Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to state my support for the legislation Senators Klobuchar, Alexander, and I are introducing today to create a regional Presidential primary system effective in 2012. The goal of this legislation is to transform what has become a tired, arbitrary, and exclusive presidential primary system that simply does not give enough voters the opportunity to weigh the ideas of candidates and choose the one they think would best represent their future. Given the significance of choosing the most powerful officeholder in the world, our Presidential selection process must be a fair and deliberate one that tests the strength of the ideas and character of all the candidates and exposes them to the maximum number of voters. Instead, what we have now is a confusing process that, with each passing Presidential election season, becomes more and more compressed, forcing States to move their primaries up earlier in the calendar year in order to give their citizens a chance to participate, and granting disproportionate influence to the early States. Where 50 States once scattered their primaries throughout the first half of the election year--from January through June--this year, we have a system in which 39 caucuses or primaries will be held in January and February alone, up from 19 in 2004, with enough delegates at stake potentially to decide the nominee. Almost half the States of the Union will be excluded from that process. There is another insidious effect of this increasingly condensed schedule: The more compressed the primary schedule is the more reliant candidates become on large campaign donations and the people who give them. The fundraising primary this year has already eliminated candidates who simply could not raise sufficient funds quickly enough to be competitive in the first 2 months of the Presidential year. This is no way for the world's greatest democracy to choose its President. Our legislation offers a commonsense alternative that would transform the primary season into what it should be: a contest between candidates who take their cases to the broadest possible slice of the electorate. I was honored to cosponsor proposals to bring reason to the Presidential primary system twice in the past--in 1996 and 1999--with former Senator Slade Gorton. What we are introducing today is very similar in that it calls for a regional, rotating primary system that divides the 50 States into four regions that would take turns holding primaries in the months of March, April, May, and June of the Presidential election year. Specifically, the bill would asign all States to one of four regions--corresponding roughly to the Northeast, South, Midwest, and Western regions of the country. A lottery would determine which region goes first, and the regions would rotate in subsequent election years. Each State within a region must hold its primary or caucus during the period assigned to that region. New Hampshire and Iowa would be permitted to continue holding the first primary and caucus, respectively, before any of the regional primaries would take place. I personally would have preferred to omit this provision in the bill. If we are going to change to a regional system, there should be no exceptions, and I am concerned that these two States will continue to have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of the nominating process. But Iowa and New Hampshire hold iconic status in the Presidential primary system and so they remain the first caucus and primary States in this bill. The new system would take effect for the 2012 Presidential election. By creating a series of regional primaries, we will make it more likely that all areas of the country have input into the nominee selection process, and that the candidates and their treasuries will not be stretched so thin by primaries all over the country on the same day. By spreading out the primaries over a 4-month period, we would provide the electorate with a better opportunity to evaluate the candidates over time. And with our bill, we hope that voters--not just financial contributors--will have the lion's share of influence over who the parties' nominees will be. The guiding principle of our democracy is that every citizen has the opportunity to choose his or her leaders. But the sad truth is this principle no longer bears a resemblance to the reality of an increasingly squashed and arbitrary primary system. We need to change our presidential primary system to make it more reasonable, more inclusive, and better structured so that it properly reflects the significance it holds--not only every 4 years but as a founding principle of our great Nation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Change of Votes

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend Senator Murray from Washington State. I call up amendment No. 2407.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is introduced by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, and myself. At this time I wish to ask unanimous consent that Senator McCaskill of Missouri be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer knows, in a short while this evening, the Senate will consider the conference report, which has brought together the so-called 9/11 legislation passed by both the House and the Senate. I am very pleased, as I will say when that matter comes up, that the conferees have reached an agreement, because I believe this bill will greatly enhance the security of the American people, protecting them from natural disasters and also, God forbid, from a terrorist attack. This conference report will enact remaining unenacted or inadequately enacted recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically in regard to this amendment, the conference report will create, if favorably adopted, a new interoperability emergency communications grant program to help Federal, State, and local responders achieve comprehensive interoperability. My colleagues know the need from which this amendment arises, and, in fact, some of the tragic experiences from which it arises. On September 11 at the World Trade Center and the Towers, we know as a matter of fact that lives were lost because the heroic emergency response personnel--the firefighters, the police officers, the emergency medical personnel--simply could not communicate with one another because their systems did not allow them to do that. During Hurricane Katrina, there was a breakdown because of the catastrophic impact of that natural disaster in the very operability of communications. We have heard from experts on how best respond to these disasters and of the crying need for investment in making our communications systems interoperable. Our State and local emergency response officials, elected officials, tell us this is a crying need. The fact is it is a need that is very hard, particularly for local governments, to satisfy. Anybody who has ever dealt with a municipal budget looks at the budget of the firefighters, the police departments--these are personnel- intensive budgets. There is not enough left over for what might be called capital investments, equipment investments. So this need for interoperable communications, which will save lives, without question, will simply not be met fast enough if we leave it to the local governments. Now, in the 9/11 Commission bill which we will consider later, this interoperability emergency communications grant program is not only created but authorizes the expenditure of $1.6 billion for this purpose over the next 4 years. This Homeland Security appropriations bill before us makes a substantial increase over the President's budget in funding for homeland security, $2\1/4\ billion. It is absolutely the right thing to do. It is absolutely the necessary thing to do to protect the American people from disaster and/or a terrorist attack. However, the bill before us does not include any money for interoperability of communications at the local level. Perhaps because this conference report we are going to consider tonight was not adopted when the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee reached its judgments, I will say for the record that the Senate itself earlier this year, in the Senate budget resolution, supported $400 million in dedicated funding for this program, with passage of that budget resolution, in anticipation, I believe, of this new program. What this amendment, offered by the Senator from Maine and myself and the Senator from Missouri, does is to provide $100 million to fund a first payment to fund this new interoperability emergency communications grant program. It is a kind of downpayment at a meaningful level; not as much as is necessary, but a beginning to this program. The authorization in the conference report is important. It takes a critical step forward. But it must be funded, or it will not mean anything to our first responders and those of the rest of us in America who depend on them for our protection. I wish to note as an indication of the urgent need for this kind of funding that the following first responder groups have written and expressed their support for this amendment: the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, the Congressional Fire Service Institute, and the National Volunteer Fire Council. All of these folks representing millions of first responders around America are asking for this funding. I will report to my colleagues that the House has included $50 million as a first payment to fund this interoperability communications fund in its Homeland Security appropriations bill. I hope my colleagues will help us do our part, now that we are about to authorize the fund later tonight by adopting this amendment. I ask when the vote is taken on this amendment that it be taken by the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, may I first thank Senator Murray, Senator Cochran, and our colleagues for their support. This is an important amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. The Homeland Security appropriations bill could not have funded the Emergency Grant Program set up by the 9/11 bill, which we have not passed yet, so I appreciate very much their support. This amendment is supported by almost all of the first responder groups--firefighters, police officers, volunteer firefighters, et cetera--because they desperately need funding to help them make their communication systems interoperable. Thanks to our colleagues on both sides. Senator Collins and Senator McCaskill and I join in those thank yous. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed as under the previous order to debate Senator DeMint's motion to recommit the conference report and that following the vote on the DeMint motion, if his motion is defeated, the Senate vote on the conference report as under the previous order, with the debate time on the conference report reserved for after the votes; further that the time on the motion to recommit be reduced to 10 minutes equally divided.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with respect to my friend from South Carolina, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat this motion to recommit. Like all legislation that makes it out of both Chambers and onto the President's desk, this bill contains compromise. Compromises are at the heart of the legislative process, reconciling differences between the House and the Senate. In fact, this process is at the very heart of this remarkable system our Founding Fathers designed for us. So it was with this legislation. In some cases, the House yielded to the Senate; in others, the Senate yielded to the House. That is why we have a conference report that, on balance, will greatly strengthen our homeland security. I would say to Senator DeMint that I supported his language in the original Senate bill. It was slightly modified in conference. That happens. But we ended up with language that had the support of both Democratic and Republican conferees in both the House and the Senate. In my opinion, the difference is not great. We simply give the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority, with his judgment as the protector of our homeland security, to decide when and if certain of these enumerated convictions ought not any longer to be a prohibition to working in our ports. I respect Senator DeMint's position, but what he has asked us to do is to recommit the bill and delay all of the improvements in security that come with the underlying bill. So my colleagues will have to answer the question about whether it is worth it, whether it is worth delaying provisions that will ensure better security against attacks on airplanes, better security with regard to maritime and air cargo, better security against terrorists entering this country via, for instance, the visa waiver program, better technology and support for our first responders, and a provision to provide immunity from liability for citizens who see what they take reasonably and in good faith to be action that appears to them to be associated with a terrorist attack. We protect them from liability from those they are complaining against. If we do not pass this legislation tonight and enable the House to pass it next week, we are going to be delaying its movement to the President and its enactment into law. So I respectfully oppose the motion and ask my colleagues to vote against recommittal. I thank the Chair and yield back my remaining time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, before I describe some of the most important provisions in this legislation, I want to thank the 9/11 families who have played a critical role throughout this process. They first pushed for the establishment of the 9/11 Commission and then continued their fight, now through three major pieces of legislation, to see that its recommendations became law. I want to thank the majority leader of the Senate for his leadership in helping to get this legislation through the Congress, and through a long but ultimately very productive conference. I want to thank Senator Collins, Chairman Thompson, Senator Collins, Congressman King, and all of my colleagues on the conference committee--and their staffs--on both sides of the aisle, from all of the relevant committees, and in both the House and the Senate for their willingness to work through some difficult but critical issues to make our country safer. All of us have not been able to agree on everything in this legislation, but most of us have agreed on most of it and that is why we are able to get this comprehensive legislation to the Congress, and hopefully, very soon, to the President's desk. While this Nation was born in conflict, it was founded and grew in compromise--the melding of different threads of policy and personality into a national fabric that covers and protects us all. This legislation was also born of conflict--the attacks by Islamist extremist terrorists against us on 9/11, and our response to these terrorists grows stronger as we come together in legislation like this. This comprehensive, bipartisan legislation will make our Nation stronger, our cities and towns more secure and our families safer. Let me cite a few of its most important points: Security enhancement in the legislation: First, this legislation will help close one of the most obvious, and dangerous vulnerabilities in our Nation's defenses--that is the millions of cargo containers that flow into our country every year without being scanned and which could be the vehicle for bringing dangerous nuclear material into our country. It requires that within 5 years, 100 percent of maritime cargo be scanned before it is loaded on ships in foreign ports bound for the United States. But it wisely gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to extend this deadline in 2-year increments if certain conditions important to our economy are not met. This has been a contentious issue--but I believe this legislation strikes the right balance between aggressively pushing for better security while ensuring that we maintain a sensible approach. This legislation also enhances security in nonaviation sectors that have received far too little protection in our own country, even while terrorists have demonstrated a willingness to attack them abroad--most notably in London and in Madrid. It requires that rail and transit systems work with DHS to develop comprehensive risk assessments and security plans, and authorizes more than $4 billion over 4 years for rail, transit, and bus security grants. Keeping in mind that the 9/11 hijackers and Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, boarded commercial aircraft and traveled here legally, this legislation will make it harder for terrorists to enter our country, by adding much needed security enhancements to the Visa Waiver Program. These include a new electronic travel authorization system so that travelers from visa waiver countries can be checked against terrorist watch lists and improved reporting of lost and stolen passports. This legislation also increases resources and staffing for the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center and requires DHS to create a terrorist travel program to develop strategies and ensure coordination among relevant agencies involved with combating terrorist travel. This legislation will also better secure our aviation system overall. It authorizes important funding increases for critical aviation security programs, like checkpoint screening, baggage screening and cargo screening on passenger aircraft. And it requires screening of all cargo carried onto passenger airlines within three years--again, closing another glaring vulnerability in our defenses that terrorists could exploit. One of the critical failures of 9/11 was, of course, the failure to share vital information--and improving information sharing was a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. While we have previously taken important steps to improve the unity of effort across intelligence agencies by creating the Director of National Intelligence and the National Counter Terrorism Center, this legislation moves the ball even further by strengthening the Information Sharing Environment, ISE, which was also established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It does so by extending the term of the ISE program manager and authorizing him or her to issue government-wide standards for information sharing, as appropriate, and rewarding government employees for sharing information. And it will improve the sharing of information between the Federal Government and its State and local counterparts by codifying the new Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group, creating standards for State and local fusion centers, and ensuring that they receive Federal support and personnel. These measures will help ensure that intelligence to fight terrorism and keep Americans safe is shared more effectively among all levels of government. In addition to strengthening Federal, State and local governments, as part of the compromise that brought this bill to the floor, this legislation will also provide legal protections to individuals who report suspicious activities. People acting in good faith to avert what they believe may be terrorist activity should not be punished for their vigilance. Every citizen must observe his or her surroundings and be alert to suspicious activity without the fear of being sued for their life savings. That is why this bill grants immunity from lawsuits to those who in good faith report behaviour that they reasonably suspect is related to possible terrorist activity. We want to encourage--not discourage--citizens, like the video store employee in New Jersey, who stepped forward and alerted authorities to evidence which helped unravel a planned attack on Fort Dix. This legislation will also improve the very controversial process for distributing homeland security grants, and just as importantly, it authorizes $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2008, increasing to $3.6 billion by 2012--$13.78 billion over the next 5 years--so that we can reverse the downward trend in funding for these programs that help State and local first preventers and responders do their jobs. It authorizes for the first time the State Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, to provide funds to States and high-risk urban areas to prevent, prepare, respond and recover from acts of terrorism. And it does so in a way that, while providing the vast majority of resources on the basis of risk, ensures that we build up the capabilities of all the states, knowing that terrorist plots can develop in any part of the country. This legislation wisely authorizes emergency management performance grants and provides additional resources for this program--to assist States in preparing for all-hazards to ensure that every State has the basic capability to prepare for and respond to both man-made and natural disasters. Following the communications disasters of both 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, this legislation also creates a dedicated emergency communications interoperability grant program to improve emergency communications systems at the local, State, and Federal levels. This is clearly one of the highest priorities for our Nation's first responders--because it is necessary to save their lives so that they can save the lives of others--and by dedicating a program to interoperable communications we will enhance our Nation's ability to achieve it. The 9/11 Commission rightly noted that while we must protect our homeland, we must do so in a way that also protects the freedom and civil liberties it was founded upon. This legislation does so by strengthening the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board by establishing it as an independent agency within the executive branch, ensuring partisan balance among members, requiring improved public disclosure, allowing the board to request that the Attorney General issue subpoenas to private parties and increasing its budget over the next 4 years by up to $10 million in 2011. It also requires that agencies with intelligence and security roles designate their own internal privacy and civil liberties officers, and expands the authority of the DHS privacy officer. Also, since 85 percent of our Nation's critical infrastructure is under the control of the private sector, this legislation establishes a voluntary certification program so that those private sector entities that want to can receive certification that they have met consensus preparedness standards. This provision responds to another concern of the 9/11 Commission--which was also reinforced during Katrina--that those companies that take preparedness seriously--that have plans and exercise them that provide life saving protection for their employees--will recover more quickly from a catastrophe and help get their local economy moving again. This legislation responds directly to another 9/11 Commission recommendation--to improve Congress's ability to oversee the intelligence community--by requiring disclosure of the total amount spent by the intelligence community. After the first 2 fiscal years the President may waive this requirement, but only after explaining to Congress why the disclosure would harm national security. Like the 9/11 Commission, this bill also recognizes that we must do more to promote democracy abroad by requiring the Secretary of State expand strategies for democracy promotion in nondemocratic and democratic countries. One of the great threats of our time is that nuclear material may be smuggled out of former Soviet states and fall into the hands of terrorists. This bill clears legislative obstacles that had constrained the cooperative threat reduction, CTR, program by repealing or modifying various conditions on CTR actions in former Soviet states and repealing a legislative prohibition on Department of Energy nonproliferation program assistance outside the former Soviet Union. I want to thank my colleagues from both parties, from both houses, and their staffs who worked so hard and so late into so many nights to bring this to the floor. There is a lot in this legislation to make our country safer, and this result was only possible because of this hard work and dedication. Mr. President, we began as a nation born in conflict as we fought for our freedom. Now we are a nation borne with confidence as we fight for our ideals against an adversary who promotes hate over hope and fear over a future that recognizes our shared humanity. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report and the President to act swiftly to sign it to show the world that the spirit of this nation founded in freedom heeds the words of Abraham Lincoln that this ``government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.'' Lincoln was right. Let us protect our Nation. Let us thwart our enemies. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleagues for the very strong vote in favor of accepting the conference report. It means a lot to those of us who worked on it. I obviously also think it was the right thing to do. This is comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that will make America stronger, our cities and towns more secure, and our families safer. I want to take a moment to thank some of the people without whom this successful result could not have occurred. I want to begin by thanking the 9/11 families--the families of those who were lost on 9/11, the victims of this brutal Islamist terrorist attack. They took their loss and grief and came to Congress to do everything it could to make sure that our Government acted in a way so as to protect every other American family from having to suffer the loss they suffered. They lobbied for the 9/11 Commission. It was created. When the commission reported out and the legislation it recommended was brought before the Congress in 2004, the 9/11 families hung in there. Without their support, it would not have been adopted and then signed by the President. Now we return for the second phase of the 9/11 Commission report to adopt, as we just have, those previously unimplemented sections, inadequately implemented sections or, frankly, our own ideas about how to better protect the American people from the ongoing threat from al- Qaida and other Islamist extremist organizations and, at the same time, from natural disasters, some catastrophic like Hurricane Katrina. The 9/11 families deserve our gratitude. I also thank Senator Reid because he made this legislation a priority item for this session of Congress. I thank Senator Collins, my ranking member who, as always, was thoughtful, constructive, wonderful to work with, and set a tone where all the members of our committee worked very closely together to produce this legislation. On the House side, in conference, we met with the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, and his ranking member Congressman Peter King of New York--good public servants. We had some differences, but we reasoned together and resolved a lot of them. I would like to pay tribute to my staff, who have worked long nights and many weekends to produce excellent legislation. I particularly want to thank my Homeland Security Committee Staff Director, Mike Alexander, for his superb leadership. I also want to thank the committee's Chief Counsel, Kevin Landy, for helping to shepherd the legislation through the process. Thanks also to Eric Anderson, Christian Beckner, Caroline Bolton, Janet Burrell, Scott Campbell, Troy Cribb, Aaron Firoved, Elyse Greenwald, Beth Grossman, Seamus Hughes, Holly Idelson, Kristine Lam, Jim McGee, Sheila Menz, Larry Novey, Deborah Parkinson, Leslie Phillips, Alistair Reader, Patricia Rojas, Mary Beth Schultz, Adam Sedgewick, Todd Stein, Jason Yanussi, and Wes Young--all on my committee staff. And thanks to Purva Rawal and Vance Serchuk on my personal office staff. I must also thank Senator Collins' staff director, Brandon Milhorn, as well as Andy Weis, Rob Strayer, and the Senator's entire staff for working with us to move this very important legislation. And of course, thank you to our colleagues and thanks to the 9/11 Commission. There were an enormous number of committees involved in this legislation, in some ways even more than in the first 9/11 legislation. So it took a lot of cooperation, which is the essence of getting anything done and, obviously, bipartisan cooperation to bring us to this point. Again, I thank Chairman Collins, Chairman Thompson, Congressman King, and all our colleagues on the conference committee and their staff on both sides of the aisle from all the relevant committees in both the House and Senate for their willingness to work through some difficult, but critical, issues to make our country safe. I have a particular debt of gratitude to my own Homeland Security staff: staff director Michael Alexander; chief counsel Kevin Landy; and Senator Collins' staff, beginning with staff director Brandon Milhorn.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. The truth is the Senate is a better place because he is here, he is persistent, he is demanding, he spends a lot of time actually reading bills, and he brings his opinions to the table and to the floor. Although we may be in disagreement on some of the particulars, he cares enough about all this to not only work through the details but to stay here after midnight, after a busy week, to make these points. So I thank him for all that. I thank him for the contributions he made along the way to the bill as a member of our committee. I am going to put some statements in the record to respond to some of the points in more detail that Senator Coburn made, but I do wish to say that Senator Collins and I worked very hard, both in the committee and then particularly in the conference committee, to take the State homeland security grants and make sure that they were allocated, a much greater percentage of them was allocated based on risk. We heard the concerns. So the conference report allocates the overwhelming share of State funding based on the risk the State faces from terrorism. All States initially will be guaranteed a minimum of 0.375 percent. The number was up to .75 percent earlier on. This will be reduced to .35 percent over the course of the 5 years. The reason for having any minimum is twofold: One is that, unfortunately, the enemy we face--Islamist extremist terrorism--has a higher probability of attacking, at least by our experience in this country, very visible targets, such as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But the truth is the whole country is, unfortunately, vulnerable to their attacks. As we have seen in other countries, they attack trains, they are prepared to blow up themselves with bombs in the middle of shopping areas, in crowds, et cetera. So there is some reason to have a minimum amount for every State in the country. Secondly, homeland security generally--and we particularly get into this in one of the other grant programs that I will talk about in a minute--deals not only with protecting the States from terrorism but from all hazards, including natural disasters. The Department of Homeland Security is an all-hazard agency now, including within it, most particularly, FEMA, the Coast Guard, and other agencies that are involved when you think more in terms of protection from natural disasters. So I think we have made some progress there, and that is the reason why we have done what we have done. There is a separate program, which perhaps is the one Senator Coburn was referring to, the urban area security initiative. That is allocated entirely based on risk. We also create, for the first time, two programs that are intended to be all-hazard programs and to support law enforcement and emergency response around the country. The first is an Emergency Management Grant Program and the second, which we talked about earlier, is the interoperability of communications. So I think, on balance, when it comes to terrorism, we have allocated much more now than before based on risk. Yet we also, I think quite appropriately, provide something for areas all around the country to deal with all the other hazards, natural disasters, that can and have struck every section of the country. There is also a substantial increase in funding that is authorized by this bill. Of course, ultimately, it has to be appropriated, but this is a new challenge, this terrible challenge of terrorism, against an unconventional brutal enemy, which, as someone other than myself has said, hates us more than they love their own lives. They hate us more than they love their own lives, so that they are prepared to kill themselves to express their hatred of us. Of course, these are not conventional armies fighting our conventional Army on a field of battle or at sea or in the air. These are enemies who strike from the shadows and intend to strike at unprotected civilians--at innocents. So this requires a substantial commitment by our country to raise our defenses. I think it is part of the reason, along with the reform of our intelligence apparatus, that we have not, thank God, suffered another terrorist attack since 9/11. Part of it, of course, is good fortune, or, if you are so inclined, by the grace of God. But I do believe what we have invested is an important part of it. I myself have said more than once that I thought after 9/11, entering this new era of both homeland security needs and the need to involve our military in seeking out for the purpose of capturing or killing these terrorists, then being engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that we would have done better if we had considered a special tax and one in which we asked everybody to pay to meet the additional expenses brought on by this war that Islamist terrorists started against us, so we would not be facing the increasing long-term debt that Senator Coburn is quite right that our children are going to have to pay. What I am saying is the money we have authorized to be spent here is important. We have the best defense--the best military in the world. Part of the reason we do is because we are spending money on it, an enormous amount of money. We will continue to have the best homeland security and homeland defense if we do the same. One of the great contributions Senator Coburn makes is to be very persistent at making sure we don't waste taxpayer money, and he has made a contribution to this bill. There are many provisions in the bill that improve the oversight of the spending of homeland security funds, and in my statement I make clear our gratitude to Senator Coburn and his staff for all that they did to strengthen the auditing provisions of this bill. I will say, finally, on the question of congressional oversight of intelligence and the declassification of the top line of the national intelligence budget, this is a direct recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. It doesn't make it sacrosanct, but it does give it some force. They argued that the specifics of the intelligence appropriations should remain classified, as they do in this proposal, but that the top line ought to be publicized to combat the secrecy and complexity the Commission had commented on earlier. That is what we intend to do. But we are mindful of the concerns that Senator Coburn and others have had. We have spent some time discussing this with members of the administration, and this is compromise language. The bill contains this provision, which is that the President would be required to disclose the total appropriated amount for the national intelligence budget for this year and the coming year, after which the President may waive this requirement by sending to Congress a notification explaining the reasons for this waiver. Listen, I think most people, including most people in the media, know what the top line budget for intelligence is. But we are now bringing it out and giving the President the opportunity to stop the disclosure if he determines it is in the national security interest in future years, for various reasons, to do that. The conference report addresses the oftentimes contentious issue of homeland security grants. It may not make everyone happy, but it represents a good and fair compromise and will do much to improve the process by which these grants are distributed and used. The conference report allocates a greater share--indeed the overwhelming share--of state funding based on the risk a state faces from terrorism, yet still ensures that each state will get money to meet its basic needs in preparing for acts of terrorism. All States will initially be guaranteed a minimum of 0.375 percent of funds; this will be reduced to 0.35 percent over the course of 5 years. Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, grants will be allocated entirely based on risk of terrorism. There will be a two-step process for selecting UASI cities. In the first stage, DHS will do a risk assessment of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the country, and each of these areas will be permitted to submit information to the Department concerning the risks faced by that area--thus opening up a dialogue with cities and bringing light to a process that has largely taken place behind the scenes. After doing this initial assessment, the FEMA Administrator will then have the discretion--as he does now--to select those high-risk urban areas eligible to apply for UASI grants. The conference report also reverses the recent disturbing downward trend in funding for these essential grant programs. It would authorize $1.8 billion for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, and UASI program in fiscal year 2008--our principal antiterrorism grants to first responders--and increase this over the next 5 years to $2.25 billion. Also, as a complement to this, the conference report would ensure that states have increased funds available for key all-hazards grant programs, including the emergency management performance grants and dedicated grants for communications interoperability. These programs help ensure that all States have basic preparedness capabilities for all disasters, whether natural or man-made. The conference report would also for the first time specifically authorize State and urban area grants, and provide legislative guidelines for the programs, including permissible uses. Finally, the conference report would provide a whole series of oversight measures to ensure that funds were being spent effectively and appropriately to achieve preparedness, and not wasted. The 9/11 Commission report said: To combat the secrecy and complexity we have described, the overall amounts of money being appropriated for national intelligence and to its component agencies should no longer be kept secret. Congress should pass a separate appropriations act for intelligence, defending the broad allocation of how these tens of billions of dollars have been assigned among the varieties of intelligence work. The Commission went on to say that: The specifics of the intelligence appropriation would remain classified, as they are today. Opponents of declassification argue that America's enemies could learn about intelligence capabilities by tracking the top-line appropriations figure. Yet the top-line figure by itself provides little insight into U.S. intelligence sources and methods. A provision was passed to declassify the top-line of the National Intelligence Budget was passed by the Senate as part of the Intelligence Reform Act in 2004 but removed in conference. In December 2005, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, an independent organization led by the 9/11 Commission members, issued a grade of ``F'' on the implementation of this recommendation, writing that ``Congress cannot do robust intelligence oversight when funding for intelligence programs is buried within the defense budget. Declassifying the overall intelligence budget would allow for a separate annual intelligence appropriations bill, so that the Congress can judge better how intelligence funds are being spent.'' The final bill contains a compromise that we have worked closely with the White House to craft, one which finally addresses this important 9/ 11 Commission recommendation to disclose the top line of the National Intelligence Budget. The compromise agreement will require the President to disclose the total appropriated for the National Intelligence Budget for 2 years-- 2007 and 2008--after which the President may waive this requirement by sending to Congress a notification explaining the reasons for this waiver. The inclusion of this provision means that this important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission will now finally be implemented. In this bill, we authorize significant additional funds for homeland security grants for State and local governments: for State Homeland Security Grants, for Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, grants, for Emergency Management Performance Grants, EMPG, for interoperable emergency communications, for rail and transit security, in order to ensure that our first responders across the Nation are prepared for disasters, natural and man-made. In authorizing these additional funds, we are cognizant that we need to spend these funds wisely, in a way that will make our first responders most prepared and our nation most secure. For this reason, the conference report includes extensive oversight and accountability provisions designed to ensure that all grant funds are used as effectively as possible and for their intended purposes. At least every 2 years, DHS is required to conduct a programmatic and financial review of each State and urban area receiving grants administered by the Department to examine whether grant funds are being used properly. The DHS inspector general is tasked with following up these agency reviews by conducting full, in-depth audits of a sample of States and urban areas each year, and then report to Congress on his findings, and to post the results of the audits on the Internet. For the Public Safety Interoperable Communications grants that go through the Commerce Department and are administered jointly by the Commerce Department and DHS, there are separate provisions requiring that the Commerce Department inspector general conduct audits of those grants. The conference report also builds on provisions in the Post--Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act that we passed last fall by requiring that DHS develop and use performance metrics to assess the progress of States and urban areas in becoming prepared, and that States and urban areas test their performance against these metrics through exercises. All states are required to report quarterly on their expenditures and annually on their level of preparedness. Finally, The FEMA Administrator is also required to provide to Congress annually an evaluation of the efficacy of the Department's homeland security grants have contributed to State and local governments in meeting their target levels of preparedness and have led to the overall reduction of risk. From the beginning, we have been aware of Senator Coburn's strongly held view that there be adequate oversight and auditing of homeland security grants, and his support for the provisions to this effect in the Senate bill--provisions that were not part of the House bill. Senator Collins' and I, and our staffs, have fought for the Senate auditing provisions in conference, in the face of a number of objections and concerns raised by House staff from various committees. And we have been successful in retaining in the conference report what we believe are very strong provisions to ensure accountability for homeland security grant funds. Working with Senator Coburn, we were able to retain what I believe are very significant provisions to ensure the appropriate and effective use of homeland security dollars.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back all remaining time, and Senator Coburn, in the spirit of not only the good spirit I identify with him but in the spirit of the hour, I gather, is prepared to yield back his remaining time as well.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, again, I thank Senator Collins and Senator Coburn. It is a measure of their devotion that they are both still here at this hour.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business this morning, I wish everyone within hearing a good morning and ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m., Monday, July 30; that on Monday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 3 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that at 3 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 976, and that the time until 5:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the Chair and ranking member of the Finance Committee or their designees; that at 5:30 p.m., without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 976.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to discuss an amendment Senator Collins and I intend to introduce. I gather the parliamentary situation is such that there will not be a grant of unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, so we did want to take this opportunity to discuss an amendment which would add $100 million to the Homeland Security appropriations bill for the purpose of funding efforts at the State and local level to make communications between our law enforcement personnel interoperable--they can talk to each other. This is a pressing need for homeland security, for disaster response. I know my friend and colleague from Maine cannot remain on the Senate floor for long. So I yield to her for some comments about our amendment. Then I will retake the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Maine for an excellent statement. First, I thank the leadership of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, Senator Cochran, Senator Murray, for working as hard and effectively as they have to provide funds that are critical to securing our homeland. In fact, the committee added two and a quarter billion dollars for Homeland Security above the request of the President's budget. For that, they are to be thanked. That is exactly the right thing to do at a time when the threat of terrorism continues to be a clear and present danger for our American homeland. Senator Collins and I are offering this amendment because, as she said, we believe the committee has not provided anything for one of our Nation's highest priorities, and thus an adjustment is needed and I speak of interoperability of communications systems among law enforcement personnel, first responders, the very fundamental capacity in an emergency to pick up whatever means of communication they have and speak to the firefighters, police officers, and emergency responders wherever they may be. As Senator Collins indicated, just to build some history, in the Senate budget resolution conference report earlier this year adopted by the Senate, we provided for $400 million to be spent next year for this program in helping States and localities to allow their first responders to talk to each other in a crisis. That is the budget resolution. It is a first step, but it was an important step. Senator Collins also referred to the conference committee on the 9/11 legislation that passed both Houses of the Congress. We have been in conference for some period of time. I am happy to say we concluded the conference successfully within the last 24 hours, and a report is now circulating among the members of the committee to have them sign it. I gather that a majority of members of the House committee have already signed, and Senators, in their wisdom, are taking a little longer to read the report. But I am confident that before the end of the day we will have a majority there, too, as well. Well, the conference report on the 9/11 legislation, which is before us, to implement as yet unimplemented parts of the 9/11 Commission Report, or those parts that have been inadequately implemented, and/or, frankly, ideas that the respective committees in the House and the Senate have had on our own initiative to strengthen our homeland security against the threat of terrorism, which as I said earlier is clear and present, as the most recent reports on al-Qaida and its intention to strike us make painfully clear, and to create the kind of apparatus that will protect the American people in the event of natural disasters because there is an obvious overlap in what those capabilities will do. So the 9/11 legislation conference report will be before the Senate soon. It does authorize a new interoperability emergency communications grant program. It should, hopefully, provide additional and much needed resources to help the Nation's first responders. Now, I used the word ``hopefully'' advisedly because this new grant program the 9/11 legislation creates will not help our first responders unless we put some money into it. That is what this bill and this amendment to this bill that Senator Collins and I are offering would do. It would provide $100 million for the program in fiscal year 2008. It is below the $400 million authorized in the budget resolution. But this $100 million is a good start and an opportunity to essentially put our money where our promise was in the 9/11 legislation. This actually is a very modest amount compared to the overall needs there are across the country. Yet it is a good beginning. 9/11 taught us many lessons about what we need to better protect our homeland, and one clearly was improve the ability of our first responders to talk to one another. I know none of us will ever forget 9/11/01, that day we watched live on television as the extraordinarily brave New York City police, firefighters, and other emergency personnel raced into the doomed buildings trying to save lives, many of them not actually on duty but knowing a crisis had occurred, running to help their fellow citizens, to help their fellow first responders. But as we watched, we could not see what was happening inside the building where another tragedy was occurring. Inside the World Trade Center buildings, the uncommon heroism of the first responders was running into unnecessary chaos. The incredible bravery of those men and women was running into avoidable confusion, all of it caused by their inability to talk to one another on the communications systems they had. One fire chief told the 9/11 Commission: People watching on TV that day certainly had more knowledge of what was happening 100 floors above us than we did in the lobby of that building. The sad, tragic fact is we know that this failure of interoperability of communications cost lives, too many lives. There were other communications breakdowns that day that hampered the response efforts at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, PA. Then, as Senator Collins said, during Hurricane Katrina, and the gulf coast, we saw a problem of communications that went beyond interoperability; it was the failure to operate in that crisis. Phone lines, cell towers, and electrical systems were destroyed by the storms, making it nearly impossible at times for many first responders and government officials on the gulf coast to talk to each other, to get the public assistance, to rescue people in danger. This massive failure was so bad that some emergency officials on the gulf coast were forced to resort to runners to communicate with their first responders in the field. Think of that. Here we are in the 21st century, and this great American Nation that has spawned a revolution in global communications technologies, where in a catastrophic crisis, our first responders, whose duty it is to protect us, had to resort to communications techniques that we thought we had left behind on the battlefields of the Civil War, and that was to resort to runners. This amendment would provide the $100 million for this emergency grant program created in the 9/11 bill. The funding would come from a small, across-the-board cut in all other Department of Homeland Security programs. That is the only way we can think fairly to do it. It is real small, about a quarter of 1 percent of the DHS budget, to be exact 0.27 percent, a small amount to shift into a program that is necessary to save lives when disaster strikes. It is important to note that these funds will be provided to States only after the Office of Emergency Communications in the Department of Homeland Security has approved statewide interoperability communications plans so we are not just going to have city A or fire department B or ambulance company C apply and get their own grants. You have to be part of a plan in every State. I note again the $400 million in dedicated funding for this program that was provided for in the Senate-passed and House-passed budget resolution earlier this year in anticipation of this new program. Perhaps because the 9/11 bill that has just been completed in conference was not finished when the Appropriations Committee met to adopt this Homeland Security appropriations bill, the committee did not include any funding for interoperability communications. House appropriators did include $50 million to start the program. Now the Senate must do its part. We owe it to our first responders, the men and women whose duty it is to protect us and all the people they protect in cities and towns across the Nation, to help them create the kinds of communications systems that will enable them to talk to each other in crisis so they can react swiftly, efficiently, and effectively when the alarm bell rings and duty calls them to respond. At the appropriate moment, when it is possible to do so, Senator Collins and I will introduce an amendment to achieve the purposes I have stated. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, responding to the Senator from Georgia, I understand the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, wishes to speak next in order.