coverage to bring the cost of health insurance down, and would provide the uninsured, the self-employed, and small business employees with affordable private health insurance options. In addition, my plan would have included a new program called FairCare to reduce racial disparities, increased the number of school- based health centers around the Nation, reinvested in our public health infrastructure, and provided new funds and incentives for the improvement and adoption of health information technology. Lastly, my health care proposal included a new strategic investment in promising breakthroughs in biomedical research to bring new treatments, diagnostics, and cures to the public. I will continue to support these incremental reforms as we move forward. But as our health care system shows increasing signs of strain and growing numbers of Americans join the ranks of the uninsured, I also believe that we must seriously consider comprehensive, systemic reform to achieve the goal of quality, affordable health care for all Americans. For that reason, I am proud to support the Healthy Americans Act, a strong proposal that provides this Congress with a bipartisan starting point on health care reform. The Healthy Americans Act has the potential to offer universal coverage while using a fiscally responsible approach, which I believe are the keys to moving forward in a bipartisan manner. The legislation would reform the tax code in a well-thought out manner to make comprehensive health care reform a true possibility. By realigning key provisions in the Tax Code, this legislation would achieve universal coverage without adding yet another burden to the Federal budget. The legislation would also shield American business from ever-rising health care costs and, by unleashing market forces, protect the economy by reining in overall health care costs--all while reassuring our families that their health care will always be there. An independent health care consulting group found that through new revenues, savings, and the restructuring of tax credits, the Healthy Americans Act would not result in new Federal spending. The group also projects that the proposal would reduce the annual health spending growth rate by 0.86 percent totaling a savings of $1.48 trillion from 2007-2016, or 4.5 percent of total spending over that time period. Lastly, the group estimates that the proposal would cover 99 percent of all Americans. The act would establish a centrally financed system of private health insurance for all Americans. Comprehensive coverage policies would be available through new insurance pools, which would harness the power of a reformed health insurance marketplace that would provide individuals with choice and value. The plan would be paid for by eliminating the current employer health benefits tax exclusion, which is estimated to cost the Federal Government approximately $200 billion per year. Instead, subsidies would be provided to lower income and working families to purchase comprehensive coverage. Employers, in turn, would convert the health benefits they currently provide to employees into higher wages that employees would use to buy health insurance. Lastly, individuals would also receive a new health insurance premium tax deduction to prevent tax increases in middle-income workers resulting from the higher wages. This proposal embodies both the foundation and architecture for building a health care system that will achieve universal coverage. Each of the stakeholders in our health care system--from individual Americans, employers, to insurance companies, health care providers and hospitals--will gain something under this plan. I believe this legislation offers crucial benefits for all stakeholders while calling on them to make equitable, economically efficient contributions to the shared effort of achieving health security for all Americans. As we move through what I hope will be a successful legislative process, I will be working with my colleagues to ensure that we perfect the balance this bill strives to reach. That effort will be crucial for my home State of Connecticut. First, nearly 60 percent of Americans currently receive coverage through their employers, and in Connecticut, more than 60 percent of our workers are covered through employers. We must move cautiously and ensure we protect coverage for those currently a part of the system that has served us for decades, and provide American businesses with the support necessary to make short-term changes in benefits, in exchange for long-term cost savings and increased competitiveness. At the same time, moving away from a primarily employer-based system of coverage would provide individuals with true portability and stability of coverage, while, again, protecting competitiveness of American businesses against runaway health care coverage costs, in this new global economy. Second, the legislation as currently drafted would mandate that employers provide employees higher benefits equivalent to the amount that employers currently contribute for employee health care benefits. We should consider the prudence of safeguards following a mandate period in order to prevent employees from facing wage cuts that would reduce their capacity to purchase comprehensive coverage. Third, a new health premium tax exemption will be created by this legislation so that most workers are not paying higher taxes with the increase in wages, which are to be used for the purchase of health insurance. But in many States, such as mine, the cost of living and cost of health insurance are higher than in other parts of the nation, placing unique pressures on residents of those States. Therefore, I plan to work with Senator Wyden and the other sponsors of the act to move in a direction that will take account of differences in health insurance coverage costs, as well as in cost of living. Lastly, the proposal would transition Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries into the new program. Given the complex health needs of many Medicaid beneficiaries, we must ensure that they have the necessary levels of coverage under any new system. I look forward to working with my colleagues on each of these issues. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues, Senators Wyden and Bennett, and of the bipartisan group that is supporting this legislation, and I am proud to join them. If we put aside partisan politics and muster political will, we can provide the American people with true leadership on this most important domestic policy issue, and can succeed in bringing quality health care to all Americans.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Up to 5 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. I have spoken before on the Senate floor about the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to be our next Attorney General. I can be brief. I have listened to my colleagues. I respect what they have said. I have listened to those who have spoken against Judge Mukasey's nomination. I am compelled to rise and speak because, with all respect, based on knowing this man for 43 years, I believe people are not treating him fairly who are contemplating voting against him. I respect the opinions that have been stated. But based on this long knowledge of this good man, I think he deserves to be confirmed by the Senate by a very strong vote. I met Michael Mukasey when we first arrived together at law school--the same law school, Yale Law School. As I have said on the Senate floor before, the young man I met then-- smart, sensible, honorable, good sense of humor--is very much the same man who has been nominated by President Bush to be our next Attorney General, except, of course, that he is older and wiser and has had extraordinary experiences as an attorney in private practice, as a very successful assistant U.S. attorney, as a Federal judge respected by all who came before him, and now, in really a twist of fate, having retired from the bench, gone back to private practice, he comes to the attention of President Bush and is nominated as Attorney General. He carries with him all the attributes one would expect and want of an Attorney General. I would add this: He is exactly the right person to be Attorney General at this moment in our Nation's history, after the travails the Department has been through, the accusations of excessive political interference there, the questions about the judgment of the previous Attorney General. I cannot think of a nominee for Attorney General who will be more independent of the President nominating him than Michael Mukasey in a long time. Think about it. President Kennedy nominated his brother. President Carter nominated Griffin Bell, his attorney and close friend from Atlanta. President Reagan nominated his own lawyer, William French Smith, to be Attorney General, and so on. President Bush and Michael Mukasey, as far as I know, did not know each other before his consideration for this position. But he impressed the President based on his experience, his knowledge, his record; particularly his record in dealing with difficult cases regarding terrorism. He has the integrity, the sound legal judgment, and the tremendous work ethic to raise this Department up to where we need it to be, to raise the morale of the employees of the Department. If you look at the whole record of his experience, it seems to me, as I have listened to my colleagues who are opposing him, they are in large part expressing their opposition to the administration, to the judgments made by the previous Attorney General, and not being fair to this nominee. Judge Michael Mukasey is a man of the law. He is not a man of politics. If he was a man of politics, he would have said waterboarding is illegal because he knew that is what many Members of the Senate wanted him to say. But he did not believe, as a matter of law, as a man of law, that he was justified in saying that. I hope all my colleagues have read Judge Mukasey's response to the letter that was sent to him by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and other members on this question of waterboarding because it tells you who Judge Mukasey is and what kind of Attorney General he will be. It is a reasoned opinion. It is a straightforward opinion. It is an opinion based on law. He says waterboarding to him personally is repugnant. He says, he opines, as a matter of law, that waterboarding done by employees of the Department of Defense is illegal. I have not heard that enough in this debate. He says that explicitly in this letter. Why? Because the law says it is illegal. The Detainee Treatment Act refers to the field manual of the Department of Defense, and that field manual said waterboarding is illegal; therefore, Judge Mukasey says waterboarding is illegal. But then he says: I cannot say that for other employees of the Federal Government, particularly employees of the intelligence community, because there is no law that says that. And I would have to have the evidence of what it is, the previous legal opinions to do so. So he answered as a man of law, not a man of politics. He is extremely well suited to be the Attorney General America needs now. I say this based on long knowledge of this man and his record. He ought to be confirmed overwhelmingly. I regret that appears not to be what will happen. But I take some comfort from the fact that he will be confirmed. I am confident those who are his detractors today will become his admirers over the next year and a half as he conducts himself as the Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senators McCaskill, Collins, and Coburn today in introducing the Inspector General Reform Act of 2007. 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. It has been almost 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 to the public interest 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. According to the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, last year alone IG audits resulted in $9.9 billion in potential savings and another $6.8 billion in savings when the results of civil and criminal investigations are added in. Some of the IGs' work lands on the front page--exposing major shortcomings in government practices and official conduct. Most of it unfolds more quietly, but is just as critical in helping Federal agencies establish effective and efficient programs that make the most of the taxpayers' hard earned dollars. Over the years, we have become aware of several instances where the independence of Inspectors General appears to be threatened. 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. Most IGs would also receive a pay raise, to reflect the importance of the work they do and their proper stature within an agency. Currently, some IGs earn less than other senior officials in their agency and sometimes even less than some of their subordinates. However, we also prohibit bonuses for IGs, to remove a potential avenue for improper influence by the agency head. 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 Integrity Committee by Congress. The bill also ensures that the Inspector General of the Justice Department will have the authority, shared by other IGs, to investigate misconduct of any Departmental employee. The House has already voted overwhelmingly in support of legislation addressing many of these same issues. It is time for the Senate to follow suit. I urge my colleagues to support this worthy and common sense piece of legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senators McCaskill, Collins, and Coburn today in introducing the Inspector General Reform Act of 2007. 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. It has been almost 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 to the public interest 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. According to the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, last year alone IG audits resulted in $9.9 billion in potential savings and another $6.8 billion in savings when the results of civil and criminal investigations are added in. Some of the IGs' work lands on the front page--exposing major shortcomings in government practices and official conduct. Most of it unfolds more quietly, but is just as critical in helping Federal agencies establish effective and efficient programs that make the most of the taxpayers' hard earned dollars. Over the years, we have become aware of several instances where the independence of Inspectors General appears to be threatened. 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. Most IGs would also receive a pay raise, to reflect the importance of the work they do and their proper stature within an agency. Currently, some IGs earn less than other senior officials in their agency and sometimes even less than some of their subordinates. However, we also prohibit bonuses for IGs, to remove a potential avenue for improper influence by the agency head. 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 Integrity Committee by Congress. The bill also ensures that the Inspector General of the Justice Department will have the authority, shared by other IGs, to investigate misconduct of any Departmental employee. The House has already voted overwhelmingly in support of legislation addressing many of these same issues. It is time for the Senate to follow suit. I urge my colleagues to support this worthy and common sense piece of legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I have been waiting on the floor for a while. May I speak in morning business?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I understand. I will wait and either return after the vote or at another time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Montana, that is good of him. I may not have to ask for it--I believe the minority will yield me such time as I need, but if I need more time, I will come back. I thank my friend for his graciousness. Madam President, I rise to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the Attorney General of the United States. I rise to urge my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to favorably consider this nomination because I fear we are in danger of treating this judge very unjustly, of doing something that is not fair to him personally. I wish to state at the outset that I did not just meet Judge Mukasey since he was nominated for Attorney General by the President; I actually met him 43 years ago this fall when we both entered Yale Law School together. We were in the same small group in contracts. The occupant of the chair will appreciate the intimacy and how well you get to know somebody when you are in a small group together with a demanding contracts professor. The Mike Mukasey I met 43 years ago was honorable, he was bright, he was not presumptuous, he had a great sense of humor, and he had a strong sense of values--what I would call honor--to him. I have kept in touch with Mike over the years. I can't say we have seen each other a lot, but I have watched his career grow with great pride. He was a private practitioner, a distinguished and successful assistant U.S. attorney, a judge who has been extremely well regarded by all who have come before him, as was testified to before the Judiciary Committee on his nomination. He handled some very difficult cases, ruled in cases regarding alleged terrorists and did so to his own personal risk. He had a security detail with him for some period of time because of the threats he received after one of these cases. I am honored to say Judge Mukasey asked me to introduce him to the Judiciary Committee, alongside Senator Schumer of New York. I said then what I will say here. The man I met 43 years ago is today essentially the same man--honorable, intelligent, with a real sense of values, a commitment to public service, a man of the law, not a man of politics, exactly the kind of person America always needs as Attorney General, but particularly needs at this moment. I thought he handled his nomination hearing extremely well. Now there is rising opposition to this nomination based on Judge Mukasey's answer to a single question, which is whether he would say that waterboarding technique of interrogation is torture. Judge Mukasey has preferred to give the easy, I might say politically correct, answer--and he has argued with us, he has educated us, I add, to understand that his answer is not about whether we are for or against waterboarding. He says, to himself the technique described--I am reading from a letter of October 30, 2007, from Judge Mukasey to members of the Judiciary Committee who had written to him: I was asked at the hearing and in your letter questions about the hypothetical use of certain coercive interrogation techniques. As described in your letter, these techniques seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me. . . . This is not to say Judge Mukasey is for waterboarding. That is not what is at issue, and we should not allow it to become so. He is responding as a man of the law, as a judge, as a man who would be, if we allow him, exactly the kind of Attorney General we need. He says: But hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical. As a judge, I tried to be objective in my decision- making and to put aside even strongly held personal beliefs when assessing a legal question because legal questions must be answered based solely on the actual facts, circumstances, and legal standards presented. A legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances may be of some limited academic appeal but has scant practical effect or value. Bottom line, the judge is saying waterboarding is repugnant but I cannot say as a matter of law that it is torture under the law because I don't know exactly what waterboarding is and how it is used, and I have not seen the prevailing legal memos that have governed, because they are classified interrogations by employees of our Government. He says in the letter of October 30: I have not been briefed on techniques used in any classified interrogation program conducted by any government agency. He is saying: How can you expect me to essentially issue a legal opinion when I don't know the facts and I can't know the facts until and unless you allow me to be Attorney General? Then he says something I think is very important in his letter. He writes to the Judiciary Committee members: I do know, however, that ``waterboarding'' cannot be used by the United States military because its use by the military would be a clear violation of the Detainee Treatment Act. That is because ``waterboarding'' and certain other coercive interrogation techniques are expressly prohibited by the Army Field Manual on Intelligence and Interrogation, and Congress specifically legislated in the [Detainee Treatment Act of 2005] that no person in the custody or control of the Department of Defense or held in a DOD facility may be subject to any interrogation techniques not authorized and listed in the Manual. So there is a law and he has made clear that because there is a law, he definitely believes waterboarding cannot be used by Department of Defense personnel. The fact is that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 did not explicitly ban waterboarding or other specific techniques of interrogation as used by other employees of the Federal Government, including presumably and particularly employees of our intelligence agencies. The Detainee Treatment Act banned ``cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.'' Judge Mukasey says in his letter: In the absence of legislation expressly banning certain interrogation techniques in all circumstances, one must consider whether a particular technique complies with relevant legal standards. He simply cannot do this in the absence of a clear legislative expression by Congress that waterboarding constitutes torture without seeing the documents, without understanding the definition of waterboarding, as applied in particular cases. He is a man of the law. He is saying, as he said in his testimony and in this letter, no one, including the President, is above the law. It would be very easy to remove any doubts and opposition to his confirmation if he just said in his letter: Waterboarding is torture. But he responds to a higher authority. It is the law in a nation that claims to be governed by the rule of law. In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, he was repeatedly questioned in regard to his independence, and following Attorney General Gonzales's close relationship with the White House, members of the committee were clearly interested in whether Judge Mukasey would be independent of the White House, of the President. He said he would do what the law required him to do. No one is above the law, including the President. In refusing to tell questioning members of the Judiciary Committee, colleagues of ours, what they want to hear in this case, he is also showing his independence. He is saying he will not be pressured by Members of the Senate, including those who will determine whether he is confirmed. He will not simply tell them what they want to hear if he thinks it is not the legally responsible thing to do. That is exactly the kind of man I want and I believe we all should want as Attorney General of the United States. So he is putting his confirmation as Attorney General at risk because he believes it would not be justified as a matter of law for him to conclude, without benefit of documents that he cannot see now, that waterboarding is torture. And for this will we reward this good man, this public servant, this distinguished judge, this man of the law, by rejecting his nomination? Here is the kind of independence, the kind of allegiance to the public interest and the rule of law the American people want to see more of and not less in Washington. It is why I repeat what I said at the beginning. To reject the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey because he refuses to say what some Members want him to say on this question and he refuses as a matter of sincerely held legal belief what his legal responsibility is would be grossly unfair and an unjust act to this judge. May I suggest an alternative course to my friends on the Judiciary Committee and Members of the Senate who hopefully will get to consider this nomination? Confirm Judge Mukasey based on his overall record of service, his obvious intelligence, honor and integrity, the extent to which he will raise the morale of the Department of Justice. Look at his entire record. Don't turn him down and deprive the Nation of his service as our chief law enforcer because of one legal opinion he has reached that is different from yours. Confirm him. And then, as Attorney General, he will have access to the documents about waterboarding. He will have access to the people who may or may not have been involved in it. He will have access to the prevailing legal memos, and then demand he issue a legal opinion and respond to your question. But don't reject a man of the law, exactly the kind of man America needs today, as our Attorney General. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my Ranking Member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Collins, in introducing bipartisan legislation to strengthen our Nation's ability to deter, detect, prevent, and respond to attacks using improvised explosive devices, IED, in the U.S. As we have seen in Iraq, London, and Germany, IEDs are a weapon of choice for terrorists. The reality is that an IED is relatively easy and inexpensive to make and can cause mass casualties, even to armored military personnel. IEDs are a global threat, and the American public, here at home, is not immune. Federal efforts to address this threat, however, have not been adequate. The Department of Homeland Security, Office of Bombing Prevention, which is the Department's lead agent for IED countermeasure coordination, is currently operating with a substantially reduced budget of $5 million, down from the $14 million it received in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Only $6 million has been requested for 2008. By contrast, the DHS Office of Health Affairs, which has a similar coordination responsibility for biosecurity and medical preparedness, has a proposed budget for personnel and coordination activities of $28 million for 2008. Given the likelihood of an IED attack, we need to make a comparable commitment in this area. As Secretary Chertoff said in an October 19 speech, ``although we can conceive of a terrorist attack that would be focused on a biological infection or some kind of a chemical spray, the reality is the vast majority of terrorist attacks are conducted with bombs. And of those, the vast majority are improvised explosive devices.'' The National Bombing Prevention Act of 2007, NBPA, would formally authorize the Office of Bombing Prevention, OBP, and increase its budget to $25 million. In addition to leading bombing prevention activities within DHS, OBP would be directed to coordinate with other Federal, State, and local agencies and fill the existing gaps that are not covered by another Federal agency's current bombing prevention efforts. For example, OBP would work with state and local officials to conduct a national analysis of bomb squad capabilities. This type of comprehensive assessment does not currently exist at any level of government, yet it is integral to understanding what resources are available in the event of an explosion and where we should invest in order to better prepare the Nation as a whole. OBP would also improve information sharing with state and local bomb squads by providing regular updates on terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures. The NBPA would require the President to deliver a long awaited National Strategy for Improvised Explosive Devices. This Strategy was supposed to be delivered to Congress by DHS in January 2007 but was then reassigned to the Department of Justice by presidential directive. Turf battles have caused further delay. This is simply unacceptable. Regardless of who takes the lead, the Nation must have a coherent strategy guiding its counter IED efforts that will clarify the roles and responsibilities of all Federal agencies. Finally, our legislation would require DHS to establish a program expediting the transfer of counter IED technology to first responders. Under this program, the Department would work with other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, the private sector, and state and local bomb experts to identify existing technologies that could help deter, detect, prevent, or respond to an explosive attack. Often, there is a significant lag time between the research and development of such technologies and deployment by the end user. This bill would hold DHS accountable for seeing products through to the deployment phase. Specifically, DHS would be required to develop an electronic countermeasures capability to disable radio controlled bombs. Radio ``jammers'' have been developed by DoD for Iraq and Afghanistan, but that technology needs to be significantly modified for the civilian environment. Improvised explosive devices are one of the most popular weapons terrorists are using today. They can be easily assembled from instructions available on the Internet with readily available chemicals such as peroxide or ammonium nitrate. And, most importantly, terrorists all over the world have demonstrated their intent and ability to use these weapons to kill and maim large numbers of people. If DHS is to plan effectively for future attacks here at home, it must have a cohesive and robust defense against the most likely threats. I ask my colleagues to join us in ensuring DHS and its partners have the necessary tools to protect the U.S. from an improvised explosive device.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my Ranking Member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Collins, in introducing bipartisan legislation to strengthen our Nation's ability to deter, detect, prevent, and respond to attacks using improvised explosive devices, IED, in the U.S. As we have seen in Iraq, London, and Germany, IEDs are a weapon of choice for terrorists. The reality is that an IED is relatively easy and inexpensive to make and can cause mass casualties, even to armored military personnel. IEDs are a global threat, and the American public, here at home, is not immune. Federal efforts to address this threat, however, have not been adequate. The Department of Homeland Security, Office of Bombing Prevention, which is the Department's lead agent for IED countermeasure coordination, is currently operating with a substantially reduced budget of $5 million, down from the $14 million it received in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Only $6 million has been requested for 2008. By contrast, the DHS Office of Health Affairs, which has a similar coordination responsibility for biosecurity and medical preparedness, has a proposed budget for personnel and coordination activities of $28 million for 2008. Given the likelihood of an IED attack, we need to make a comparable commitment in this area. As Secretary Chertoff said in an October 19 speech, ``although we can conceive of a terrorist attack that would be focused on a biological infection or some kind of a chemical spray, the reality is the vast majority of terrorist attacks are conducted with bombs. And of those, the vast majority are improvised explosive devices.'' The National Bombing Prevention Act of 2007, NBPA, would formally authorize the Office of Bombing Prevention, OBP, and increase its budget to $25 million. In addition to leading bombing prevention activities within DHS, OBP would be directed to coordinate with other Federal, State, and local agencies and fill the existing gaps that are not covered by another Federal agency's current bombing prevention efforts. For example, OBP would work with state and local officials to conduct a national analysis of bomb squad capabilities. This type of comprehensive assessment does not currently exist at any level of government, yet it is integral to understanding what resources are available in the event of an explosion and where we should invest in order to better prepare the Nation as a whole. OBP would also improve information sharing with state and local bomb squads by providing regular updates on terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures. The NBPA would require the President to deliver a long awaited National Strategy for Improvised Explosive Devices. This Strategy was supposed to be delivered to Congress by DHS in January 2007 but was then reassigned to the Department of Justice by presidential directive. Turf battles have caused further delay. This is simply unacceptable. Regardless of who takes the lead, the Nation must have a coherent strategy guiding its counter IED efforts that will clarify the roles and responsibilities of all Federal agencies. Finally, our legislation would require DHS to establish a program expediting the transfer of counter IED technology to first responders. Under this program, the Department would work with other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, the private sector, and state and local bomb experts to identify existing technologies that could help deter, detect, prevent, or respond to an explosive attack. Often, there is a significant lag time between the research and development of such technologies and deployment by the end user. This bill would hold DHS accountable for seeing products through to the deployment phase. Specifically, DHS would be required to develop an electronic countermeasures capability to disable radio controlled bombs. Radio ``jammers'' have been developed by DoD for Iraq and Afghanistan, but that technology needs to be significantly modified for the civilian environment. Improvised explosive devices are one of the most popular weapons terrorists are using today. They can be easily assembled from instructions available on the Internet with readily available chemicals such as peroxide or ammonium nitrate. And, most importantly, terrorists all over the world have demonstrated their intent and ability to use these weapons to kill and maim large numbers of people. If DHS is to plan effectively for future attacks here at home, it must have a cohesive and robust defense against the most likely threats. I ask my colleagues to join us in ensuring DHS and its partners have the necessary tools to protect the U.S. from an improvised explosive device.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2007. I commend Senators Lautenberg, Carper, and Lott for their excellent work on this bill, and I am proud to co-sponsor it. Amtrak is certainly important to my home State of Connecticut. Amtrak operates 46 daily trains in Connecticut, serving almost 1.5 million passengers each year. New Haven is the twelth busiest train station in the entire Amtrak system, with over 630,000 passengers annually. Amtrak is also a significant employer in my State, providing 575 jobs to Connecticut residents. These Connecticut facts provide me with robust reasons to champion Amtrak, but I also believe that we must have a strong national passenger rail system. We rely on the heavily used Northeast corridor to provide a convenient transportation option for those traveling between Washington, DC and Boston. The capital funding authorization in the legislation before us will require that Amtrak develop a spending plan to improve infrastructure along the corridor, which will lead to reduced travel time and delays. There is also an important environmental reason to support Amtrak. Global warming is a real problem, and we need to figure out sensible ways to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We can only solve this national crisis if we work together collectively. As far as Amtrak is concerned, we cannot focus solely on the East and West coast train corridors. Instead, we need to figure out ways to increase ridership for as many routes as possible. This bill requires Amtrak to become more efficient in delivering its long distance service by implementing performance improvement plans for trains with low ridership. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act also creates a new State Capital Grant program for inter-city passenger rail projects. With a Federal match of 80 percent, the Secretary of Transportation will select worthy projects based on environmental impact, economic benefit, and anticipated ridership. I want to underscore the importance of this new grant program. The era of cheap oil is over, and our Nation's security depends on implementing innovative energy and transportation alternatives. The last Amtrak authorization bill expired in 2002, so the time for this bill's passage is overdue. Amtrak deserves a stable funding blueprint for the next 5 fiscal years. Without such certainty, it is impossible for Amtrak to succeed and meet the considerable challenges and goals we have placed before them. I commend my colleagues again for a job well done on a bipartisan piece of legislation that builds a strong consensus on the next generation of passenger rail in the United States.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. cloture motion

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, that will strengthen the content and pedagogy knowledge of our present K-12 teacher workforce and thus ultimately raise student achievement. Our proposal would establish eight new Teacher Professional Development Institutes throughout the Nation each year over the next five years based on the model which has been operating at Yale University for over 25 years. Every Teacher Institute would consist of a partnership between an institution of higher education and the local public school system in which a significant proportion of the students come from low-income households. These Institutes will strengthen the present teacher workforce by giving each participant an opportunity to gain more sophisticated content knowledge and a chance to develop curriculum units with other colleagues that can be directly applied in their classrooms. We know that teachers gain confidence and enthusiasm when they have a deeper understanding of the subject matter that they teach and this translates into higher expectations for their students and an increase in student achievement. The Teacher Professional Development Institutes are based on the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model that has been in existence since 1978. For over 25 years, the Institute has offered, six or seven 13-session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics that teachers have selected to enhance their mastery of the specific subject area that they teach. The subject selection process begins with representatives from the Institutes soliciting ideas from teachers throughout the school district for topics on which teachers feel they need to have additional preparation, topics that will assist them in preparing materials they need for their students, or topics that will assist them in addressing the standards that the school district requires. As a consensus emerges about desired seminar subjects, the Institute director identifies university faculty members with the appropriate expertise, interest and desire to lead the seminar. University faculty members, especially those who have led Institute seminars before, may sometimes suggest seminars they would like to lead, and these ideas are circulated by the representatives as well. The final decisions on which seminar topics are offered are ultimately made by the teachers who participate. In this way, the offerings are designed to respond to what teachers believe is needed and useful for both themselves and their students. The cooperative nature of the Institute seminar planning process ensures its success: Institutes offer seminars and relevant materials on topics teachers have identified and feel are needed for their own preparation as well as what they know will motivate and engage their students. Teachers enthusiastically take part in rigorous seminars they have requested, and as part of the program, practice using the materials they have obtained and developed. This helps ensure that the experience not only increases their preparation in the subjects they are assigned to teach, but also their participation in an Institute seminar gives them immediate hands-on active learning materials that can be used in the classroom. In short, by allowing teachers to determine the seminar subjects and providing them the resources to develop relevant curricula for their classroom and their students, the Institutes empower teachers. Teachers know their students best and they know what should be done to improve schools and increase student learning. The Teacher Professional Development Institutes promote this philosophy. From 1999-2002, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute promoted a National Demonstration Project to create comparable Institutes at four diverse sites with large concentrations of disadvantaged students. These demonstration projects are located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Houston, Texas, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Santa Ana, CA. Follow-up evaluations have earned very positive results from the teacher participants in the Yale-New Haven Institute, as well as the four demonstration sites. The data strongly support the conclusion that virtually all teachers felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and they also developed increased expectations for what their students could achieve. In addition, because of their involvement in the course selection and curriculum development process, teacher participants have found these seminars to be especially relevant and useful in their classroom practices. Mr. President, 95 percent of all participating teachers reported that the seminars were useful. These Institutes have also served to foster teacher leadership, to develop supportive teacher networks, to heighten university faculty commitments to improving K-12 public education, and to foster more positive partnerships between school districts and institutions of higher education. Many agree that teacher quality is the single most important school- related factor in determining student achievement. Effective teacher professional development programs that focus on subject and pedagogy knowledge are a proven method for enhancing the success of a teacher in the classroom. Though a K-12 teacher shortage is forecast in the near-term and many new teachers will be entering our schools, those teachers who are presently on the job will do the majority of teaching in the classrooms in the very near future. For this reason, it is imperative to invest in methods to strengthen our present teaching workforce. Like many professions, the quality of our teachers could diminish if their professional development is neglected. Positive educational achievements occur when coursework in a teacher's specific content area is combined with pedagogy techniques. This is what the Teacher Professional Development Institutes Act strives to accomplish. The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute has already proven to be a successful model for teacher professional development as demonstrated by the high caliber curriculum unit plans that teacher participants have developed and placed on the web, and by the evaluations that support the conclusion that virtually all the teacher participants felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and their teaching skills. Our proposal would open this opportunity to many more urban teachers throughout the nation. I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.