Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. I feel disappointed we continue to have to return to the floor to make these pleas. I hope we come to a day soon when we come to the floor to celebrate the victory of freedom and the defeat of Assad the dictator. May it happen soon.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator. I want to make clear, as we finish, what we are talking about. What are we asking our government to do? We are not asking our government to put American troops on the ground in Syria. They do not need American troops. They have fierce patriotic fighters. What they need first from us is an open declaration that we are on the side of the Syrian opposition. The second is, I believe they need us to organize a coalition of the willing, just as Senator McCain said President Clinton did in the case of Kosovo, without the United Nations supporting it. Again, it was a Russian veto that stood in the way.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Absolutely. So we have to learn from those lessons of history. There is a coalition of the willing waiting to be formed here, if only we in the United States will show leadership. Nobody is asking us and we are not asking for unilateral American action. There is no question we have allies in the Arab world who are already involved in supporting the opposition in Syria--namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which would join us. I believe there may be one or more European countries that would join us. There are other Arab countries that would join us. What are we asking? Let us increase the flow of weapons and training to the opposition. I think it is time for us to use American air power to at least impose a no-fly zone over Syria because the Syrians are now using gunships, and I fear they will begin to use fighters to attack their civilian population and create and spread the kind of fear they now depend upon. It is a coalition in support of the opposition, it is weapons and training, it is sanctuaries where they can be trained and equipped, and it is the use of air power against this regime which I think will not only deal a devastating blow to their regime but will make the remaining supporters it has in the military and in the business community despair and see the end is near and abandon Assad. Have I stated correctly what the Senator from Arizona feels we want this government of ours to be doing now in regard to Syria?

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor my long- time friend and advisor, Michael McShane, who will be retiring next month after 40 remarkable years working in government, the private sector, and in Democratic politics. I first got to know Michael when he and I worked together to advance the goals of the Democratic Leadership Council and Third Way. He was responsible for all the DLC activities at both Clinton inaugurals and the 1996 and 2000 Democratic Conventions. Later, when I decided to run for President in 2004, I was honored to have Michael serve as the vice chair of my campaign. Michael has built a long and impressive record of public service. As a young man, he served in the Air Force for 6 years, where he flew B- 52s and served in Vietnam. After leaving the military in 1972, Michael worked as press secretary for Congressman John J. Rooney and then as a Foreign Service Officer before joining the Carter-Mondale 1976 Presidential campaign. Following that election, he served in the Carter White House as a Special Assistant to Vice President Mondale. Michael was later a White House advisor to President Clinton. He recently returned to public service, joining the Congressional Liaison Office at the United States Agency for International Development. Mike McShane has also had a notable career in the private sector. After leaving the Carter administration in 1979, he began managing government relations programs for trade associations and Fortune 500 companies including System Development Corporation, National Computer Systems, and TRW. He also founded and led The Policy Institute, and, later, the McShane Group International. The academic and nonprofit communities have also benefitted greatly from Michael's talents and experience. He has served on the faculty of the Bryce Harlow Foundation, which seeks to promote the highest standards within the profession of lobbying and government relations, as Visiting Lecturer in American Political History at Boston University, and as a teacher of politics at Stanford, Notre Dame, Villanova, Georgetown, American, and East Carolina, his alma mater. A proud alum, Michael presently serves as vice chair of the Board of Visitors at East Carolina and the Board of the ECU Alumni Association. In 1998, he was named the East Carolina University Alumni of the Year. I can't help but view Michael McShane's departure from Washington through a bittersweet lens. For while I am excited that he and his wonderful wife Susan will get to enjoy a much deserved retirement, I will miss Michael's wise counsel and thoughtful insights. Still, I am confident that his example will live on in all of us who were lucky enough to know him, and I wish Michael and Susan much happiness and success in their retirement in Charlottesville.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the transportation reauthorization bill that passed today. Having served on past transportation bill conference committees, I know the long hours and intense negotiations that were required to prepare this bill for consideration today, and I want to extend my congratulations, appreciation, and respect to Senators Boxer and Inhofe. I know from past experience that they are both principled, tough negotiators, and I am sure that is why the transportation bill returned from conference with so many key provisions intact. In March, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner to pass a transportation bill that contained significant achievements for our country, and would have greatly benefited my State of Connecticut. The bill would have reduced red tape for transportation projects while still protecting our environment and resources. It included a provision I worked on with my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, which would have required cities and States to take air quality goals into account when drafting transportation plans. It also would have provided mass transit benefits the same tax beneficial treatment as parking benefits, and would have funded Connecticut's transportation programs at a level that met our basic needs for the next few years. The bill that came back from conference retained many of these provisions, but I regret to see that it weakened others and discarded some of the rest. As I stated earlier, I am no stranger to working on a conference committee, and I fully realize that the best legislation is produced through a give and take on various issues. Clearly, that was the case here. Despite my disappointment on some of these compromises, I believe that it was essential that we acted to ensure that our national transportation programs did not lapse on July 1, and that is why I supported the transportation bill conference report. I would like to take a few minutes to briefly explain some of my concerns, and why I ultimately voted the way I did. My concerns can generally be broken down into three categories: environmental, Connecticut-specific programs, and the long-term viability of the transportation system. First, let me touch upon the environment. We have come a long way since the days when Federal and State transportation departments labored under the mistaken belief that building our roads and highways bigger was better, no matter the consequences. We have long since realized that land deserves to be preserved, the purity of our water protected, and our air quality improved. I worry that the bill would be a step backwards because it would waive environmental reviews of many transportation projects, including some in environmentally endangered areas of our country. By providing a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for any projects within an existing operational right-of-way, I can foresee wetlands being filled, sensitive habitat threatened, and resources spoiled, all without any environmental review. There is a right way and a wrong way to expedite projects, and I believe this is the wrong way. I understand this was a necessary concession in order to get a conference report agreed to, but I hope it will be addressed in the future. The second concern I have is the impact of the bill on my State, Connecticut. The Federal highway program is just that: a Federal program that is intended to address the needs of the national transportation system. Nonetheless, our country's different regions have particular needs. Connecticut, and the Northeast in general, have urgent needs when it comes to transportation. My State has one of our Nation's oldest transportation systems, because Connecticut has been around a long time, one of the Nation's highest ratios of traffic volume to miles of road, and is a frequent pass-through State for commuters throughout the Northeast. Federal transportation funding should go to areas with the greatest need, just as happens with other government programs such as farm subsidies and disaster relief. Connecticut residents do not protest these agricultural support programs despite our paying a disproportionate share of taxes for them, but we deserve to receive adequate funds to address our unique transportation needs. Under this bill, Connecticut will receive inadequate funding. I would urge my colleagues to reconsider this problem, as well as the 95 percent minimum rate of return for all States, during deliberations on the next transportation bill just as we did during consideration of the 2005 transportation bill. Finally, I want to take a moment to address a growing concern across the country: the future of our Highway Trust Fund. Since the establishment of the Federal highway system, we have utilized a user- fee system to fund our transportation programs. That system served us well for years, and relied on a gas tax to fill the Highway Trust Fund, which in turn distributed funds to our States. As is so often the case, with the good comes the bad: as we make cars that are more fuel efficient, thereby cleaning up our air and reducing emissions, we also purchase less gas per mile driven, and the amount of money flowing into the Trust Fund shrinks as a result. The gas tax has stayed static at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. Because it is not adjusted for inflation, the federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993. For 4 years now, the Trust Fund has been running a deficit and we have had to bail it out with transfers from the Treasury. This is not the way the system was meant to work, and it is not a way it can long survive. The blame lies at all of our feet. Neither party has had the courage to face the reality that we are running out of money for our roads and bridges. Instead of dealing with the problem, we have continued to bail out the trust fund, hoping that some future Congress will take necessary steps to fix this problem. I applaud my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, who took a stand and proposed adjusting the gas tax for inflation, basically a half-cent a gallon increase. This could have gone a long way to reducing the amount of money we need to use to bailout the trust fund. Unfortunately, we never had a chance to discuss the matter. I understand that colleagues do not want to talk about raising taxes. But in the end we have no choice but to talk about raising taxes if we want our transportation infrastructure to keep pace with our people's needs. We need leadership from Congress, and the President, to face the facts: our transportation system is both broke and broken. The system does not have funds for some basic repairs, let alone to make the new investments for infrastructure we urgently need. In 2002, the United States was ranked fifth, in terms of infrastructure quality, worldwide. Today, we have dropped to twenty-fourth. We have fallen 19 places down in less than a decade. Unfortunately, the large-scale investments we need will not be possible until we can fix the funding issue. The Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended a 5-cent per year increase to the gas tax for 3 years. Others have recommended shifting to a system that charges users for vehicle-miles-travelled. Such a VMT would ensure that those driving fuel efficient, electric, or alternative fuel vehicles pay for the wear-and-tear to the roads they cause. Although I will not be a member of the Senate when the next transportation bill is debated, I would urge my colleagues to begin to address this issue before the trust fund goes broke once again. Washington must have the courage to keep all options on the table, and then do what works to fix this problem. In closing, I wish to again express my gratitude to Senators Boxer and Inhofe. This is a true jobs bill, and it will guarantee that millions of construction workers are still employed come Sunday, that student loan interest rates do not double this school year, and that our truly important flood insurance program will be reauthorized. I thank Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, the staff of the EPW committee, as well as the staffers at the Departments of Transportation both in Washington and Connecticut, for their efforts in bringing this bill to fruition.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this Sunday, Marine Corps GySgt Thomas Boyd, who is currently serving as a legislative fellow in my office, will receive his promotion to master gunnery sergeant at his home in Uniontown, PA, surrounded by his wife Reagan and his family. I would like to take the opportunity to recognize Tom's accomplishments and selfless service to our Nation. Tom enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1996, following in the footsteps of his father, older brother, and great uncle. He immediately took on the very demanding occupational specialty of signals intelligence, which involves the collection and analysis of enemy communications. It is a unique and critically important specialty that accepts only the highest quality and most trustworthy marines, which tells you a lot about Tom's character. From 2005 to 2009 Tom was stationed at Fort Meade and served at the National Security Agency. His skills were put to the test in three combat deployments, two to Iraq and one to Afghanistan, during which he supported numerous counterterrorism operations that helped make those countries and our own more secure. The Department of Defense recognized his contributions with the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, one of the highest awards the Department can bestow upon a servicemember. Last year the Marine Corps selected Tom for its Congressional Fellowship Program, which, as my colleagues know, is highly selective. Tom is one of only two enlisted Marines selected to serve on Capitol Hill this year. While working in a Senate office is considerably less action-packed than the jobs he has had in the recent past, Tom has tackled all the tasks we have assigned to him with the overwhelming enthusiasm and tenacity we expect from our marines. I know some of our constituents who have met Tom are sometimes surprised to come to my office and find themselves across the table from ``Big Country,'' as Tom is affectionately known among his peers. Then they realize that not only is Tom as dedicated to serving them as any member of any Senator's staff but also that it can be a big advantage to have a man who was clearly born to be a leatherneck on their side. To my colleagues, should you see Tom walking the halls of the Senate, I ask that you take a moment to congratulate him on his promotion and thank him and his family for their sacrifices on behalf of our country. In his personality, professionalism, and selflessness, Tom Boyd reflects the best traditions of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant, a talented administrator, and a tireless warrior for homeland security. Transportation Security Administration Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer Gale Rossides is retiring at the end of the month, and her departure will be a significant loss not just for TSA and the Department of Homeland Security but for the American people, whom she has served so well throughout her 34-year career in the public sector. As Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I came to understand the central role Ms. Rossides played at TSA. In appearances before the Committee, she impressed me as a knowledgeable and experienced manager whose dedication to the agency helped TSA stay on track through a difficult and chaotic start up and develop into a more mature agency as the years progressed. Ms. Rossides' institutional memory, alone, will be irreplaceable. She was one of the original six executives hired to build TSA from the ground up in 2001, and in his book ``After: How American Confronted the September 12 Era,'' Steven Brill wrote that ``no matter what was added to her plate, or what she reached out for to put on it herself, she seemed to take it in stride.'' Despite the grueling 13-hour days and 6- day weeks, Ms. Rossides stayed at TSA for 10 years--with a 1-year hiatus as senior advisor to the Under Secretary for Management at DHS. I think it is fair to say that today she is one of the department's most respected senior executives. Ms. Rossides brought critical management experience to the nascent TSA. In the tense period after September 11, 2001, she led the team of government and private sector officials that trained and certified more than 50,000 screeners in less than 6 months--the largest public mobilization since World War II. She oversaw the debut of TSA's federalized screening force at Baltimore Washington Airport. And she led the effort to develop and implement screener technical training and certification standards. Throughout her TSA tenure, Ms. Rossides has fostered collaborative partnerships with stakeholders; pushed for more intelligence sharing; created leadership development programs; and developed innovative workforce programs to encourage communication and conflict management. Under her watch, TSA reduced its employee injury and attrition rates and raised employee morale through innovative solutions like providing benefits to part time personnel. Ms. Rossides moved steadily up the management ladder during her tenure at TSA. She has served as the Associate Administrator/Chief Support Systems Officer, been a Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary and the Under Secretary for Management at DHS, and in 2007 she was appointed acting Deputy Administrator, a position that became permanent in January 2008. She has held that position longer than any other in the agency's history. From 2009 to January 2010, she served as Acting TSA Administrator. As such, she oversaw the implementation of Secure Flight and introduced other key security programs, including measures implemented to detect and deter improved explosives devices that could be concealed on terrorists, in the aftermath of the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack. This career arc more than justifies Steven Brill's description of her in his book as ``an incurable workaholic'' who would ``run over or cleverly sidestep almost any obstacle to get to the goal.'' It is a tribute to her character that she remained universally well-liked while doing so. Before she was hand-picked to help launch TSA, Ms. Rossides had worked at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, within the Justice Department, for 23 years, where she started as an administrative assistant. She was co-chair of a blue ribbon panel to overhaul ATF after the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian ranch in Waco, TX. For 8 years, she served as the first assistant director, in charge of all law enforcement, investigative, regulatory, and leadership training at ATF--the first woman to hold such a significant post at the bureau. And she was a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for 6 years. The American people have been fortunate that Ms. Rossides has given much of her life to the Federal Government. We are certainly better off because of it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am going to keep returning to the floor of the Senate in fairness on this nomination. She is such a deserving nominee and at least deserves a vote up or down. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, for yielding to me for a moment to make a unanimous consent request regarding the nomination of Donna Murphy of the District of Columbia to be an associate judge on the DC Superior Court. This nomination was favorably reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on June 29, 2011. That is almost 1 year ago. For that year, this nomination has been stopped from a vote. I come to the floor today to say it is time for this to stop. In fairness to this able nominee, she deserves an up-or-down vote. She would bring a wealth of talent and experience to the job. Donna Murphy has been a career attorney in the Department of Justice for four administrations--two Democratic and two Republican--and has received strong support from senior officials for whom she worked in each one of those administrations. John Dunne, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under President George H.W. Bush praised Ms. Murphy as ``extremely smart, hard-working, and fair-minded.'' Bill Lee, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under President Clinton recalls Ms. Murphy as ``one of the best lawyers in the Division who was known for her fairness, integrity, smarts, legal skills, dedication and exceedingly hard work.'' Wan J. Kim, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under President George W. Bush recommended Ms. Murphy for the D.C. Superior Court believing that she possessed the qualities he has seen in exemplary jurists. Under Mr. Kim, Donna Murphy received the division's highest award in 2007, the John Doar Award for Excellence and Dedication, an award that was established under the first Bush administration. So there is no rational reason at all to continue to deny this nominee an up or down vote. A native of Norristown, PA, Ms. Murphy fell in love with Washington, DC during a visit when she was just 12 years old. She moved here to attend college at American University, where she received her Bachelor of Science in Political Science in 1986. From American University, she went to Yale Law School--a decision I naturally admire--and received her law degree in 1989. Since October 1990, she has worked for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division on a variety of cases, including voting rights, discrimination in credit, housing and public accommodations, and allegations of police misconduct. It is her work on these police cases that has brought about some criticism, but not much. Both prior to the Committee's approval of Ms. Murphy's nomination and afterwards, Committee staff investigated the criticism and found no evidence to support the charge that she would be negative to police. In fact, we have received letters of support for Ms. Murphy from leading police officials, including one group in Los Angeles, CA, for her work in negotiating and implementing consent decrees regarding allegations that the Los Angeles Police Department had been systematically violating people's civil rights. The Committee received a letter from Gerald Chaleff, the Special Assistant for Constitutional Policing for the LAPD who negotiated the consent decree between the LAPD and Department of Justice. Mr. Chaleff wrote that during negotiation and implementation of the consent decree Ms. Murphy earned the respect and admiration of LAPD personnel with whom she dealt. Mr. Chaleff also notes that contrary to the vague and unsubstantiated allegations made against her, Ms. Murphy at all times acted honorably, ethically, and intelligently. We have similar letters from law enforcement officials praising her work negotiating similar consent decrees with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, the city of Steubenville, OH, and the New Jersey State Police. It is past time the Senate approve this nomination and send this qualified nominee to the bench and let her serve the city that has been her home for more than 20 years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters, as well as the letters from former Justice Department officials that I cited earlier, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 231; that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 231; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order, that any related statements be printed in the Record, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to Senator Inhofe's resolution of disapproval concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics rule. If passed, this resolution would have a devastating impact on our decades-long effort to clean up the air Americans breathe, and it would betray the responsible utility managers who have already taken steps to reduce the mercury and air toxics entering our atmosphere. As I approach the end of my Senate career, I have spent some time reflecting on my past votes and the legacy I hope to leave behind. The debate before us today brings me back to my very first years in the Senate and an effort that has continued throughout my entire time here. In 1990, I was part of the group of members of the Senate EPW Committee and the administration of President George H.W. Bush who negotiated and passed the Clean Air Act Amendments. At the time, the need for this legislation was painfully clear--acid rain was eating paint off of cars, and thick, visible smog blanketed too many of our cities. Some wanted Congress to turn a blind eye, but we did not. We acted, and we acted together. During those many weeks, we met daily to reach a bipartisan agreement that would put our country on the path to cleaner air. It was the leadership of majority leader George Mitchell and President Bush's representatives, including Boyden Gray, that led us to a grand bargain. Because all of the parties negotiated in good faith toward a common goal, the Clean Air Act Amendments were adopted in an October 1990 vote by an 89-to-10 margin. Think about that: 89 votes in favor of one of the most significant environmental law changes in our history. I regret that such a broad bipartisan agreement in support of our environment will not be repeated this week. Now, in the final year of my Senate career, we are debating a resolution that seeks to undo one of the provisions that we worked so hard to pass as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments in my first term in office--a requirement that EPA issue standards to reduce emissions of air toxics from stationary sources. That was 22 years ago, but it was only February of this year that EPA finally published the rule that would implement these standards. Administrator Lisa Jackson and Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy, who served so ably as Connecticut's commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, have brought us a rule that will finally put in place the mercury and air toxics restrictions we have been waiting for. This resolution would roll back that rule, the first-ever national limits on powerplant emissions of air toxics, including mercury. Without this rule, powerplant operators can continue pumping dozens of tons of mercury and hundreds of thousands of tons of other toxic air pollutants into our air each year. Many of my colleagues have spoken to the extensive health and environmental rationale behind the mercury and air toxics rule, so I will just highlight a few of the most startling statistics. One in twelve American women of childbearing age has mercury blood levels that would put their fetuses at risk for impaired development. These developmental impairments are a human tragedy, denying children their full intellectual and psychological potential. With respect to the environment, just look at Connecticut. We are blessed by natural beauty--rolling hills, beautiful beaches, vast forests, and flowing streams and rivers. Unfortunately, every single body of water--every lake, stream, river, and pond--in the State of Connecticut has a mercury advisory in place. Where do we think this came from? It was not here before the advent of polluting powerplants spewing mercury into the air. We are blessed by plentiful fresh water, but that gift has been tainted by the mercury that has been spewed into the air over generations. Even in Long Island Sound, one of America's greatest estuaries, we are faced with a restriction on which seafood we can eat. One of the best fish in the sound--the bluefish--is off limits to us because of mercury. Is this the legacy we want to leave our children? Of course, this debate should not be about which fish we can or cannot eat, it should be about following through on a promise we made to the American people in 1990, by a margin of 89 to 10, that we would move forward on efforts to reduce air toxics being emitted by powerplants. If we pass this resolution, we would break that promise. Some of my colleagues may claim that the mercury rule is an attack on coal. To them I would say: This is nothing of the sort. This rule would actually save money and save lives. It would save between $37 billion and $90 billion a year in health benefits while creating 54,000 jobs. It would prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 cases of childhood asthma attacks each year. This is a case of government protecting its citizens with a commonsense rule to require widely available pollution control systems be installed at our powerplants. I want to close by once again urging my colleagues not to break our promise we made to the American people in 1990 that the U.S. Government would do everything in its power to ensure the American people had clean air to breathe and to reduce dangerous pollutants in order to give our children the chance to grow up healthy. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator for her leadership and assistance and cooperation in ensuring that the intent of this important bill is allowed to be carried out in areas where greatest impact will result.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to engage my colleague, Senator Stabenow, in a colloquy. I thank Senator Stabenow and the other members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry for their collective efforts in passing S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012. This bill promises to save taxpayers money and concentrate funds in the areas in which they will have the greatest impact, making them work better for producers. As the Senator knows, Long Island Sound, LIS, and its watershed contain some of the most important farm, forest, and water resources in the country. The estuary is home to a historically significant and now burgeoning aquaculture industry. The Sound provides natural habitats to more than 1,200 species of invertebrates, 170 species of fish, and hundreds of species of migratory birds. Commercial and recreational shellfishers harvest oysters, crabs, and lobsters from its waters. More than 23 million people live within 50 miles of the Sound. The estimated annual value to the local economy of LIS is $8.91 billion. Federal, State, and local partners operate together throughout its six-State watershed using formal, shared priorities that provide a strong basis for applying conservation practices to improve soil and water quality, farm and producer productivity, and to restore wetlands and wildlife habitat. The Sound and its watershed are recognized by NRCS as a multistate partnership area. The watershed's major river, the Connecticut River, was just designated as the Nation's first Blueway. Is it the Senator's intent to provide a framework where strong partnerships between producers and conservation organizations, like exist in the Long Island Sound watershed, can succeed by putting forth projects that work to achieve locally or regionally established goals and metrics?

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the urgent need for the Senate to adopt cybersecurity legislation. I begin by recalling a recent story in the Washington Post that detailed how a young man living an ocean away from us was able to use his computer to hack into the cyber control system of a local water utility here in the United States. It took him just 10 minutes and required no special tools or no special training. While the hacker could have taken over the water company's operations and caused real damage, instead he posted screen shots of his hack on the Internet to show that he had been there and prove his point that our Nation's Internet security is woefully lax. And it took very little in the way of resources or skill to penetrate it. This kind of story is but one piece of what I would call an avalanche of evidence showing that there is an urgent need to pass comprehensive cybersecurity legislation that will safeguard our critical cyber infrastructure. The fact is, as this 22-year-old's activities showed, and as authorities in the area, such as ADM Mike McConnell, the former Director of National Intelligence, have said, the cyber infrastructure which is owned by private entities is simply not adequately defended. And when it is not adequately defended--and here I am talking about vital national systems: The electric power grid, water companies, transportation systems, pipelines, et cetera, et cetera--when the cyber systems that control them now are not adequately protected, it means our Nation is not adequately protected because a cyber-attack can incapacitate vital national entities that we all depend on every day and, in fact, cause enormous harm and loss of life, as much as a conventional attack by air in earlier confrontations and conflicts. Yesterday the majority leader came to the floor of the Senate and spoke, I thought, eloquently about the urgency of the Senate adopting cybersecurity legislation. I wanted to come to the floor today to thank Senator Reid for that statement and to say, as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, how strongly I agree with him. Of course, we are not alone. A few days ago six of our Nation's most experienced national security leaders, spanning the last two-plus administrations, transcending any lines of partisanship, wrote a letter to Senator Reid urging him to bring up cybersecurity legislation ``as soon as possible.'' That is a quote: ``as soon as possible.'' In that letter to both--not just to Senator Reid, but to Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, as well--former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff from the Bush administration; former Director of National Intelligence, ADM Mike McConnell, whom I referred to, from the Bush administration; former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, also from the previous administration; former NSA and CIA Director Mike Hayden, also from the previous administration; former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN James Cartwright, and former Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn sent this letter--incidentally, to say what is already a matter of public record. In doing so, they express opinions that are quite similar to what we have heard from all the leaders of the current administration when it comes to security--Secretary of Defense Panetta, Director of National Intelligence Clapper, Director of the CIA Petraeus, and so on, and, of course, Secretary Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security. I want to read from this letter from these national security leaders because it sums up where we are. I quote now: Given the time left in this legislative session and the upcoming election this fall, we are concerned that the window of opportunity to pass legislation that is in our view critically necessary to protect our national and economic security is quickly disappearing. In the letter they went on to say--and I quote again We-- The signers of the letter-- carry the burden of knowing-- Along with a lot of the rest of us-- that 9/11 might have been averted with the intelligence that existed at the time. We do not want to be in the same position again when ``cyber 9/11'' hits--it is not a question of whether this will happen; it is a question of when. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The majority leader came to the floor yesterday, as I have said, echoing these sentiments in his floor speech, when he said: When virtually every intelligence expert says we need to secure the systems that make the lights come on, inaction is not an option. I could not agree more with Senator Reid. The fact is, the House of Representatives, the so-called other body of Congress, has passed a cybersecurity bill--a package that I think takes some significant initial good steps. I thank the House for that. But I believe the bipartisan Senate Cybersecurity Act of 2012, S. 2105, which is sponsored by Senators Collins, Feinstein, Rockefeller, and me, takes the additional necessary steps to secure our cyber systems and, therefore, is preferable. It is preferable, in large part, because it addresses the need to secure our Nation's critical cyber infrastructure; that is, the computers that control the systems that, if commandeered, attacked or intruded upon, could allow an attacker to open and close key valves and switches in pipelines for gas and oil and refineries and factories and water and sewer systems and electric plants and banks and along transportation nodes without detection by their operators. We need to pass this bill or something very much like it so we can go to conference with the House and iron out whatever differences we have this year so we can get legislation to the President's desk. He has endorsed, I am grateful to say, S. 2105--certainly endorsed the principles that are in it. We have to do that so we raise our defenses before we are victims of a cyber 9/11. The time remaining to do so in this session is obviously growing shorter. We know the lameduck session will be almost exclusively taken up with difficult questions about the budget, debt, sequester, the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts and much more. So we have to act. I am encouraged by Senator Reid's statement yesterday and my own belief after conversations with him that the leader is intent on bringing this legislation to the floor in July. The truth is, if we do not take it up in July and see whether we have the votes--and I am confident we will when it comes to the floor--we are not going to be able to pass this legislation that is timely and allows us to go to conference, reach an agreement, and send the bill to the President of the United States for his signature. When talking about cybersecurity, the biggest threats we all know come from other nations, nation states, also nonstate actors such as terrorists and organized crime syndicates. But this young man I referred to at the beginning of my statement and his ability to quite easily penetrate the cyber control system of a local water company in the United States shows us that an attack can come from just about anyone and from just about anywhere. According to the Washington Post story, ``This individual who goes by the name prOf is a bright unemployed 22 year old who favors hoodie sweatshirts and lives in his parent's home somewhere overseas.'' But this good guy, white-hat hacker, knows the risks our Nation is facing. He told the Post: Eventually, somebody will get access to a major system and people will be hurt. It is just a matter of time. That is the truth. Six of our Nation's premier equity security experts are in agreement with this 22-year-old hacker as they said in their letter: It is just a matter of time. We have to act before that time comes. To my colleagues who have concerns about the Cyber Security Act of 2011, the Collins-Feinstein-Rockefeller-Lieberman legislation, I say: Come on and work with us. We can and must resolve our differences. In fact, around some of the major areas of discussion, controversy, the section of our bill that has performance requirements for private sector entities that own the most critical infrastructure which, if attacked, could cause mass deaths, casualties, catastrophic economic loss, and a denigration of our national security, those are--and then the other section being the information-sharing section, where some people have civil liberties or privacy concerns, there is a good-faith effort going on to resolve those differences because, I think increasingly, Members of the Senate on both sides, just reacting to the facts, are worried this is a real and present danger to our security. Perhaps the most real and present immediate danger of a massive attack on our homeland that exists today is by cyber attack. I do not think any of us wants to look back and say: Why did we not act before we were attacked? Therefore, I am encouraged by these deliberations. But I say to anybody else who has concerns about our bill, Members of the Senate, please be in touch with Senators Collins, Feinstein, Rockefeller or myself. If we cannot resolve our differences, then draft amendments and let's debate them on the floor and have up-or-down votes and let the Senate work its will. As Senator Reid said in his remarks yesterday: Everybody knows this Congress cannot pass laws that do not have broad bipartisan support. So we are going to need to work together on a bill that addresses the concerns of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. That time is coming soon, I am confident to say, based on my conversations with the majority leader. That time is coming soon on the floor of the Senate, but we have to start now to make sure we are ready when the bill comes to the Senate floor. I guarantee that one day in the near future, if we do not pass comprehensive cybersecurity legislation, and there is a serious and significant cyberspace attack on us, we will rush to pass it and that will be too late and we will not do it in a thoughtful way. Time grows short while the threat keeps swelling. What if the next 22-year-old who decides to take over a water plant or an oil or gas pipeline or an electric powerplant decides to make a more convincing demonstration than just posting screen pictures online? If a 22-year- old can do this, think what an enemy nation with a significant amount of money and personnel and training behind it could do to us if we are not adequately defended? I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because this is not a partisan issue at all, this is a national security-homeland security issue: Let's get to work. Let's get ready for the floor debate on cybersecurity that I am confident is coming soon. Then let's pass this urgently needed legislation for the sake of both our national and economic security. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Presiding Officer and my friend from Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, it is an honor to join in this colloquy with my friend from Arizona, though I obviously take no pleasure in it because it is an outcry--a cri de coeur--an outcry of the heart about the slaughter going on in Syria now, once again, with a government killing its own people to maintain its own presence and power. It is an outcry because for more than a year now the rest of the world, including the United States, has offered these victims of the brutal violence of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus essentially words--words of condemnation, words of sympathy. But those words--or the few cell phones we have given those Syrian freedom fighters--don't stand up against Assad's tanks, his guns, and the brutality of his forces. So I would say the answer to the question my friend from Arizona posed--how many more people have to be killed?--obviously, too many people have already been killed. It is time for the United States to show some leadership. Senator McCain and I are not calling for American troops on the ground in Syria. We are not calling for the United States alone to take action. There is a coalition of the willing. If we continue to say we are not going to take action to help the victims of Assad's brutality until and unless we get authorization from the U.N. Security Council, there is never going to be any help to go to these victims in Syria because the Russians and probably the Chinese will veto any U.N. resolution. Every time we say we have to go to the U.N., we raise the power of Russia to protect its ally in Damascus. But there is a coalition of the willing ready throughout the Arab world, and I think some in Europe and elsewhere, which will not act until the United States shows some leadership. I want to just briefly put this in a historical context. After the Nazi Holocaust of the last century, the world said, ``Never again.'' ``Never again.'' We have kept that pledge in some cases, such as Bosnia and Kosovo, although it took us too long--too many people were killed before the world acted--and in other places, such as Rwanda, we turned away from the slaughter of people there. Once again, we are challenged to show the victims whether we are true to our words. I read something a few days ago in the Washington Post. An article was drawing parallels between the genocide in Bosnia during the 1990s and the killing that is taking place in Syria today. There was a 37-year-old survivor of the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia that finally got the world to get involved, who said: It's bizarre how ``never again'' has come to mean ``again and again.'' It is obvious that we live in a world where Srebrenicas are still possible. What is happening in Syria today is almost identical to what happened in Bosnia two decades ago. So what is the world waiting for? A Syrian Srebrenica when thousands are killed on a single day by their own government before we act? I hope not. And that is why we speak out today. Just within the hour, a story was posted on Reuters news service out of Beirut: Six hours after tanks and militiamen pulled out of Mazraat al-Qubeir, a Syrian farmer said he returned to find only charred bodies among the smoldering homes of his once- tranquil hamlet. ``There was smoke rising from the buildings and a horrible smell of human flesh burning'' said a man who told how he watched Syrian troops and ``shabbiha'' gunmen attack his village as he hid in his family olive grove. ``It was like a ghost town'' he told Reuters, . . .'' Senator McCain and I have been explicit for some period of time. We have been both to Turkey and Lebanon to talk to leaders of the opposition and people in the refugee camps, and they simply say to us: As Americans, you are our only hope. This is from a people whose government has been determined in its anti-American posture, the Assad government, and yet the people now turn to us--as people always do in a time of crisis around the world--and say, This is what America is about. America has a moral government that cares about people's right to life and liberty, and we will not be saved unless you get involved. I hope the latest events move our government to go beyond words to actions. And immediately. Again, Senator McCain and I have talked about actions we would support: arms to the opposition fighters, training of the opposition fighters, safe havens in Turkey, and perhaps other neighboring countries to Syria, where they can be trained and equipped; provision of intelligence that we have, which will help the opposition fight to defend themselves and their families. Frankly, if it were up to us--and I know I can speak for Senator McCain--I think if we wanted to help and turn the tide quickly without a lot of unnecessary loss of life, we would use allied air power, Americans and our allies, and we would hit some targets important to the Assad government. I think that would break their will, and it would increase the number of defections from Assad's army and from the very important business community, and would result in a much sooner end to this terrible waste of lives. So that is our outcry, and that is my answer to the question of my friend from Arizona. I thought the Senator was particularly right in condemning the idea that if we get involved, it militarizes the conflict--the conflict is already militarized on one side. Russia and Iran are providing Assad with all the weapons he needs. In the meantime, the opposition is scrounging around, paying exorbitant prices just for bullets which they have been running out of. I ask my friend from Arizona, people say that intervention in Syria will be much harder than it was in Libya. I wonder if he would respond to that argument against us getting involved.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank Senator McCain. I think he spoke with real clarity and strength, and this is exactly what we need to continue to do. I want to go to the point he made. Some people say we shouldn't get involved in Syria because we don't know who the opposition is; therefore, we should be cautious before helping them. We have had the opportunity to meet the opposition and their leadership, both the political opposition and the military opposition. And I would tell you, to the best of my judgment--I believe it is our judgment--these aren't extremists. These are Syrian patriots. As Senator McCain said, this whole movement started peacefully. They went out into the squares in big cities in Syria. They were asking for more freedom. They actually weren't at the beginning asking for an overthrow of the Assad government. But what was Assad's response to them? He turned his guns on them and started to kill them wantonly. And when they decided there was no peaceful course--because he rejected every compromise alternative that intermediaries put in--they took up arms such as they could find. The danger here is not that the people who are the leaders of the opposition are extremists or terrorists; the danger is that the extremists and terrorists will take over this movement if we and the rest of the civilized world don't get involved, and the Syrian opposition will be sorely tempted to take their support because they have no alternative. We simply can't let that happen. I know there is a lot going on in our country. I know people are worried about the economy, as we are, of course. But America's strength and credibility in the world has actually always been not only what we are about by our founding documents and our history but what maintains our credibility and strength in the world, which is a foundation of our economic strength. The longer we give words but no action in response to the murder and rape of victims in Syria, the lower our credibility is. And we can't afford that. Senator McCain said, and I want to emphasize, the main reason to get involved here is humanitarian. It is what America is about. It is about the protection of life and liberty. But it happens to be that this makes a lot of strategic sense, too, because the No. 1 enemy we have in the world today is Iran. If Assad goes down, Iran will suffer a grievous blow. Some people said, and some still say it--including high officials of our government--that it is not a question of whether Bashar al Assad will fall but when. I don't agree. Having been over there talking to the opposition, watching what is happening, this is a profoundly unfair fight. Assad has most of the guns and systems, and the freedom fighters have very little. He will keep doing this as long as he has to, and this war will go on a long time, with thousands and thousands and thousands of more innocent people killed as they were earlier today in the Mazraat al-Qubeir. The facts cry out for us to take action. I hope and pray we will. Senator McCain and I and others have. Senator Rubio has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today that speaks to some of the points we have made, and others on both sides I hope will continue to speak out until finally there will be action to save the lives of innocents. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of questions that opponents of our involvement raised, and the answers I would offer to those questions arguing for our involvement with a coalition of the willing.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Ohio for taking the lead on what I call a noble project, and I am confident that all of our colleagues will join us in this to include FDR's national prayer at the World War II Memorial. It is very important to remember that D-day, which was 68 years ago today, turned out to be a pivotal moment in the war in Europe. FDR chose not to give a speech announcing the landing at Normandy but to offer a national prayer. I think in doing so, he went to a very proud, not only tradition in America but one of our great assets where we have had the ability to bring faith and God in a very inclusive and nondiscriminatory way into our public life to the great benefit of our Nation. As he delivered these words of prayer in a historic radio broadcast, which of course is the way it was done in those days, the success of the bold and dangerous D-day plan was far from assured. But with the eloquent faithfulness of his words and with his steady Presidential leadership, I believe the brave American men and women in uniform who landed at Normandy were strengthened by the conviction of our national values, the virtue and righteousness of their cause, and, of course, with confidence that they would benefit from the guiding grace of God. I remember words by President Reagan on another Normandy anniversary when he said: The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. Indeed, I think adding FDR'S prayer to the grandness of the World War II Memorial will even elevate it, and it will rightly remind all who visit of the essential role that faith in God played at that pivotal moment of world history. It will also remind us that faith in God has played a pivotal role in American history every day since the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, when our Founders declared that they were forming our new government to secure the rights of life, liberty, and happiness that each of us receive as an endowment from our creator. All of this is expressed in the wonderful idea that Senator Portman has had and would be accomplished by this project. I yield back to my friend from Ohio for the beginning of President Roosevelt's prayer.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I continue with Roosevelt's prayer. And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas--whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts. Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces. And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be. And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee. Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose. With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen. Madam President, as we know, many lives were lost on D-day and what followed, but it led to the defeat of--if I may use President Roosevelt's words--``the unholy forces of our enemy,'' and of a remarkable period of peace and prosperity in America and certainly in Europe. If I might add briefly, although the circumstances and challenges we face at this moment in our Nation's history are much less greater than America faced on June 6, 1944, nonetheless, there is a certain absence of hopefulness and confidence today. I would respectfully suggest that one of the great sources of hopefulness and confidence that we all could benefit from today is exactly the faith in God in a very inclusive way such as President Roosevelt spoke on that fateful day of June 6, 1944. Again, with thanks to my friend from Ohio for this idea and for his generosity of spirit in inviting me to join both in sponsoring this proposal and in reading this prayer today, I yield the floor back to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Jan Karski, who, as a young officer in the Polish Underground during the Second World War, was among the first to provide eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust to the world. Shaped by his own personal loss during one of the darkest hours in human history, Dr. Karski had the moral clarity to make distinctions between good and evil, and the personal courage to speak out and fight for good and against evil. After being captured and tortured by the Nazis, Dr. Karski escaped and became a courier for the Polish Underground, smuggling information out of Poland to the Polish government-in-exile. Among his many missions, Dr. Karski, who was Roman Catholic, twice infiltrated Warsaw's Jewish Ghetto through a series of underground tunnels disguised as a Nazi auxiliary guard. Dr. Karski showed fearlessness in the face of a regime built on fear, and he was not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom and take on the enemies of freedom. In 1943, Dr. Karski traveled to the United Kingdom and the United States, where he was the first credible eyewitness to brief British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden and President Roosevelt about the Holocaust in an effort to build international pressure against Hitler and the Nazi regime. While his pleas did not lead to the quick action that they deserved, Dr. Karski persisted in reporting on the brutality that would ultimately prompt meaningful international intervention. After the war, Dr. Karski resettled in the United States, where he earned his doctorate from Georgetown University and taught for 4 decades, warning generations of students about the dangers of authoritarianism, including one notable student: President Bill Clinton. During his lifetime and following his death in 2000, Jan Karski was and has been the recipient of dozens of international awards honoring his courageous work. I was proud to join my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Levin, and Cardin last year in writing to President Obama to urge his consideration of Dr. Karski for highest civilian honor--the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I am delighted that President Obama announced at the Holocaust Memorial Museum last month that Dr. Karski will be honored posthumously with the award later this month. The choice to confront tyranny is not an easy one, but it is America's responsibility and purpose as a Nation. Through his decades of devoted service, Jan Karksi carried out this mission and lived its values. And in doing so, he was a champion of the cause that has defined our country since its birth--the cause that has given us an enduring purpose and a national destiny: the cause of human freedom. I am encouraged to know that there are efforts underway to ensure that Jan Karski's story is shared widely in the years ahead and in particular during 2014, which will mark the centennial of his birth. Jan Karski's example should inspire in us the belief that courageous and determined people can help to shape the course of human history for the better and remind us what is required to ensure that when we say Never Again, it will truly mean Never Again.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 6, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a Committee hearing entitled ``Implementing Wall Street Reform: Enhancing Bank Supervision and Reducing Systemic Risk.''