Joseph Lieberman

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.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma is correct.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of our Environment Committee. I thank her for her very kind and informed remarks, but, more broadly, I thank her for the steadfast encouragement she has given to Senator Warner and me and for her principled, passionate, and very effective leadership. She understands that global warming is real and wants to use the chairmanship she has now to see that we, together, fashion a solution to this very real problem. I thank her. I hope and believe myself that she is right--that we will look back on this day, as we stand here together across party lines to introduce this legislation, as the beginning of something very significant that finally happened. I have said before, and I will say it again, at this moment, I feel as if we had been in a race between tipping points. The challenge would be that we get to the political tipping point where we could come together and do something about global warming before we reach the environmental tipping point, after which it would be harder to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. I think today we have begun to reach that political tipping point, and there is no one who is more responsible for that than the senior Senator from Virginia, my dear friend, John Warner. His partnership with me on this and his commitment to get this done have made all the difference. I am pleased to stand with my friend from Virginia to announce today the introduction of the America's Climate Security Act. I am proud to also say that we have five original cosponsors--Senators Cardin, Coleman, Collins, Dole, and Harkin. The doors are wide open for additional cosponsors as this day and the days after go on. This day comes after several months of work with Senator Warner, with our staffs, with stakeholders, environmentalists, business community people, and numerous hearings before the Environment and Public Works Committee. This legislation, S. 2191, America's Climate Security Act, is the result of all that work. It is a pleasure now to yield to the aforementioned great Senator from Virginia, John Warner.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, and I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Obviously, we are going to have a spirited debate on this subject. What I want to say is the pleasure I have in having announced the seven original cosponsors. As Senator Inhofe indicated, I had partnered with Senator McCain on an earlier version of a climate change bill. We brought it before the Senate twice. It failed twice. To me, the most remarkable and specific fact today that gives me encouragement is of the seven original cosponsors--that is, Senator Warner and I and the five others who have just come forward without us reaching out to them--four of those seven voted against one or both of the iterations of the McCain-Lieberman bill. So this issue is moving in the right direction. It is moving in the right direction because we have answered in this bill some of the questions and concerns that Senator Inhofe expressed about the economic consequences. First, I wish to say America's Climate Security Act is for real. It achieves necessary emissions by putting a cap on America's greenhouse gas emissions over electric power, transportation, and manufacturing sources that account for 75 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and by strengthening energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings. I note the presence on the floor of our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander. I know this was of particular interest to him. He made a significant contribution to this bill in that regard. Now, what does this achieve? It does what we have to do. It doesn't do everything everybody wants to do. I have already heard from some who have said it doesn't go far enough. But let me set up this standard: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group of more than 2,000 scientists from around the world who just shared the Nobel Prize with our former colleague Al Gore, has said the goal should be to keep the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 500 parts per million, because that will avoid what they describe as the high risk of severe global warming impacts here in the United States, which obviously has to be our first concern, but also around the world. I am pleased to say that if you take the Environmental Protection Agency's analysis of the McCain-Lieberman bill and apply it to this bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing, you will find the concentration of greenhouse gases will be well below that danger level of 500 parts per million by the end of the century. Secondly, Senator Warner and I are as committed to promoting and sustaining American prosperity as we are to protecting America's environment and the global environment from the danger of climate change. Senator Inhofe made an interesting point. This is different from McCain-Lieberman, which had big jumps, or I should say big drops in greenhouse gas emissions. We create a steady glidepath down, and that is going to be easier for the sources of emissions to deal with. Yes, we set a good solid goal in 2020 to make it clear that this is real, a 20-percent reduction, bringing us back down to where the 1990 levels were. So it is real, but it moves slowly. And in this cap-and- trade system, with the auctioning of credits and the opportunity to subsidize some and provide free credits to other businesses while they are in the transition, we are going to smooth the impact. We have also created a mechanism--a carbon market efficiency board, very creative--which comes out of work Senator Warner did with Senators Graham, Landrieu, and Lincoln, a kind of Federal Reserve Board for climate change cap and trade, which can step in during times of economic stress to smooth this out so the American economy will continue to grow. And, of course, the basic premise here--cap and trade--is to set the standard: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Make sure you are reducing them. Others have said: Why don't we pass a carbon tax? Well, I suppose a carbon tax would reduce carbon-emitting fossil fuels, but we don't know that for sure. Look how the demand for gasoline has stayed up even as the price has gone up. So you don't want to tax people without a certainty of result. Mandatory cap and trade guarantees the result: We want to protect our environment, our lives, our health, our wildlife, and our beautiful natural places. It does it in a way that will drive innovation and entrepreneurship. The market this bill creates will do what we in this country have known that markets do best--they get the job done and drive prices down. I say finally that this legislation includes many provisions that were drafted, suggested and, in fact, in some cases introduced by colleagues in the Senate. This is an incomplete list, but I want to be certain I mention Senators Collins and Alexander, who are on the floor, Senator Coleman--and I will come back to him specifically--Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, Sanders, McCain, Bingaman, Specter, Dole, Harkin, Klobuchar, Carper, Lincoln, Casey, and Baucus. Senator Coleman particularly has made a contribution to this legislation that responds to a statement Senator Inhofe made. What is the impact this is going to have on average working people in this country--middle income, low income? We are concerned about that, and Senator Coleman has essentially inserted a provision here that we worked on with him that will ensure that low- and middle-income Americans do not bear the brunt of paying for this program. This bill is a synthesis of an enormous amount of work on the part of many Members of the Senate. Senator Warner and I are deeply grateful for their contributions. Let me say it specifically: We are introducing the legislation today. Our subcommittee is going to have a hearing next week. We are going to do the markup the week after that, the week of October 29. This is an ongoing process. Our doors, Senator Warner's door and mine, are open. We are putting before the Senate today exactly what he said, a framework, a strong, detailed, politically credible bill that has a real chance of passing, but we are not claiming perfection here, and we welcome the opportunity to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan issue and it certainly is not a partisan problem to fix it before our children and grandchildren suffer from it. Finally, before I yield back to Senator Warner, I again want to come back to him. John Warner and I have worked together on many matters, mostly regarding America's national security, as I have served under his leadership on the Armed Services Committee. His decision to come to the leadership of this effort to stop the onward movement of climate change has made all the difference. I can't say it any better. It is the tipping point, as far as I am concerned, in this Chamber. I believe he is doing it for the same reason that has motivated him in the other work we have done in the Armed Services Committee. He feels America is threatened by this environmental problem and he wants to be part of the solution to it. We all know our colleague is retiring, after enormous service to our country, at the end of this session. I think that together we have the opportunity, with his participation, for this to be, in a long life of great service to America both in this Chamber and in service in the military, one of the great acts of service and leadership that John Warner has done for America. I thank him from the bottom of my heart as a dear friend and a wonderful partner in this effort. I also want to thank his extraordinarily tireless legislative assistant, Chelsea Maxwell, who has worked so well with Dave McIntosh and Joe Goffman on my staff. This is the day of a breakthrough, but it is only a beginning. We have kind of crossed the 50-yard line here, I think, my friend from Virginia, and we have some work to do before we go into the end zone, but with your help, we are going to do it. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor back to my friend from Virginia.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma is correct.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of our Environment Committee. I thank her for her very kind and informed remarks, but, more broadly, I thank her for the steadfast encouragement she has given to Senator Warner and me and for her principled, passionate, and very effective leadership. She understands that global warming is real and wants to use the chairmanship she has now to see that we, together, fashion a solution to this very real problem. I thank her. I hope and believe myself that she is right--that we will look back on this day, as we stand here together across party lines to introduce this legislation, as the beginning of something very significant that finally happened. I have said before, and I will say it again, at this moment, I feel as if we had been in a race between tipping points. The challenge would be that we get to the political tipping point where we could come together and do something about global warming before we reach the environmental tipping point, after which it would be harder to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. I think today we have begun to reach that political tipping point, and there is no one who is more responsible for that than the senior Senator from Virginia, my dear friend, John Warner. His partnership with me on this and his commitment to get this done have made all the difference. I am pleased to stand with my friend from Virginia to announce today the introduction of the America's Climate Security Act. I am proud to also say that we have five original cosponsors--Senators Cardin, Coleman, Collins, Dole, and Harkin. The doors are wide open for additional cosponsors as this day and the days after go on. This day comes after several months of work with Senator Warner, with our staffs, with stakeholders, environmentalists, business community people, and numerous hearings before the Environment and Public Works Committee. This legislation, S. 2191, America's Climate Security Act, is the result of all that work. It is a pleasure now to yield to the aforementioned great Senator from Virginia, John Warner.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, and I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Obviously, we are going to have a spirited debate on this subject. What I want to say is the pleasure I have in having announced the seven original cosponsors. As Senator Inhofe indicated, I had partnered with Senator McCain on an earlier version of a climate change bill. We brought it before the Senate twice. It failed twice. To me, the most remarkable and specific fact today that gives me encouragement is of the seven original cosponsors--that is, Senator Warner and I and the five others who have just come forward without us reaching out to them--four of those seven voted against one or both of the iterations of the McCain-Lieberman bill. So this issue is moving in the right direction. It is moving in the right direction because we have answered in this bill some of the questions and concerns that Senator Inhofe expressed about the economic consequences. First, I wish to say America's Climate Security Act is for real. It achieves necessary emissions by putting a cap on America's greenhouse gas emissions over electric power, transportation, and manufacturing sources that account for 75 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and by strengthening energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings. I note the presence on the floor of our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander. I know this was of particular interest to him. He made a significant contribution to this bill in that regard. Now, what does this achieve? It does what we have to do. It doesn't do everything everybody wants to do. I have already heard from some who have said it doesn't go far enough. But let me set up this standard: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group of more than 2,000 scientists from around the world who just shared the Nobel Prize with our former colleague Al Gore, has said the goal should be to keep the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 500 parts per million, because that will avoid what they describe as the high risk of severe global warming impacts here in the United States, which obviously has to be our first concern, but also around the world. I am pleased to say that if you take the Environmental Protection Agency's analysis of the McCain-Lieberman bill and apply it to this bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing, you will find the concentration of greenhouse gases will be well below that danger level of 500 parts per million by the end of the century. Secondly, Senator Warner and I are as committed to promoting and sustaining American prosperity as we are to protecting America's environment and the global environment from the danger of climate change. Senator Inhofe made an interesting point. This is different from McCain-Lieberman, which had big jumps, or I should say big drops in greenhouse gas emissions. We create a steady glidepath down, and that is going to be easier for the sources of emissions to deal with. Yes, we set a good solid goal in 2020 to make it clear that this is real, a 20-percent reduction, bringing us back down to where the 1990 levels were. So it is real, but it moves slowly. And in this cap-and- trade system, with the auctioning of credits and the opportunity to subsidize some and provide free credits to other businesses while they are in the transition, we are going to smooth the impact. We have also created a mechanism--a carbon market efficiency board, very creative--which comes out of work Senator Warner did with Senators Graham, Landrieu, and Lincoln, a kind of Federal Reserve Board for climate change cap and trade, which can step in during times of economic stress to smooth this out so the American economy will continue to grow. And, of course, the basic premise here--cap and trade--is to set the standard: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Make sure you are reducing them. Others have said: Why don't we pass a carbon tax? Well, I suppose a carbon tax would reduce carbon-emitting fossil fuels, but we don't know that for sure. Look how the demand for gasoline has stayed up even as the price has gone up. So you don't want to tax people without a certainty of result. Mandatory cap and trade guarantees the result: We want to protect our environment, our lives, our health, our wildlife, and our beautiful natural places. It does it in a way that will drive innovation and entrepreneurship. The market this bill creates will do what we in this country have known that markets do best--they get the job done and drive prices down. I say finally that this legislation includes many provisions that were drafted, suggested and, in fact, in some cases introduced by colleagues in the Senate. This is an incomplete list, but I want to be certain I mention Senators Collins and Alexander, who are on the floor, Senator Coleman--and I will come back to him specifically--Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, Sanders, McCain, Bingaman, Specter, Dole, Harkin, Klobuchar, Carper, Lincoln, Casey, and Baucus. Senator Coleman particularly has made a contribution to this legislation that responds to a statement Senator Inhofe made. What is the impact this is going to have on average working people in this country--middle income, low income? We are concerned about that, and Senator Coleman has essentially inserted a provision here that we worked on with him that will ensure that low- and middle-income Americans do not bear the brunt of paying for this program. This bill is a synthesis of an enormous amount of work on the part of many Members of the Senate. Senator Warner and I are deeply grateful for their contributions. Let me say it specifically: We are introducing the legislation today. Our subcommittee is going to have a hearing next week. We are going to do the markup the week after that, the week of October 29. This is an ongoing process. Our doors, Senator Warner's door and mine, are open. We are putting before the Senate today exactly what he said, a framework, a strong, detailed, politically credible bill that has a real chance of passing, but we are not claiming perfection here, and we welcome the opportunity to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan issue and it certainly is not a partisan problem to fix it before our children and grandchildren suffer from it. Finally, before I yield back to Senator Warner, I again want to come back to him. John Warner and I have worked together on many matters, mostly regarding America's national security, as I have served under his leadership on the Armed Services Committee. His decision to come to the leadership of this effort to stop the onward movement of climate change has made all the difference. I can't say it any better. It is the tipping point, as far as I am concerned, in this Chamber. I believe he is doing it for the same reason that has motivated him in the other work we have done in the Armed Services Committee. He feels America is threatened by this environmental problem and he wants to be part of the solution to it. We all know our colleague is retiring, after enormous service to our country, at the end of this session. I think that together we have the opportunity, with his participation, for this to be, in a long life of great service to America both in this Chamber and in service in the military, one of the great acts of service and leadership that John Warner has done for America. I thank him from the bottom of my heart as a dear friend and a wonderful partner in this effort. I also want to thank his extraordinarily tireless legislative assistant, Chelsea Maxwell, who has worked so well with Dave McIntosh and Joe Goffman on my staff. This is the day of a breakthrough, but it is only a beginning. We have kind of crossed the 50-yard line here, I think, my friend from Virginia, and we have some work to do before we go into the end zone, but with your help, we are going to do it. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor back to my friend from Virginia.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for their first-class work on the Fiscal Year 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. They have written legislation that strengthens communities against crime and terrorism, provides important research dollars for science and technology, and protects jobs here in the United States against unlawful trade practices. Unfortunately, we know from Federal crime statistics that violent crime is on the rise in the United States. To combat this increase, we must make a commitment to boost Federal support for State and local law enforcement. This bill contains $2.66 billion for community police departments, $26 million to hire an additional 100 FBI agents to fight violent crime, and $5 million for the FBI to create a task force on gang violence. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, we have asked our local law enforcement officials to assume yet another role in protecting citizens, namely homeland security. I believe that the Federal Government must step in and provide a share of the resources to community policing for their efforts. I also commend my colleagues for the impressive funding package they have devised for science and technology. This year, along with Senator Bond, I helped lead the charge in the Senate for an increase in the National Science Foundation's budget. This bill includes over $6.5 billion for the NSF, with a substantial $850 million for educational programs to develop the next generation of leaders in science, technology, and math. The future of innovation rests upon our ability to recruit more talented students who want to pursue careers in science and engineering. Looking at the challenges the United States faces in maintaining global economic leadership, a comparatively small investment now in the National Science Foundation will provide exponential benefits for years to come. Finally, I commend the adoption of Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby's amendment to add $1 billion to NASA's budget for this upcoming fiscal year. Along with several other Senators, I was a proud co- sponsor of this amendment, and I laud its adoption by unanimous consent. The additional funding will enable NASA to revive its basic science programs, such as its earth science and aeronautics research initiatives. Global warming is a reality, and NASA's capabilities make it uniquely positioned to provide the world's scientific community with vital data about changes in Earth's atmosphere and the subsequent impact on climate. Furthermore, we must remember that there are two ``As'' in NASA, and forgetting the ``Aeronautics'' component of the agency's mission would be a grave mistake. Once again, I congratulate my colleagues on a well formulated piece of legislation, and I urge the President to sign this bill into law.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, first, I say to Senator Mikulski, she should be unrestrained in her metaphorical employments. I thought they were both creative and inspirational, as is the bill she brings before the Chamber, with Senator Shelby as well. I rise to speak against the Coburn amendment. I will file some statements in the Record, but I say to Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby, I thank them, before I get to the amendment, for the extraordinary work they have done and particularly on matters of local law enforcement which are so critical to the safety and well-being of our communities and our people. They stood up together in a bipartisan way. These programs have worked to reduce crime in our neighborhoods. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank them. Why do I oppose the Coburn amendment? Because the amendment would prohibit any funding of a program that happens to be located in Connecticut, in Mystic, CT, but is a program of real national significance run by Dr. Bob Ballard, who is a national asset. He is an extraordinary visionary, explorer, scientist, public servant, really an American patriot in the best sense of the term. Generally speaking, when I sought reelection last year and my opponent attacked me about earmarks, I said there are good earmarks and there are bad earmarks. A lot of what we do here has to do with earmarking, to either add or subtract to the budget or to authorization bills, and I think people understand that. I rise to say that it would be a terrible result if, in pursuit of this amendment, which I know the Senator from Oklahoma offers for reasons that are fiscal, he eliminated the funding of the advanced undersea vehicle at the Institute for Exploration, which happens to be located at the Mystic Aquarium. Now, the first thing I want to say is that the Institute for Exploration is run by Dr. Bob Ballard, who, as Senator Mikulski said, is not only nationally famous but probably world famous as the man who discovered the Titanic and who went on to discover the Bismarck in 1989 and the USS Yorktown in 1998. These are remarkable historic achievements. He is a kind of ocean archeological explorer. I am sure most people hearing my voice have seen Dr. Bob in one or another TV program describing his extraordinary work, but let me first say it happens to be located at the Mystic Aquarium. It was a major achievement when we convinced Dr. Ballard to locate there--the State did. How do I compare it? In this time of baseball playoffs, without demeaning either side here, it would be like the Yankees acquiring A- Rod or the Red Sox getting Josh Beckett. When Dr. Bob Ballard agreed to bring his Institute for Exploration to Mystic, CT, we were thrilled. And I do want to stress that it is a separate institute that happens to be located alongside and at the aquarium site. Tourists have some access to part of its educational aspects, but it is separate. It is not just part of the aquarium. This $450,000 is not a lot of money in a budget the size of our budget, but it is going to be used to improve the sonar on the unmanned technology for undersea mapping. In other words, there is an advanced undersea vehicle that Dr. Ballard and his team use for undersea mapping, and this money will help him upgrade the sonar to chart currently unexplored regions of the world's oceans. Dr. Ballard does this out of his general sense of inquiry, of scientific inquiry, to use the extraordinary tools of modern technology to teach us things about most of the globe that is underwater that we have never known much about. But he does it also in the aftermath of a career in the U.S. Navy, 30 years both Active and in the Reserve as an oceanographer and a naval intelligence officer. During his long career, he has been called upon to use his advanced underwater systems to carry out a number of highly classified missions for the U.S. military. The sonar mapping technology that this $450,000 will help facilitate is very important to the Navy, and its development has been supported by the Office of Naval Research because of its military applications in support of submarine warfare and countermine measures. The money is in this bill because it is strongly supported also by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, part of the Department of Commerce, part of the jurisdiction of this subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and NOAA supports it because of its enormous potential to explore the uncharted regions of the oceans for many reasons, including in search of precious natural resources. So what I am saying is the project, to our great pride, has a Connecticut address, but it is a technology that is critical for national security and even international scientific research. I wish to go one step further here about a bonus. I have been to visit this institute of Dr. Ballard's in Mystic several times. It is a remarkable place. I would urge anybody who is in Connecticut to go see it. But one of the things he has done, because he is a real educator, he has set up a system, an educational program where he can actually bring his scientific work to students around the country. It is called Immersion Presents--an afterschool program. He actually has the capability to project his expeditions, including the mapping expeditions that would be improved by this $450,000, via the Internet to over 140 Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs across the country. For 7 consecutive days, Dr. Ballard's research mission has broadcast live to thousands of students. So he will use the money for this, as he has in 10 previous expeditions, to continue this Immersion Presents Program. This is a tremendous educational device. If you want to excite American kids about going into science, what a thrilling way to do it. So with all respect to my colleague, and I respect what he is trying to do, I think he has hit something here that ought not to be hit. If it loses its funding, it will not just be a loss for the institute or Dr. Ballard or the State of Connecticut, it will really be a loss for our Nation, both in terms of scientific inquiry for our Nation and also, I would suggest, national security. So I thank Chairman Mikulski and Senator Shelby for including this in their recommendation to the Senate, and for that reason I would urge the rejection of the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to respond briefly to my friend from Oklahoma. I respect what he is about. I think we all understand we have to bring spending under control. In fact, earmarks are down generally in the appropriations process this year. But, again, there are good earmarks and bad earmarks. It is part of what the people elect us to do, and I came to the floor to defend this earmark. I do want to say to my friend from Oklahoma that I am pretty sure, though I haven't had a chance to check it exactly, that the State of Connecticut is supporting some of Dr. Ballard's programs. I hadn't thought about National Geographic. Maybe you and I should go to Dr. Ballard and try to get some money from him for what----

Mr. LIEBERMAN. --for what he is doing. But I do want to say this is not the Mystic Aquarium; this is the Institute of Exploration, which happens to be at the Mystic Aquarium. This really does serve a national purpose and really an international purpose but a great one for America--mapping the ocean floor for the use and the potential development of precious natural resources, and it is supported by the Navy because it is of direct use to the Navy. Now, I know my friend from Oklahoma is very principled in his fight, so what I am about to say will not affect him. But my staff just told him there are a bunch of students in Oklahoma who get to watch Dr. Ballard--I know, you love him--and his undersea immersion work, and this $450,000 will make that even better than it already is. There are times when I will support the Senator from Oklahoma in some of his efforts because overall they are right. I think all of us know there is a larger problem beyond earmarks in dealing with our fiscal imbalances. But today, because I think he has struck some targets here that don't deserve to be struck, I respectfully urge rejection of his amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleagues for bringing up this critical matter. The threats that our troops face on the battlefield continue to grow. We, and they, are fortunate that they have JSTARS and its radar to give them a critical edge. JSTARS has proven its value on the battlefield many times, beginning with Desert Storm when it was rushed to the field to give our commanders an unprecedented view of the battlefield. Since then, every warfighting commander that has testified before us has said that JSTARS is absolutely essential to success. Indeed, as the senior Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, the cancellation of the E-10 means that JSTARS will remain essential for years to come. But the radar on JSTARS is aging at the same time that the battlefield is getting more complex and threats harder to detect. Fortunately, MP-RTIP can be available to put on JSTARS. I believe we must move quickly to develop a version of MP-RTIP and install it on our JSTARS aircraft to give our commanders and soldiers the absolute best capability that we can. In fact, the Pentagon acknowledged in its most recent Quadrennial Defense Review the critical importance of the United States improving its ability to detect incoming cruise missiles and slow-moving ground vehicles. Current technologies such as JSTARS are simply inadequate to track small airborne targets that may easily be used to attack our forces with little warning and with horrible effect.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, before I was elected by the people of Connecticut to serve in the Senate, I was privileged to serve as their attorney general for 6 years. During my tenure as AG, I was assisted not only by my top rate staff but by an organization that proved invaluable toward my efforts to protect public health and safety, the National Association of Attorneys General. The National Association of Attorneys General, NAAG, has been assisting the chief legal officers of all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and other jurisdictions since 1907. In the last 30 years, the scope of NAAG's operations has increased dramatically with the opening of its Washington, DC, office, which has been a tremendous resource to State attorneys general seeking to coordinate with each other and with the Federal Government. One person who was particularly instrumental in expanding the association's Washington operations is Lynne Ross, who retired in September after working in public service for over 30 years. When NAAG first opened its Washington office in 1976, Ms. Ross was its first and at that time only full time employee. Given this, it is amazing the broad array of services this office offered. Serving as both deputy director and legislative director, Ms. Ross coordinated legislative activities on behalf of attorneys general across the country, including securing $25 million dollars in Federal aid to help States develop/enhance their antitrust capacity. In addition, she worked together with State and environmental groups in passing the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, which requires Federal facilities to follow the same State, local, and Federal environmental regulations that govern private industry. This act has greatly expanded the ability of attorneys general to clean up the environment. Ms. Ross also worked as a liaison between State attorneys general and the White House and executive agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Trade Commission, with which many AGs have extensive, yet sometimes frayed, relations. Ms. Ross was known for her ability to help AGs and their staff clear through the bureaucratic brush and find who they need to talk to. She undertook efforts to help attorneys generals better perform their jobs by preparing regular NAAG meetings which fostered interaction between AGs and the various Federal agencies, by producing various NAAG publications which both informed AG offices of various legal developments, and also provided advice on how best to fulfill their roles and responsibilities as the chief public law enforcement officer for the State. The work done by Ms. Ross and NAAG proved to be so immensely valuable to State attorneys general that by 1997, when Ms. Ross returned to the NAAG after serving 4 years at EPA, its Washington office had grown to employ almost 50 people to accommodate for the increased demand for services. This speaks volumes about Ms. Ross's talents and work ethic. Upon returning to NAAG, Ms. Ross served again as deputy director, managing the day-to-day operations of the association. In 2002, she became executive director, in which she put her experience and wisdom to work developing programs and initiatives in an array of substantive areas including criminal law, consumer protection, cybercrime, and more. Throughout the years Lynne was at NAAG she was also instrumental in the creation and support of an auxiliary organization of former attorneys general called the Society of Attorneys General Emeritus, SAGE. SAGE members could always rely on Lynne's prompt and responsive counsel and advice. Mr. President, what I have provided today is just a mere sampling of Lynne Ross's professional accomplishments. One could easily fill up a large book with the things she has done and yet still not do her career justice. Perhaps it best to simply say: Thank you, Lynne Ross, for helping to make NAAG the organization it is today. All our country's attorneys general and the people they serve are better off because of you.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his eloquent, passionate statement and for his kind words. I appreciate it very much. In a short while, I will be adding my own few words of support for this amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Maryland, and others--including myself. I am privileged to be managing the bill until the chairman, Senator Levin arrives. I thought insofar as there are Members here on both sides, we would go back and forth. I suggest Senator Sessions, who is here now, go next. I will follow him. I ask, through the Chair, of my friend from Alabama, how much time he would like to speak?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Alabama go next for 10 minutes and then I be recognized for 7 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my statement, which I will now offer for 10 minutes instead of 7; to be followed by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, for 10 minutes; followed by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, for 10 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I extend my time to respond to two things my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions--one of my two friends from Alabama, Senator Sessions, mentioned. The first is the good news from the Missile Defense Program of the successful test last Friday. We wish we did not have to spend money building a missile defense, but the truth is that the number of powers, including a lot of hostile anti-American countries that have the capacity to fire missiles at us and our allies, carrying both conventional weapons and potentially weapons of mass destruction, is increasing and has increased. The creation of this program has been controversial. The funding of it is controversial. But I believe, just as deeply as anyone can believe anything, that we will, particularly as we hear the success of the testing, look back on the investments we have made in this program and be very thankful we did it because it will protect the security of the United States from attack via a missile from the enemies that exist to our country and to our values. I wish to just briefly echo what Senator Sessions said about General Pace, who has just ended his time as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I put an extensive statement in the Record last week without being on the floor. I just say now that this is a good man, a patriot who has served his country with a tremendous sense of excellence, of bravery, of honor, taking on risks and burdens to himself for the defense of America. When he was appointed and confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there were two pieces of history, two firsts. We are a country that loves firsts because when people do something for the first time, it talks about the increasing openness, the reality of what we call the American dream. The one that was greatly commented on was Peter Pace was the first marine to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That was a historic first. The other--perhaps less commented on but a great story of America--Pete Pace was the first Italian American to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--yet another extraordinary accomplishment and act of service to our country from its Italian-American community. Pete Pace served during a difficult time. He served with honor and integrity. He was intensely devoted to the men and women who serve all of us, and their families. He has maintained the fighting edge of our military going through a very difficult time, oversaw two extraordinary victories in Afghanistan and Iraq and then the post-Saddam war increasingly against al-Qaida in Iran and Iraq--very difficult times. But he leaves office now at a moment when, obviously thanks to the skill and bravery of the American military, there are some reasons for encouragement in Iraq, good reasons. I thank General Pace, his wife, and his family for their service to America. We wish them well in the years ahead. Amendment No. 3058 Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and Senator Mikulski and others, including myself, which will be voted on later today. This amendment would bring some commonsense reforms to the process by which agencies decide whether to outsource Federal jobs to contractors. Sometimes, obviously, it makes a lot of sense for agencies to turn to contractors because they are able to perform certain functions more efficiently than the agencies could themselves. That is in everybody's interest, including the taxpayers'. However, in many cases, experience has shown Federal employees can perform the work just as efficiently or more efficiently than the contractors and deserve the right to bid when work is proposed to be outsourced. Additionally, agencies must ensure that inherently governmental work--in other words, work which is intimately related to the public interest--is performed by Federal employees and not by private contractors. That is why the Government was created. The process for deciding when to outsource jobs has to be a careful one, it has to be fair to contractors, and it has to be fair to Federal employees. Of course, it has to be fair, most of all, to America's taxpayers. The Kennedy amendment provides Federal employees the same right contractors currently possess to appeal outsourcing decisions. In other words, when a particular function is proposed for outsourcing, open to bidding by private contractors, there is a process--and a good one-- that has been created where Federal employees themselves may bid against those contractors for that outsourcing work. What the Kennedy amendment says is Federal employees should have the same rights contractors have to appeal outsourcing decisions. Why just have one of the competitors for the outsourcing have the right to appeal and the other one does not? To me, that is simply a fundamental issue of fairness. The amendment also contains a provision to ensure that contractors competing for Department of Defense work do not receive an unfair advantage because they offer inferior health or retirement benefits to what we are offering to Federal employees. I do not think any Member of this Chamber would want employees of the Department of Defense to be at a disadvantage in competing for their jobs because they receive health and retirement benefits that we authorize and ordain from the Federal Government. This amendment also addresses a concern I have had for quite a long time; that is, it sometimes appears as if the Office of Management and Budget pushes agencies to meet arbitrary numerical targets for the outsourcing of jobs. Decisions on outsourcing should be made on a case- by-case basis where it makes sense for agencies to outsource the jobs as opposed to giving them a quota of outsourcing and say they have to hit that quota. Arbitrary numerical targets, I am afraid, take agencies off the path of pursuing other means of cutting costs. They overtax agencies already struggling to monitor work performed by contractors. I believe they sometimes, without cause, undermine the civil service, which we ought to be elevating as it is elevated in so many of the other industrialized developed democracies. Those types of numerical targets were prohibited by Congress in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill, but the Office of Management and Budget seems to be continuing to pressure agencies to conduct competitions between Federal employees and contractors on a certain number of jobs each year. That is not right. The amendment before us makes clear that use of such quotas at the Department of Defense is impermissible. These are all, in my opinion, sensible, modest reforms. They do not and they are not intended to prohibit the outsourcing of Federal jobs, which I support when it makes sense, but, rather, ensure that the process is objective, fair. It essentially puts both parties here on a level playing field. The core provisions of this amendment have, in fact, received bipartisan support in the Senate over the last few years. I hope we can continue that support when the amendment comes to the vote today. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of the Senator from Vermont. I know Senator Sessions wishes to add a few words of tribute to Mr. Mitchell, and then Senator Sanders will have his 10 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Mayer was a wonderful man who a lot of us got to know because of his leadership role in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. This was a wonderful gentleman, the exemplification of the American dream. He worked extremely hard, made a great success of himself for his family, for his community, for his country. He loved America. He was devoted to Israel and devoted to the strength of the United States-Israel relationship. He was a great American patriot. I don't want to take the time to describe it now, but I am personally grateful for him for the ways in which he stuck with me at tough times in my own career. He didn't just stick with me, but he sort of worked at it to make sure everything came out all right. He was a good friend, a good man. God bless his soul.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true patriot and exceptional leader of our military, GEN. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for his more than 40 years of dedicated service to the U.S. Armed Forces and to our country. General Pace has devoted his life to service of his country. For him, duty, honor, and commitment have been more than words. They have been a career and a way of life. America is great because of the service and sacrifice of Americans like General Pace. We are deeply grateful for his service. General Pace has consistently put the military ideal of service to country before himself and has shown exceptional concern for the well- being of our men and women in uniform. Indeed, if there is one trait that can be said to define the character of General Pace, it is that he has been guided in all his decisions by an intense feeling of duty to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who defend the freedoms we all enjoy. This brave patriot is retiring October 1, marking the end of a long and distinguished military career. GEN. Peter Pace began his service to America at the U.S. Naval Academy. In 1968, after completing officer training at the Basic School in Quantico, Virginia, General Pace was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, of the 1st Marine Division in Vietnam. In Vietnam, he served first as a rifle platoon leader and subsequently became an assistant operations officer. He joined the platoon during the battle for Hue City and was the unit's third platoon leader in as many weeks. For his service and heroism, General Pace was decorated for valor during his tour in Vietnam. Yet what mattered most to him were the troops he led, some of whom, tragically, lost their lives for the country we love. General Pace holds as one of his most valued treasures the photo of LCpl Guido Farinaro, the first marine he lost in combat. The lance corporal's forever young likeness is under the glass on General Pace's desk, each day reminding him of the impact of his decisions as a military leader. General Pace has often been quoted as saying that it is the duty of every soldier to live his or her life in an exemplary way and take on an extra measure of responsibility for those fellow soldiers who have been killed and whose families now live without them. This dedication to the fallen, and to the survivors, is characteristic of General Pace. Following Vietnam, General Pace was assigned to Marine Barracks, Washington, DC, where he served as security detachment commander at Camp David, a White House social aide, and platoon leader of Special Ceremonial Platoon. Over the next two decades, General Pace held command at virtually every level and served our country throughout the world. While a brigadier general, he served as deputy commander of Marine Forces, Somalia, from December of 1992 to February of 1993, and as deputy commander of Joint Task Force--Somalia from October 1993 to March 1994. On September 30, 2005, General Pace became the country's senior military leader when he was sworn in as the 16th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 30, 2005. General Pace also made history-- he had the distinction of being the first marine to serve in this role and of being the first Italian American to do so. I know from my personal conversations with him that General Pace took modest pride from that last fact. And believe that General Pace--whose name means ``peace'' in Italian--knew full well that his was a fitting name for a soldier because the path to achieving peace, and to preserving it, is through the kind of strong and capable a military to which he devoted his career. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is always a challenging job but never more so than at a time when the Nation is at war. He has been a respected source of military counsel for our country's leaders. He has worked to help transform the military so that it will be able to address the myriad of global challenges during this time of war. Now, he leaves his chairmanship knowing that our Armed Forces in Iraq have been making new progress there, thanks to a new strategy put in place under his watch. As has been his practice since he left Annapolis 40 years ago, General Pace has always kept the best interests of our men and women in uniform in the forefront of discussions. General Pace is known for his thoughtful manner, his sense of humor, and above all his consummate integrity. One Pace trademark we have all come to value is his constant reference to ``PFC Pace'' in all military-related discussion, his attempt to ensure that the President, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the Homeland Defense Council, and the Congress consider the impact of their decisions on the most junior members of our military. General Pace's leadership has made a significant contribution to improving the security of the United States as we wage this war to protect our Nation and our liberty. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Pace has had a valued partner in helping to improve the quality of life for the family members who sustain our all-recruited force. His wife Lynne has diligently worked with her husband to assist military families in quite literally every clime and place. Throughout her husband's career, at each duty station, she focused on working to improve their quality of life, both as a key volunteer, where she provided advice on family readiness and financial assistance issues, and as a LINKS volunteer-- Lifestyles, Insights, Networking, Knowledge, and Skills--where she was a mentor to other military spouses and helped them adapt to the unique challenges of military life. In addition to serving on the boards of CARE, which works to eradicate world poverty through education, health, and economic programs, and the Armed Services YMCA, Lynne has worked with the USO, Americans with Disabilities, and numerous other volunteer groups. She also helped to develop a curriculum for spouses that became an integral part of the Commanders Course. The Paces' proudest accomplishment undoubtedly is their two children, Peter, a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, and Tiffany Marie, who is an accountant. This is truly a family that embodies the greatness of our blessed land. General Pace will indeed be remembered as a dedicated Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a true patriot, a courageous warrior, a distinguished general, and a dedicated leader with the highest integrity and compassion for all who had the distinct honor of serving with him. When General Pace was appointed to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, President Bush remarked, ``To the American people, the Marine is shorthand for can-do, and I'm counting on Pete Pace to bring the Marine spirit to these new responsibilities.'' General Pace has always lived his life and served his country in the Marine spirit. A grateful nation extends her appreciation. Semper Fi.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, very briefly, this amendment is a sense of the Senate introduced by Senator Kyl and me. The findings document the evidence that shows that Iran, working through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has been training and equipping Iraqi extremists who are killing American soldiers--hundreds of them. This sense of the Senate calls on the administration to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, allowing us to exert economic pressure on those terrorists who also do business and to stop them from killing Americans. Because some of our colleagues thought paragraphs 3 and 4 of the sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran, Senator Kyl and I have struck them from the amendment. That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 3017 which Senator Kyl of Arizona and I have offered. This amendment would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization and thereby subject this deadly, nefarious group to a series of economic and diplomatic sanctions that Senator Kyl and I think will be felt in Iran and that this group, because of its dangerous and destabilizing work throughout Iraq and the Middle East, deserves. This is obviously a week in which the leader of Iran, President Ahmadi-Nejad, is in the United States of America. A great debate rages about what is the appropriate way to greet him? What sanctions, what platforms should be given to him? What sanctions should be discussed? Personally, I feel it was a terrible mistake for Columbia University to invite him to speak because he comes literally with blood on his hands--the blood of American soldiers who are being killed today in Iraq by Iraqi extremists trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Quds Force, in Iran at bases surrounding Tehran. But I offer this amendment in this spirit: If we are looking for a way to meaningfully respond to the presence of Ahmadi-Nejad in the United States, I cannot think of anything better than adopting this resolution which documents exactly the campaign of death and murder of Americans and others throughout the Middle East that it is carrying out. Regardless of where any individual Member of this Chamber stands on the war in Iraq and what the best way forward on the war in Iraq is, this matter of Iran's deadly role in Iraq and throughout the Middle East should draw us all together. This is a matter on which we are not for or against the war in Iraq, we are not Democrats or Republicans, we are Americans standing based of the evidence against a force, the Iranian Republican Guard Corps, the Quds Force, that has blood on its hands, and the blood is American blood. General Petraeus, 2 weeks ago, testified before Congress, and he could not have been clearer about the threat we face from Iran. In his words: It is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Quds Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces. General Petraeus's testimony is the latest in a growing dossier of evidence about Iranian terrorism--call it what it is. Ahmadi-Nejad is maybe called President; he is the terrorist dictator who, with a small group around him, has seized control of a great Nation, Iran--a growing dossier of evidence about Iranian terrorism in Iraq and throughout the region that we in this Chamber have received from our American military commanders on the ground in Iraq, from our top diplomats there, and from our own intelligence community. This is not opinion; this is fact. Specifically, we have received detailed information in recent months about how operatives from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have been training--have been training--arming, funding, and even directing extremists inside Iraq. As Ambassador Crocker testified: While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state. The IRGC, Quds Force, is also importing terrorists from the Lebanese Hezbollah to help build its extremist proxies in Iraq. We know this because coalition forces, American forces, have captured one of the Hezbollah leaders inside Iraq and recovered documents that detail the relationship between the Iranian regime and the extremist groups they are sponsoring who are killing Americans. General Petraeus said it when he was here: This is not intelligence. This is evidence. We also know Iran has been using its territory to train and organize these extremists, as I said. What is the source of that? The U.S. military spokesperson in Iraq, BG Kevin Bergner, U.S. Army. He has said groups of up to 60 Iraqi militants at a time have been taken to three camps near Tehran, where they received instruction in the use of mortars, rockets, improvised explosives, and other deadly tools of guerrilla warfare that they then use against our troops in Iraq. General Bergner also reported this summer the U.S. military has concluded that ``the senior leadership'' in Iran is aware of the activities of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in sponsoring attacks against our soldiers in Iraq, and that, in his words, it is ``hard to imagine'' that the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, does not know about them. The consequences of this Iranian terrorism in Iraq have been immense and terrible for our men and women in uniform and for their families and friends at home. According to LTG Ray Odierno, the deputy commander of our forces in Iraq, Iranian-supplied weapons were responsible for a full one-third of American combat deaths this July. That builds on a similar record in preceding months. Let me repeat that. Up to a third of the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq in July were caused by sophisticated explosive devices used by people trained in Iran, with those devices supplied by Iran. This means the Iranians and their agents are killing our troops. Why are they doing it? Because they want us to retreat from Iraq. The Iranians understand--sometimes, it seems, better than a lot of Americans do--that if American power collapses in Iraq, if we retreat and abandon our allies and the hopes we share with them for a better future in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, our position throughout the region will become much weaker and Iran's position will become much stronger. Iranian aggression in Iraq fits squarely into a larger pattern of regional aggression, leading, they hope, to regional domination. Tehran is also training, funding, and equipping radical groups that are responsible for the deaths of Lebanese, Palestinians, Afghanis, and Israelis. They are attempting to destabilize a series of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Last week, Admiral Fallon, the commander of our Central Command, said the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is supplying anticoalition forces with the same sophisticated explosive devices it is giving to extremists in Iraq. In Admiral Fallon's words: There is no doubt . . . that agents from Iran are involved in aiding the insurgency. The fact is, it is Iraq that today is the central front of Iran's efforts to become the hegemonic power in the Middle East. The Iranian regime knows Iraq has become the central front in our war with Islamist terrorism. It is where they believe they can begin the process of pushing us out of the region and seizing control. That is why I do not believe a person can be serious about responding to the threat of Iran while calling for our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Ahmadi-Nejad, a few weeks ago, said: The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. By that he means us. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. . . .We are prepared to fill that gap. Asked about that statement, our own Ambassador Crocker said: Ahmadinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it, to the best of his ability. That is a quote from our Ambassador in Baghdad. It is vital to the national security interests of the United States that the Iranian Government not be allowed to prevail in its war against us and the Iraqi people's hopes for a better future. The amendment Senator Kyl and I and others are offering, we believe, is an important component of our response to this threat. First, it will send a clear message both to the fanatical regime in Tehran--not, I believe, representative of the feelings and hopes of the Iranian people--and it will send a clear message to our allies in the region that the United States will not stand idly by and allow Iranian- backed terrorists to kill hundreds of American soldiers. We will not stand idly by and allow Iran, through its proxies and then directly, to dominate Iraq. This amendment acknowledges what our military commanders and top diplomats are telling us, which is that regardless of what we might desire in Washington, the Government in Tehran has made a decision, and they are carrying it out--to wage a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and against our allies in the Arab world and Israel throughout the region. We must respond. Our amendment states it should be the policy of the United States to stop the violent activities and the destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah and the indigenous Iraqi extremists. Our amendment recognizes that thwarting Iran's campaign of terror must be among the crucial considerations for any plan for the transition and drawdown of our forces in Iraq. As General Petraeus warned us in his testimony, the threat of Iran may, in the long run, prove an even greater danger to the stability of Iraq--their hopes for political reconciliation and self-government--than al-Qaida. We cannot ignore Iran. For that reason, the amendment Senator Kyl and I are offering calls on the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization and place the IRGC on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. This is no small organization. I have seen estimates to say it is as large as 150,000 or 180,000. They have ground troops. They have air capability. They even have naval assets. They have businesses which are doing business with other businesses throughout the region and the world. This is the organization that the evidence, presented to us by the American military intelligence communities, tells us is responsible for the murder of American soldiers in Iraq. They are launching terrorist attacks through their agents against our troops; therefore, they should be treated as terrorists. They must begin to suffer the economic and diplomatic punishments that come with being designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Of course, everyone in this Chamber would prefer that we find a way to convince the Iranian regime to stop these attacks against our soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and civilians through negotiation, but reality requires that we recognize that we have tried to use the tools of diplomacy with Iran, Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad's government, and it has produced nothing. Since May, Ambassador Crocker, our Ambassador, has met three times with his Iranian counterparts in Baghdad--the highest level official meetings between American and Iranian representatives in decades--and what have these talks produced? These talks, at which our Ambassador has presented the Iranians with hard evidence that we know the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, is training Iraqi extremists who are coming back into Iraq and killing American soldiers--what has that evidence produced? Nothing. Nothing at all. In fact, there is some evidence that the Iranian activity is growing. In Ambassador Crocker's own words as he testified before Congress: I laid out the concerns we have over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on the Iranian side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came away with after a couple of rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business. Right now-- Ambassador Crocker says-- I haven't seen any signs of earnestness or seriousness on the Iranian side. Far from convincing the Iranian regime to stop its proxy attacks on Iraqi soldiers, the evidence is that these attacks have escalated-- increased--over the last month. According to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate: Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support--

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.