Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, before the Senator from North Dakota leaves the floor, I would like to clarify something he said. He indicated his first car was a 1924 model car. I wanted to clarify that he did not purchase it in 1924. Having done so, I now call up amendment No. 1508.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for not more than 7 minutes on this amendment and then Senator Salazar be allowed to speak for up to 7 minutes also.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, this is the amendment I spoke about during morning business. I am proud to cosponsor it with Senator Salazar, as well as Senators Bayh, Brownback, Coleman, Feinstein, Lincoln, Cantwell, Kerry, Dodd, Collins, Kohl, and Reed of Rhode Island. It is a broadly bipartisan group. This amendment would replace section 251 in the underlying bill which is the topic of our interest today. Section 251 in the bill sets forth gasoline savings targets as part of our move to help make America energy independent. We instead would put in title I of the DRIVE Act, which many of us introduced earlier this year, which sets oil savings plan requirements that are more ambitious and appropriately so. We all know America is a nation addicted to oil and that addiction is hurting us and our people in many ways. It is saddling consumers with high gas and oil and other fuel prices. It is compromising our foreign policy. It is diminishing the quality of our environment. It is leaving our economy and our very national security subject to political instability in faraway places and to the malicious whims of foreign leaders of oil-producing nations, such as Ahmadinejad of Iran and Chavez of Venezuela. The only real and permanent solution to this problem is to substantially reduce the amount of oil consumed by our transportation sector, which consumes virtually all the oil, certainly the greater part of it, we consume as a nation. The underlying bill before the Senate, managed by the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee but containing parts that came out of the Commerce Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee I am honored to serve on, under the leadership of Senator Boxer, is a very admirable and responsive piece of legislation, a real act of leadership by this Congress, a bipartisan act of leadership. This is an institution, after the problems we had last week with the immigration bill, that desperately needs to show the American people and ourselves we can work across party lines to get things done, to solve problems that are real and present every day in the lives of our citizens. There are few one could say that would be more true of that than the energy crisis and challenge. The savings targets in section 251 of the underlying bill are expressed in terms of American gasoline consumption and reduction of it, not oil consumption. The problem is gasoline usage can be reduced by increasing the use of diesel, but diesel is also made from oil, and oil is the substance to which we are addicted, with all the negative consequences I have described. So reducing oil consumption, in the opinion of those of us who are sponsoring this amendment, should be the express goal of the Senate bill's transportation provisions because oil dependence is what hurts us, is what drains the budgets of America's families and businesses. It hurts our national economy. It compromises our environment and undermines the independence of our foreign policy. This amendment would make that crucial correction from goals reducing gasoline consumption in the underlying bill to goals reducing oil consumption. The gasoline savings goal in H.R. 6 amounts to a 20-percent reduction in projected oil consumption by 2030, if we try to transfer it to oil. The oil savings requirement in this amendment would amount to a 35- percent reduction in projected oil consumption by 2030. That is significant and would go a long way toward solving the problems we have talked about. I believe there is broad bipartisan support in the Senate for these stronger targets. Indeed, the fuel economy and renewable fuels provisions already found elsewhere in H.R. 6 will themselves go a long way toward achieving the stronger targets. The DRIVE Act, which is the earlier legislation 26 of us introduced, its title I comprises our amendment to H.R. 6. It would direct the executive branch to identify, within 9 months and then within 18 months, and to publish Federal requirements that will achieve the following real and significant goals: A consistent reduction in U.S. oil consumption by 2016, a 7-million-barrel-per-day reduction by 2026, and a 10 million barrel per-day reduction by 2031. Today we consume somewhat over 20 million barrels of oil per day. That would be significant to cut 10 million barrels off our oil consumption by 2031. The measure would also direct the Office of Management and Budget to publish an analysis identifying the oil savings projected to be achieved by each requirement to be created and demonstrating that the listed measures will, in the aggregate, achieve the overall specified oil savings. So we are setting goals, and we are asking the executive branch to come up with programs to show how existing statutory authority and regulatory authority they have can be used to achieve these goals which will make America much more energy independent or, in fact, to come back and say to us: We need more authority, some new statute to achieve these goals we have set. The cosponsors of this amendment believe we need targets that will keep the pressure on our Government and on all of us to use the authorities Congress has provided to achieve the robust oil savings America and its people need. The DRIVE Act, which is the act from which this title I amendment is taken, has 26 cosponsors in the Senate, a broadly bipartisan group reflective of every section of the country and every ideology represented in the Congress. It shows there is a consensus of demand for change in savings in oil consumption. That is exactly what this amendment would do. I urge my colleagues to adopt it overwhelmingly. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, first, I thank my friend from Minnesota, Senator Coleman, who has been very active in the construction of the so-called DRIVE Act. I thank him for his cosponsorship of this amendment. I appreciate very much this is a bipartisan measure. I say to Senator Domenici, if I may, I wish to respond to his statement. The aim of this amendment is to build on--and I mentioned this earlier in my statement--all the extraordinary steps forward that are in the bill that has come out of the Energy Committee and the Commerce Committee. In other words, we are trying to do basically a couple of things with this amendment. One, it is true we are moving from the goal in the bill that just says gasoline to oil so that it includes all oil usage in the country. Second, basically, we are saying to the executive branch that over the time ahead, here are some national goals we are setting. You have authority in law, and if this bill passes--thanks to the work that Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman have done, and our friends on the Commerce Committee--the Government will have more authority. Put all those authorities together in a package and tell us how you are going to use those authorities to achieve the real goals in this bill. So this is not in any way intended to undermine the very progressive steps in the committee's proposal, H.R. 6. It is intended to put a requirement on this administration and following administrations to make sure that all the authorities they have in the law are used to achieve these goals. If they don't feel they can do it with the authorities they have, they can come back to us and ask for more. I yield to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I will add, unless Senator Domenici wishes to speak, I will suggest the absence of a quorum but not quite yet. Senator Coleman has a good point. We are supporting the bill. It is a very significant step forward coming out of the committees. Again, I thank Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici for their bipartisan leadership on this bill. This amendment sets good, significant goals for savings of oil consumption by America over the next 23 years. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, since I last had the opportunity to speak, a unanimous consent was entered to vote on the amendment, No. 1508, which has been introduced by the occupant of the chair, Senator Salazar, by Senator Bayh, Senator Coleman, Senator Brownback--who is, unfortunately, not here today but is a cosponsor--myself, and others. I do wish to say that this bill sets strong targets for a reduction of oil consumption by America and the American people and American businesses. It does so by way of breaking what we all agree is a harmful dependence we have. I wish to make clear that the underlying bill as proposed by the committee includes targets. So we are not doing something different by having a target; we are just saying the target ought to be to reduce oil consumption, not just gasoline consumption, as the underlying bill indicates. That is because we all know the problem we have in America is an addiction to oil. It is oil dependence, not just gasoline dependence. It is all of the various uses of oil we have. To get a bit technical, if we only talk about reducing gasoline consumption, that might be accomplished by greater use of diesel, but diesel comes from oil. So we would not, even if we went to diesel, decrease our dependence on foreign oil. So we think this is building on not just the targets in the bill but building on all of the good work for energy conservation and energy efficiency in the bill. It would strengthen the bill. The targets are a bit more ambitious and would, by our calculations, reduce American consumption of oil by 35 percent from what it would otherwise be in the year 2030. That is substantial. Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides during any ensuing quorum call.

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

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. On behalf of Senator Kennedy, I object.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend, Senator Sessions. I appreciate his kind gesture. That brings me back within 30 seconds of what I originally had. I appreciate that. I am going to speak on amendment No. 1191, which is set down for a vote this evening. This is an amendment that would improve our Nation's treatment of asylum seekers, that is, people who come to our shores seeking refuge from persecution they have suffered in their home countries based on race, religion, nationality or political conviction. As far as I know, this is the only amendment on the treatment of those seeking asylum that will be considered as part of this comprehensive immigration legislation. I offer this amendment because the Congressionally chartered Commission on International Religious Freedom has told us that our country, our Government, is failing in its historic duty to those ``longing to breathe free'' from the Statue of Liberty. I believe, as the Commission outlined, we can address this serious challenge at very little expense, with no adverse affect on our Nation's security, and without impairing immigration enforcement operations. It is the right thing to do. It is consistent with our best values in our history. In fact, as you know, our Founding Fathers understood the Nation's role to be not just a haven for those seeking freedom but a haven for those seeking freedom from persecution. Thomas Jefferson once likened the United States to a ``New Canaan,'' the Biblical Canaan in mind, where victims of persecution, and I am quoting here, ``will be received as brothers and secured against like oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government.'' That is exactly what America has become. To the great benefit of this country, some of the greatest Americans in our history came here as refugees seeking asylum from persecution. Nobel Laureates Albert Einstein and Thomas Mann became neighbors in Princeton, NJ. Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright came with their families to the United States, fleeing from the Nazis and Communists, respectively, and went on, of course, to become Secretaries of State. If I might, on a point of personal privilege say, most special to me, on a day in 1949, then a child, my wife, Hadassah Freilich Lieberman, came here with her parents seeking asylum from Communist Czechoslovakia. This national duty to those fleeing persecution is emblazoned in a particular stanza on the Statue of Liberty that says: Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning, And her name . . . Mother of Exiles. Yet despite that lofty sentiment, too often today we are apparently turning asylum seekers away without the proper hearings guaranteed them by law, or confining them in prison conditions alongside convicted criminals while their cases are pending. That is what the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported to Congress. This group was established, I am proud to say, in 1998, pursuant to legislation I introduced along with then-Senator Nickles and still, fortunately, Senator Specter. It was aimed at strengthening our Government advocacy on behalf of individuals around the world who were being persecuted for their faith. Congress in the year that we established the Commission on International Religious Freedom also expressed its concern that recently enacted expedited removal procedures might be causing our own Government to mistreat victims of oppression, religious oppression, who came to the United States seeking asylum. To find out if this was happening, Congress directed the newly established Commission to study the treatment of asylum seekers. The Commission conducted a comprehensive investigation and released a report in February of 2005 that was quite critical of the procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. The report's recommendations were reasonable and straightforward. Unfortunately, 2 years passed. I persistently asked officials at the Department of Homeland Security when it would respond to the report and was always told the same: The recommendations are under review. It appeared that little or nothing was being done. In fact, this February, 2007, the Religious Freedom Commission itself issued a blistering report 2 years after its initial report in which it gave out grades. The Customs and Border Patrol Agency received an F with respect to its treatment of asylum seekers. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency received mostly Fs, and an overall grade of D. The Department of Homeland Security itself generally received an overall grade of D as well in its treatment of those claiming to be coming to America to seek asylum from persecution--religious, racial, nationality or based on political conviction. That is unacceptable. Remember it was Congress that originally expressed concern about the treatment of asylum seekers. It was Congress that directed the Commission it had created to study whether there is a problem, was a problem, and now, in this Congress, as part of this comprehensive immigration reform bill, it must be Congress that will fix the problems the Commission has found. That is why I introduced separate legislation earlier this year and then filed this amendment. I am pleased to say it appears I have come to some agreement with the Department of Homeland Security on a modified version of the amendment which I hope will be broadly supported by my colleagues. It implements the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and will improve our treatment of those who come to our shores claiming they seek asylum from persecution. We have made a number of changes to address the concerns the Department of Homeland Security brought to us. I am pleased to describe them briefly. The Commission on Religious Freedom found that too often the Department of Homeland Security was returning asylum seekers to countries where they were persecuted without giving them a chance to adequately make their case that they had a credible basis for their claims of persecution. Often employees of the Department of Homeland Security were failing to even ask these asylum seekers if they feared persecution, as required by Department procedures, before they were removed. This amendment would require what might be called simple quality assurance procedures so that the Department of Homeland Security can ensure its practices comply with its policies. Secondly, virtually all the defense facilities the Department of Homeland Security uses are run as maximum security prisons, and in many cases those seeking asylum in this country, because they claim to be fleeing countries that were persecuting them, those detainees are forced to share cells with convicted criminals in maximum security prisons, sometimes in county jails. This is not appropriate for asylum seekers and other detainees who are not criminals and are not being criminally prosecuted. This amendment would require better Department of Homeland Security standards for those detention facilities to make them more consistent with our best values and the words that are emblazoned on the Statute of Liberty. This amendment would also encourage the development of more appropriate facilities for asylum seekers and families with children. These would be modeled after two secure but less restrictive facilities that the Department of Homeland Security already operates, one in Florida and the other in Pennsylvania. The amendment will also encourage the expansion of secure alternatives to detention such as supervised release programs. Congress has already funded programs of this kind, and they have been successful. The amendment ensures the Department of Homeland Security will conduct vigorous oversight of the detention facilities it uses so the facilities, in fact, are complying with Department standards. It is time we put in place and enforce safeguards to ensure people fleeing persecution are treated humanely and in accordance not just with our Nation's laws but with our best values. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I have a modification to the amendment, which I send to the desk at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, it is my understanding that based on the agreement we have reached after negotiation with the Department of Homeland Security, the Senate is prepared to agree to the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that occur.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. This will mean the amendment now listed as No. 6 of those to be voted upon would no longer have to be voted upon.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I might call up an amendment and then set it aside.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1191.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about my amendment to improve our Nation's treatment of asylum seekers. This amendment would implement the key recommendations of the congressionally established U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which 2 years ago issued a report raising serious concerns about the protections offered asylum seekers arriving in this country. I think it is worth noting that the Commission that issued this report was established by Congress in 1998 as a result of legislation first introduced by Senator Specter, in concert with the efforts of Senators Nickles, Brownback, myself, and several others. Senator Specter should be proud of that work and accomplishment. I hope we can see this amendment as one of the fruits of that labor. The Commission reported an unacceptable risk that genuine asylum seekers were being turned away because their fears--and the real dangers--of being returned to their home countries were not fully considered. The Commission also found that while asylum seekers are having their applications considered, they are often detained for months in maximum security prisons and jails, without ever having been fairly considered for release on bond. The Commission described conditions of detention that are completely unacceptable for a just nation to impose on people who are trying to escape war, oppression, religious persecution, even torture. Since the Commission's report was issued, I have routinely asked officials from the Department of Homeland Security what is being done about the problems the Commission identified. I have been assured that the Department was reviewing the report's findings. The time for review is over. The time for Congress to act is now. My amendment will implement the Commission's most important recommendations. It calls for sensible reforms that will safeguard the Nation's security, improve the efficiency of our immigration detention system, and ensure that people fleeing persecution are treated in accordance with this Nation's most basic values. My amendment would implement quality assurance procedures to ensure that DHS officers carefully and accurately record the statements of people who may have a legitimate fear of returning to their countries. Asylum seekers not subject to mandatory detention would be entitled to a hearing to determine if they could be released. Providing bond hearings for those asylum seekers who are low-risk will free up detention beds. At an average cost of $90 per person per day, often much higher, detention beds have always been scarce. Provisions in the Senate legislation before us would vastly increase the numbers of aliens being held in detention. Our immigration system should prioritize available space for aliens who pose a risk of flight, a threat to public safety or are subject to mandatory detention. The amendment also promotes secure alternatives to detention of the type DHS has already begun to implement. For those who must remain detained, we are obliged as a compassionate society to provide humane conditions at immigration facilities and jails used by DHS. My amendment includes modest requirements to ensure decent conditions, especially for asylum seekers, families with children, and other vulnerable populations. It requires improvements in key areas, such as access to medical care and limitations on the use of solitary confinement. And it creates a more effective system within DHS for overseeing and inspecting facilities. The origin of the United States is that of a land of refuge. Many of our Nation's founders fled here to escape persecution for their political opinions, their ethnicity, and their religion. Since that time, the United States has honored its history and founding values by standing against persecution around the world, offering refuge to those who flee from oppression, and welcoming them as contributors to a democratic society. I hope this amendment will be viewed as a noncontroversial way the Nation can continue to honor that history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside and that the Senate return to the previous order.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, those of us who hold elected office are accustomed to getting the recognition and praise that comes with a career in public service. However, I think all of us would also recognize that there are many equally dedicated public servants who work behind the scenes and are just as deserving of the public's gratitude and recognition. I rise today to honor one such public servant. In June, Joel Cogen, the executive director and general counsel of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, will retire after 41 years at CCM. Mr. Cogen's retirement marks the end of a highly distinguished career in public service, one in which he became a fixture in Connecticut politics. Mr. Cogen has been with CCM since its inception in 1966 and has been its executive director since 1968. With Mr. Cogen at the helm, CCM, an organization dedicated to both advocating for the interests of Connecticut municipal governments and promoting efficiency and responsiveness within municipal government, has grown in both size and influence to the point where it is now the dominant voice for Connecticut's cities and towns. In addition to its advocacy work, CCM has also provided its member municipalities with numerous services, including management assistance, individualized inquiry service, assistance in municipal labor relations, technical assistance and training, policy development, research and analysis, publications, information programs, and service programs such as workers' compensation. These services, provided under Mr. Cogen's leadership, have helped to greatly increase the level of service the people of Connecticut receive from their local officials. In addition, Mr. Cogen also serves as corporate executive officer of CCM's Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency. This agency allows CCM's member towns to pool their resources to purchase services, such as workers' compensation insurance, that many towns might otherwise find too expensive. Before his tenure at CCM, Mr. Cogen held numerous other public service positions. He worked for 9 years at the New Haven Redevelopment Agency, while at the same time working as an assistant for then-mayor Richard C. Lee. Before that, he worked for the Ansonia Redevelopment Agency, the New York State Mediation Board, and the U.S. Wage Stabilization Board. He also brought his skills to the U.S. Army, where, as an officer for 2 years, he handled various management assignments. Given all of these accomplishments, I cannot help but think of Mr. Cogen's retirement in bittersweet terms. While I am certainly happy for him and wish him all the best, I cannot help but think about what a loss it will be for Connecticut when he steps down. I am sure, however, that his dedication to the State will live on in all who know him and worked with him and that we will be left in good hands. Thank you, Joel Cogen. Connecticut is a better place because of you and all you have done.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to thank my friend, the Senator from Minnesota, for his kind words. More importantly, I thank him for the commitment he has expressed to protecting all of our children and grandchildren from the impacts of unchecked global warming. Senator Coleman, in stepping forward today, has put himself at the vanguard of the next crucial wave of bipartisan support in the Senate for climate stewardship legislation. I am proud to cosponsor his resolution which, in a very thoughtful way--not an obstructionist way--recognizes two of the most significant reasons why people have hesitated to step forward and do something about climate change. One is the equities here: that no matter how much we do in the United States of America to curb the emission of greenhouse gases--and we must because we are the largest emitter of such gases; we must lead here; it is our responsibility, ultimately our moral responsibility--but no matter how much we assume that leadership role, if other developing nations such as China and India do not do their part, because we all live in the same global environment, the problem of global warming will continue to increase and be more serious for those who follow us here on Earth. Second is his recognition of a thoughtful way to deal with the concerns people have--even those who desperately want to do something to impede the advance of global warming--as to the impact of what we do will have on our economy. It is clear Senator Coleman has been a leader here, and that is why his cosponsorship of our legislation makes a critical point. There is no conflict between protecting our world and all who live in it from catastrophic climate change and also protecting America's economy, protecting America's consumers, and protecting America's workers. We can, must, and will do both. For those who may have had doubts about our capacity to do that, I think Senator Coleman's cosponsorship of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act is critically important. The fact is everyone who works with Senator Coleman knows he cares deeply about the well-being of low- and middle- income Americans and of America's workers, and he would not be cosponsoring the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act--stepping forward to take a leadership role in the battle against global warming--if he felt the components of that act would adversely affect our economy. I am very honored to have earned the support of my friend from Minnesota on this crucial issue. I promise him I will work to ensure he is not disappointed by the outcome of our efforts. In particular, it is my honor to chair a subcommittee on climate change in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I will work to ensure that the bill we report from our subcommittee and full committee embraces the principles set forth in the resolution my friend from Minnesota has introduced today, and of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. The good news is I will not be working alone. I believe a bipartisan majority of the Environment and Public Works Committee wants to report to the Senate floor this year comprehensive legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough and quickly enough to forestall the disastrous climate change so many reputable scientists are warning us of, and that does so in a way that does not weaken the position of the United States economically or otherwise impose hardship on our citizens. I further say to my friend from Minnesota that before we vote on that legislation in our subcommittee, we are going to be having additional hearings. Senator Warner, my ranking member, is committed also to seeing that the subcommittee produces legislation this year that deals with the problem of global warming and the challenge of its impact on our world. I want to ensure my friend from Minnesota that one of those hearings will include a witness who can educate the committee and discuss the proposal of the Senator from Minnesota for a clean energy portfolio standard. Personally, I think his idea is a constructive one, a thoughtful one, a progressive one, and deserves serious consideration. I am eager to explore ways to further encourage electric power producers to increase their use of advanced technologies that can provide reliable, affordable baseload electricity without injecting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Mr. President, I conclude by again thanking my friend from Minnesota and asking unanimous consent--and I do so with great gratitude to him, as I believe his leadership here is significant--that the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, be added as a cosponsor to S. 280, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, which Senator McCain and I introduced earlier this year.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution, along with my colleague Senators Enzi and Inouye, to honor the accomplishments of Stephen Joel Trachtenberg. This resolution honors a remarkable man. President Trachtenberg is about to retire in July 2007 as the third-longest serving President of George Washington University, one of this country's premier educational organizations; an institution that contributes deeply, year after year, to our understanding of the world around us. I have known Steve Trachtenberg for a long time, since his service in Connecticut as the third President of the University of Hartford from 1977 to 1988. He is a proud native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and as an accomplished author, scholar, and educator, he has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues, peers and students. I know he is also proud of his wife, Francine Zorn Trachtenberg, and his two sons, Adam and Ben. President Trachtenberg earned his bachelor's degree from Columbia University in 1959, and showed his skill at making sound decisions by going to Yale to get his law degree in 1962. A Master of Public Administration degree followed later from Harvard. Prior to his illustrious career in academia, he served in government as a special assistant to the U.S. Education Commissioner at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, as an attorney with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and on the Hill as a legislative aide to former Indiana Congressman John Brademas. President Trachtenberg's has won numerous well-deserved awards and honorary degrees. I will only site a few examples here. In 1982 he was celebrated by the Connecticut Region of Hadassah with the Myrtle Wreath Award. In 1984 he was presented with The Mt. Scopus Award from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and in 1987 received the Human Relations Award from the National Conference of Christians and Jews. In 1988 he was honored with the Distinguished Public Service Award from the Connecticut Bar Association, and was proudly recognized by the Hartford NAACP for his contributions to the education of minority students. In 1992 he received the International Salute Award in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. He was even named ``Washingtonian of the Year 2000'' by Washingtonian Magazine, was decorated in 2000 with a medal by King Mohammed VI of Morocco, and was awarded the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knight Grand Cross for Distinguished Service to Freemasonry and Humanity. For all he has done, ``Stephen Joel Trachtenberg Day'' was declared by resolution of the Council of the District of Columbia, on January 22, 1998, in honor of his commitments to minority students, scholarship programs, public school partnerships and community service. Not to be outdone, ``Stephen Joel Trachtenberg Day in San Francisco!'' was declared by Proclamation of the City and County of San Francisco, on February 2, 1999. He is also a respected author writing Reflections on Higher Education in 2002, Thinking Out Loud in 1998, and Speaking His Mind in 1994. As President of George Washington University he opened new buildings for the School of Business and the Elliott School of International Affairs, a new hospital, and added the Mount Vernon Campus, formerly the Mount Vernon College for Women. He also created five new schools: Public Health and Health Services, Public Policy and Public Administration, College of Professional Studies, Graduate School of Political Management, and Media and Public Affairs. Importantly he ``reinvented'' the University's position and positive reputation as Washington, D.C.'s center of scholarship. After all of these accomplishments he is retiring as President of the George Washington University, but will continue as President Emeritus and as a University Professor of Public Service. In this resolution, the Senate: 1. honors and salutes the accomplishments of Stephen Joel Trachtenberg and recognizes his deeds throughout his 19 years of service as President of The George Washington University in Washington, D.C.; 2. recognizes his accomplishments and achievements in higher education, as an author, as an attorney and as a public official; and 3. based upon his service extends its appreciation to him in recognition of his retirement as President of The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to act quickly on this resolution to honor the efforts of President Trachtenberg on behalf of so many who have benefited from his extraordinary service.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Thomas J. Dodd, the former Senator of the great State of Connecticut. As his son, my senior Senator, Chris Dodd, said earlier, Thomas Dodd would have turned 100 years old today. He was a public servant of the highest order, working in an astounding number of capacities throughout his life. After graduating from Yale Law School, he became a special agent with the FBI, and eventually became an assistant for five Attorney Generals of the United States. In this capacity, Thomas Dodd played a key role in establishing the first civil rights division of the Justice Department. Upon leaving the Justice Department, Senator Dodd became the U.S. chief counsel to prosecute Axis crimes at Nuremberg and handled the day-to-day strategies for our Nation's prosecution team. In recognition of his work, Senator Dodd received a Presidential Citation, the U.S. Medal of Freedom, and the Czechoslovakian Order of the White Lion. I admire Senator Dodd for his bravery at Nuremberg. It was not an easy job. He spent over a year away from his family, but he did it because he believed the United States had a responsibility to show the world its resounding dedication to a fair legal process and the delivery of justice to the Nazi war criminals. Senator Dodd's political career began in 1952 when he was elected from the First District of Connecticut in the House of Representatives. He won election to the Senate in 1958, serving as a leader on the Foreign Relations Committee throughout his tenure. Senator Dodd wholeheartedly opposed Soviet communism, and often stood as a maverick within the Democratic Party on foreign policy. Thomas Dodd was an inspiration to me. He was a brilliant orator, and I would often find my way to see him speak when he would visit the New Haven area. He was a man who stood by his principles, oftentimes in the face of fierce opposition. Partisanship and politics always took a backseat to doing what was in the best interest of America. Thomas Dodd never refrained from asking the tough questions, and I applaud him for his independence and the example he set as a distinguished Senator from my home State of Connecticut, a proud legacy of public service, which his son Chris has carried on.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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