Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment by the Senator from Illinois, and in that sense to support the very balanced formula in our underlying bill which gives most of the money in homeland security grant funding based on risk but acknowledges that every State faces the threat of terrorism and therefore deserves some minimum amount of funding. This amendment essentially raises the same points that the amendment offered by the Senator from California did, which my colleagues were just good enough to table. The amendment of the Senator from Illinois would leave 32 of our States with less guaranteed funding than the underlying bill, S. 4. I urge my colleagues to support the committee bill and oppose this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10- minute votes as opposed to 15.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I now move to table the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in SH-216, Senate Hart Office Building. The subject of this committee hearing will be ``Child Nutrition and the School Setting.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 6, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on care, living conditions, and administration of outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at 2:15 p.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?--Part II'' on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List: H.E. ``Bud'' Cummins, III, Former U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR. David C. Iglesias, Former U.S. Attorney, District of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. Carol Lam, Former U.S. Attorney, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA. John McKay, Former U.S. Attorney, Western District of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in the Cannon Caucus Room, to hear the legislative presentation of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 6, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we return now to S. 4, Improving America's Security Act. This is the legislation that emerged from the Homeland Security Committee in response to the appeals of the members of the 9/11 Commission, and others, to finish the job we began with the previous 9/11 legislation we adopted. We made some progress last week in the first two days of consideration of the bill. We will have a vote sometime tomorrow on the motion to strike the provision of the bill that would give equal rights to transportation security officers at the TSA. We will begin debate sometime this afternoon on alternative proposals to those presented in S. 4 for distributing homeland security grant funds. We have important matters to debate and vote on in the next few days. I know Senator Reid and, I hope, Senator McConnell want to finish this bill--that is, to bring it to passage--by the end of this week. I remind colleagues that S. 4 was reported out of the Homeland Security Committee on a strong nonpartisan vote, 16 to 0, with one member abstaining. I thought, as we return to the consideration of S. 4, I might go back to a hearing our committee held on January 9 to consider this legislation, particularly to draw from the testimony of three of the witnesses before the committee that day, three women who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. This is a way, before we get into the details of the bill, to remind ourselves why this legislation is before us and what it is all about. Those three women who testified before our committee on that day, shortly after the 110th session of Congress convened, were Mary Fetchet, Carol Ashley, and Carie Lemack. These three women, as many Members know because we have come to know them, have worked tirelessly in the last five and a half years to take their grief, their loss, and bring it into the public square, to the Congress, to the place where laws are made, to do everything in their power to ensure that the tragic losses they suffered on that day would not have to be suffered by any other American in the future. Their work produced the 9/11 Commission itself. It was a tough battle to actually create the 9/11 Commission. People were defensive. They didn't want it to be done by an independent commission. They wondered why it was necessary. But with the help of these women, we won that battle. Then when the Commission reported in 2004, we worked very hard with their help to adopt most of the recommendations of the Commission by the end of that year. This included the creation of the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate all of our intelligence, so we can now connect the dots to stop a terrorist act before it occurs; and the National Counterterrorism Center, which is now up and running and doing the same. The statements of Mary Fetchet, Carol Ashley, and Carie Lemack at our Committee's hearing explain the importance of the legislation, S. 4, that is now before the Senate, and particularly the responsibility we in Congress have to continue the unfinished work of implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and of fixing the inadequate implementation of some of those recommendations or other gaps we have discovered since in our homeland security. I want to talk about these three brave, patriotic women one by one, describe briefly who they are, and then quote from their testimony. Mary Fetchet lost her son Brad, age 24, in Tower 2 of the World Trade Center on September 11. She is the founding director of the group called Voices of September 11th. At our hearing on January 9, Mary testified as follows: I have made a personal commitment to advocate for the full implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations driven by the ``wake-up'' call when my son was senselessly murdered by terrorists on 9/11. It is my personal belief that almost six years later our country remains vulnerable, and although some progress has been made, much work remains ahead. We collectively--the administration, Congress, government agencies and interested individuals--have a moral obligation and responsibility to work together to ensure our government is taking the necessary steps to make our country safer. ``A moral obligation and responsibility,'' as we debate the details of this legislation and consider the parliamentary tactics related to it this week on the floor of the Senate, that is, after all, what binds all of us together, certainly across party lines, in this body and around America--``a moral obligation and responsibility.'' Those were the words of Mary Fetchet. Carol Ashley lost her daughter Janice, age 25, in Tower 1 of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Carol has served on the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission, which worked to help pass the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. At our January committee hearing, Carol Ashley also discussed the importance of the legislation the Senate is considering today. I quote again: Along with other members of the Family Steering Committee, I worked for passage of intelligence reform legislation in 2004 based on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Our goal was to make our nation as secure as possible to reduce the chances that any other American families would lose a loved one to terrorism. Unfortunately, that bill did not fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Some that were included were not as strong as they should have been. The result is that more than five years after 9/11, there are still gaps in our security. I continue to quote from Carol Ashley, mother of Janice, age 25, who was killed by the terrorists on 9/11 in the World Trade Center: Tightening our security and upgrading preparedness is urgent. Although five years have passed with no terrorist attack on our soil, there is no way to know when, where or how the terrorists will strike again. To fulfill its foremost obligation to protect the American people, Congress must ensure through legislation and oversight that comprehensive security safeguards are in place; and if the terrorists succeed in breaching our security, that our federal, state and local agencies are fully trained, equipped and prepared to respond cohesively. What we do here today is ``urgent,'' to use Carol's word. In the last week, there have been reports that al-Qaida and the Taliban are gaining strength in the lawless regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, establishing training bases once again, planning to attack the United States again. We know we face growing threats from citizens living in countries that are our allies, as we saw last August when British officials disrupted a plot to blow up airliners on their way from the United Kingdom to the United States. For these reasons and others, our task today is, in Carol Ashley's word, ``urgent.'' I hope we can--I am confident we will--overcome whatever divides us and work together to pass this legislation that will fulfill the powerful and relevant mandate of the 9/11 Commission. Finally, of these three women whose voices we should hear as we go through this debate this week, Carie Lemack's mother, Judy Larocque, was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 11 on September 11, 2001, which crashed into the World Trade Center. Like Mary and Carol, Carie has worked tirelessly in support of efforts to improve America's ability to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. She is a cofounder of the group known as Families of September 11. At our hearing in January, Carie also discussed the importance of fully implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report. I now quote from Carie Lemack at our hearing: The 9/11 Commission made 41 recommendations. Roughly half of these recommendations have already been implemented, thanks in no small part to the efforts of this committee. The fall of 2004 was an extraordinary time. Many of us were inspired by your willingness to spend weeks and months making sure the Commission's recommendations did not fall on deaf ears. The passage of the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act was an historic moment, of which we can all be proud. So much to be proud of, and yet so much more to do. More than five years after 9/11, the terrorist threat has inevitably grown a little more distant. Some experts are now telling us that it isn't as serious as we had thought. If al Qaeda is such a threat, why haven't we been attacked again? To answer that question, just ask the people of London, or Madrid, or Bali, or the other places where the terrorists have struck since 9/11. Then Carie Lemack said to our committee: The United States has not been attacked again. But we will be. Thanks to the work of so many dedicated public servants we are safer than we were. But in the words of 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, we are still not as safe as we need to be. Carie said: On the morning of September 11, 2001, my mother, Judy Larocque, left home to go on a business trip. She woke up early that day, at 5:30 a.m., in order to make her 8 o'clock flight to the West Coast. Oddly enough, even though I am not a morning person, I was up even before her that day, serving as a coxswain for the MIT graduate school crew team. As I glided on the Charles River that morning, I realized I could have called Mom before my 6 a.m. practice, just for a kick, since it was not often we were both up so early. But I didn't, thinking she might be running late (a trait she passed down to me and my sister) and knowing it would be easier to talk later in the day, once her cross-country flight landed. I never did get to talk to Mom that morning, though I left many messages on her cell phone. To this day, I still find myself looking at my caller ID whenever the phone rings, waiting for it to say ``Mom's cell,'' waiting for the call from her that I never got that gorgeous fall morning. I often think about what I would tell Mom if she called. I dream about it all the time. She was founder and CEO of a company, so I sometimes think I might tell her about founding the non-profit organization Families of September 11, which represents more than 2,500 individuals who chose to join our group and support the terrorism prevention work we do. I might tell her about the opportunities I have had in the past five years that she could never have predicted, like testifying before this esteemed committee today. But the most important thing I could possibly tell her is that I love her, and that I am doing everything in my power to make sure what happened to her never happens again. That would come as no surprise to Mom. She brought my sister and me up to fix wrongs and make them rights. Carie Lemack concluded, before our committee: Today I am asking you to fix a small number of important wrongs, and make them right. Some of the important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report have still not been implemented. I raise them not in the spirit of placing blame or making accusations, but rather in the hope that together we can own up to gaps, failures and mistakes in the past, so that we are not condemned to repeat them in the future. End of a very deeply personal, compelling quote. It moved everybody in the room that day, as it moves me to read those words on the floor here today. So much more to do, my colleagues. As Carie Lemack said, ``so much more to do.'' That is why we are here: to work together, and continue to improve upon the critical tasks that we have left undone and unfinished. That is our responsibility to Mary, Carol, Carie, and the tens of thousands of other Americans and citizens of nearly every nation on this globe who lost loved ones on September 11. We must work hard and never grow complacent as we face these challenges, in the same way that the generations who fought in World War II and the Cold War never grew complacent in the face of the threats to their freedom as Americans from fascism and communism. That is what we are debating today. That is the significance of S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. That is why I thank my colleagues for their attention, for their dedication to getting this right, and for the debates and votes we will conduct in the days ahead, leading, I am confident, by the end of this week, to the passage of this critically important legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, what a pleasure to see you as the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I first thank the Senator from Kansas for his very compelling statement in which he speaks not so much on behalf of Kansas as based on his experience as the immediate past chair of the Intelligence Committee. He speaks to the threat of agro- terrorism. We ought to start talking about it in that way again because it makes it so real. Like so many of the vulnerabilities we have in this terrorist age, where we have to worry about things we could not have imagined before, these are things we have to now both imagine and defend against. That is part of the capacity that will be preserved in the funding formula that is fair and balanced found in the underlying bill, S. 4. I rise to oppose the Feinstein amendment. Senator Feinstein's amendment is actually one of three that will be introduced to change the funding formula for homeland security and natural disasters security that is in this underlying bill. Senator Obama has one which he will introduce tomorrow, Senator Feinstein has introduced this today, both of which would reduce the minimum first aid share. Senator Obama's would reduce the guaranteed funding share for 32 of the States in the country as compared to S. 4, the bill under consideration; and Senator Feinstein's would actually reduce the funding, as the chart Senator Collins held up indicates, for 34 of the States of our Union. Senator Leahy of Vermont will introduce an amendment that will increase the minimum per State to .75 percent of the total. In some sense, with two amendments trying to cut back the minimum per State and one intending to increase it, I hope that it suggests that Senator Collins and I and our committee have found a reasonable middle ground that gives most of the money to the States based on risk but recognizes that the risk to homeland security is national and not confined to the larger cities or the most prominent targets, as Senator Collins and Senator Roberts have made clear. We know, tragically from terrorist acts across the world, that terrorists have struck discotheques, schools in smaller town areas, and obviously metros and subways in other areas. Our proposal gives out most of the money based both on risk and a minimum per State so they can deal with their own local vulnerabilities. The members of the committee chose, I believe in our good judgment in this case, to establish the Homeland Security Department as an all-hazards protection department, not just protection against the terrorism we fear after 9/11, which we have, as I said earlier, a moral responsibility to protect the American people from. At the same time, because there is overlap, we can enable the States and localities and the Federal Government to protect their citizens against the impact and harm caused by natural disasters. In that sense, the funding formula in the underlying bill, S. 4, not only embraces and implements the lessons learned from 9/11 but also the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. It accurately reflects the world we live in today, a world where we know we have to protect the American people from acts of humans while also being able to respond to acts of nature. The second point I want to make is that these fights over funding formulas--and this is what we are in now--are well-intentioned, they are spirited, and they are important, but we must not be distracted from the larger point here, if I may say so respectfully, which is that it is not only who gets how much of the pie that is important, but equally important, perhaps ultimately more important, is the question of: How big is the pie? How much money is our country, our Federal Government, prepared to invest in protecting the security of the American people from another terrorist attack or from a natural disaster? I am very proud that this bill, S. 4, authorizes significant additional funds for homeland security grants and related grants, restoring, in the case of homeland security grants, overall funding to the fiscal year 2004 level of $3.1 billion for each of the next 3 years. The fact is, shockingly, if we stop to think about it, that the administration has recommended cuts in homeland security grant funding since 2004. The threat has not gone down. We know, in fact, of publicly reported intelligence that al-Qaida and the Taliban are again amassing in the area of the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan, that training camps are being established there again, and that people are coming to train not just to fight in Afghanistan but with the heightened probability that they will plan terrorist attacks against the rest of the world, including American targets. Nonetheless, the funding for these homeland security grants has gone down over the last 3 years. What is our goal? It is not a lavish or radical one in terms of funding. This bill proposes to take us back to the level at which we were funding one category of grants, homeland security grants, to where it was in fiscal year 2004, $3.1 billion, and to continue that at that same level for the next 3 years. If we do that, this legislation will send a strong signal that this trend of cutting homeland security funding is over. It will send a message that we are not disarming our first responders, or squeezing them as they attempt to protect us and prevent terrorist attacks. This increase in funding will also send another message. Just as we support our troops fighting in the war on terrorism throughout the world, we need to adequately support our troops, I would call them, our first responders, our firefighters, our police, and our emergency response personnel. We need to support those who are on the front lines fighting for us, protecting us when disaster strikes right here at home in the United States. While we go on with this debate on these three amendments that seek to alter the funding formula in the underlying bill, S. 4, I hope we will all keep in mind that this legislation authorizes, and if adequately funded by our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, a significant expansion in the size of America's homeland security grant funding pie. I also will talk briefly about the specific programs this legislation will authorize that the three amendments, Senator Feinstein's, Senator Obama's, and Senator Leahy's, would alter, two cutting and one adding to our allocation to each State in the country. Two of the four funding programs dealt with in this underlying bill are devoted specifically to dealing with the risk of terrorism, to improving the capacity of State and local responders to do exactly that. Two others are also designed to address all hazards; in some sense to maximize what we get for our investment. When I say ``all hazards,'' I am speaking of natural disasters. As we saw in Katrina, that can cause as much or, in some cases, more damage to our country and our people than a terrorist attack. Let me go first to risk-based funding for urban areas, one of the four programs. S. 4 authorizes in law the Urban Area Security Initiative, known in the field as UASI, to assist high-risk urban areas in preventing, preparing for, and responding to acts of terrorism. All UASI funds would be given to the urban area based on risk--totally based on risk--from a terrorist attack and the effectiveness of the proposed uses in addressing that risk. There is no minimum funding per state or locality. It is totally up to the Department of Homeland Security's assessment of risk. The 100 largest metropolitan areas in the United States would be eligible to apply for funding. I am pleased to say here, too, we increased the funding; $1.279 billion would be authorized for UASI for each of the next three years, which is significantly more than the $770 million provided this year or the $800 million proposed in the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget. The second risk-based funding for states, the other program designed specifically to help state and local officials cope with the risk of terrorism, is the State Homeland Security Grant Program. S. 4 authorizes this program to be funded at $913 million for each of the next three years to assist state, local and tribal governments in preventing, preparing for, and responding to acts of terrorism. This is a significant increase over the $550 million that would go to this State Homeland Security Grant Program this year, not to mention the $250 million cut of the $300 million of the President's proposed budget in this program for fiscal year 2008. Most important--and I think it is very significant with all that will be said about the formulas--as we calculated under the approach of S. 4, an estimated 95 percent of these so-called SHSGP funds, State Homeland Security Grant Program funds, would be given out based on risk to the state from a terrorist attack, and on effectiveness of the proposed uses in addressing that risk. While each state would be assured of receiving a minimum of .45 percent of the overall funds of this program, the Department will calculate distributions based on risk first and then only make any adjustments necessary to bring all the states up to the guaranteed minimum. As we apply the formula of risk allocation that the Department applied this year, we come to the conclusion that 95 percent of these funds would actually be distributed based on risk. The third program: All-Hazards Emergency Management Funding. This is a reorganized, refocused, and greatly increased program that will have tremendous effect in protecting the American people from all hazards, man-made and natural. S. 4 authorizes what we call the Emergency Management Performance Grants Program, EMPG, to assist states in preparing for and responding to all hazards, including natural disasters, other manmade disasters, and terrorism. The legislation significantly increases the authorization amount for this critically important program from about $200 million to $913 million for each of the next three years. That is obviously a significant increase, four and a half times what it is now. Each state would receive a base amount of .75 percent of the overall funds, with the remaining funds distributed in proportion to a state's population, which continues the current allocation practice. This program, as I have said, is an all- hazards program. Every state in the country is vulnerable or subject to be the target of some kind of hazard, whether it is terrorism or a natural disaster that is different depending on which part of the country you are in, which is a hurricane, a tornado--as we have seen occur last week with devastating effect on our fellow Americans, earthquake--of which we have seen too many taking precious lives and destroying property all across our country. I speak of these natural disasters. These are risks that all States face so we think it appropriate to ensure that each State receives .75 percent of the overall funding. Finally, the fourth program is Dedicated Grants for Communications Interoperability. In our committee, Senator Collins and I worked very hard on this, and I must say we are very proud to establish this grant program. It is dedicated to improving communications operability and interoperability at local, regional, state and federal levels. We have been through this on the floor before. We saw both on 9/11 and in Hurricane Katrina, when first responders cannot talk to one another because they have different radio systems or they can't talk at all because the systems have broken down, response to the disaster is greatly compromised and lives are lost. That is exactly what we are aiming to prevent with this. Incidentally, this is a problem that is not new with 9/11 or with Hurricane Katrina. The truth is, it has gone on unsolved for years, even though we had evidence of it from 1982, when Air Florida crashed in Washington, to the 1995 attack on the Alfred E. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School near Little, Colorado. In each of those cases, there were communication breakdowns, not as well known as those on 9/11, that compromised the response and compromised the safety of our fellow Americans. This is a national problem. It affects all states. That is why we propose that each state would receive a minimum of .75 percent of the total funds. This legislation authorizes a total of $3.3 billion spread out over five years for this communications interoperability grant program. I wish to stress here about this and about the Homeland Security Grant Programs, that we are mindful of the few cases--but too often cited by critics--in which local governments have used grant money under these programs in ways that do not, to any of us, seem like they relate. In the case of interoperability communications, we state very clearly in the bill that to qualify for these programs you have to make a proposal that is not just something the local law enforcement chief thinks would be a nice thing to have, it has to be consistent with a state's emergency communications plan in the National Emergency Communications Plan. Otherwise, states are simply not going to receive funding. The same is true in the Homeland Security Grant Fund Program. One of the bases of the judgments of the use of the funds is clearly stated: ``The effectiveness of the proposed use in addressing that risk.'' In the few cases where sadly, infuriatingly, Homeland Security grant money has been spent on things that don't seem at all to be related to homeland security, in the language under S. 4, we are going to stop that from happening and guarantee that this money is spent in a way that will increase the American people's sense of security from terrorists and natural disasters. I believe these four programs together, if enacted and properly funded, will make our country much safer. They will provide the men and women on the front lines here at home with the essential tools they need to protect the American people and save lives. They will make sure that funds targeted for building terrorism-specific capability go out overwhelmingly to those states and urban areas that our intelligence and our common sense tells us are most at risk from terrorist attack. But they will also provide funds that are adequate in the post- 9/11, post-Katrina world, to make sure that all states can prepare for and be ready to respond to disasters. This is going to be an important debate. I look forward to participating in it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, I ask that all time be yielded back.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 328 be modified, with the changes at the desk.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the America COMPETES Act. I am pleased to join Senators Reid and McConnell in introducing this bipartisan bill that addresses the challenges in keeping the U.S. competitive in the global economy. The Council on Competitiveness, through their ``Innovate America'' report, and the National Academies, through the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, made it clear that we owe the economic vitality of the Nation to the productivity of highly trained people and the innovations they produce. This bill addresses recommendations in these reports to support the Nation's future health, vitality and economic prosperity. Only 29 percent of Americans believe the United States has the most innovative economy in the world. Nearly half choose China or Japan instead. Why? The No. 1 reason cited by Americans is that these other countries are more committed to their education, their youth or their schools. We need this to change. This bill addresses new and expanded approaches to science education and research to meet the future needs of our children and the Nation. Tests show that U.S. students are behind other developed nations in math and science. We also found out in February that seniors in high school cannot read as well as seniors back in 1992. This is telling us that in some areas we are moving backwards. A good education is every child's way to realize his and her American dream. We must keep moving forward. We need to consider how we can help our Nation's top universities lead some of their best and brightest students, especially in STEM and critical foreign languages, into successful teaching careers. This bill encourages integrated college math, science, engineering and foreign language programs with teacher development programs to produce certified, knowledgeable teachers in areas with critical needs. The resulting teachers will have the teaching credentials and, importantly, the necessary content expertise in STEM disciplines with the hope of improving student interest and achievement in STEM areas and critical foreign languages. New teachers are but a small portion of those teaching in STEM classrooms each year across the country. These new instructors need support and mentoring from established teachers. This bill supports master's degree programs for existing teachers seeking to enhance their content knowledge, teaching skills and leadership in STEM and foreign languages. Teachers in these programs study part-time over 2 to 3 years to obtain master's degrees. These programs also prepare them for leadership roles in their schools through participation in, for example, mentoring activities, math and science curriculum enhancements, teacher development, and student achievement evaluations and assessments. It is troubling that many students with their newly-obtained high school diplomas find themselves unprepared for college or the workforce. It is time to ensure that high schools prepare their students for the future. To do this right, States must start aligning what children learn starting in kindergarten, or earlier, to meet the evolving higher education and business needs for the 21st century and beyond. High schools are not preparing students for college or the workforce. We know that middle and high school students engaged in challenging coursework attend and succeed in college at a greater rate than those who follow programs of study without rigorous content. What happens to the others? To start, more than a quarter of college students end up taking remedial classes. The percentage is much higher, more than two in five, at institutions with large minority enrollments. We need to prepare for the future through college-ready course content and appropriate assessment standards all the way up through our high school and continue that rigor until completion of college. I am pleased that this legislation contains many of the components of S. 109-2337, the College Pathways Act of 2006, a bill I introduced to increase access to postsecondary education through better alignment of curriculum and enhanced data systems. High-quality data systems are also critical to improve schools and student outcomes. Accountability for high school graduation numbers and drop-out rates is important to addressing education reform in our high schools. States and schools need data systems to trace successful educational outcomes back to specific programs, coursework and interventions. They need to know what works and what doesn't work. Unique identifier for students from pre-kindergarten through college will permit States to analyze school progress. Test results, grades, college-readiness assessments, assigned teachers and whether students needed remedial courses in college can all go into the data system. This information should provide feedback to make needed improvements while expanding and rewarding areas of success. The legislation specifies that the unique student identifier could be a bar code. That is appropriate. Bar codes and scanners were created and expanded in the U.S. in part through federally funded research. The National Science Foundation, NSF, funded research on scanners starting back in the 1970s that made accurate bar codes a reality. Few realized at the time the eventual widespread use of the technology. But this is an example of the kinds of basic research investments in innovation and ingenuity that drive much of our economy. NSF is the principal agency sustaining basic research in all science and engineering fields. Basic research outcomes have led to many important innovations, stimulating economic growth and improving the quality of life for all Americans. This legislation increases the Nation's investment in this innovation by doubling the overall funding for NSF from approximately $5.6 billion in 2006 to $11.2 billion in 2011. NSF's three strategic goals for its portfolio are discovery, learning, and research infrastructure. These goals match up directly with the three primary areas of the America Competes Act: increased research investment, STEM education, and innovative infrastructure. To encourage more students to enter technical professions, this legislation increases Federal support for STEM graduate fellowships and trainee programs by expanding the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program by 1,250 fellowships. These fellowships follow the students permitting the greatest flexibility in choosing graduate programs that best fit their needs and interests. We also expand the NSF Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeship, IGERT, program by 1,250 new traineeships. In the IGERT program, grants are awarded to universities to develop cross- disciplinary training programs for students in areas including science, math, engineering, and policy. The program is intended to produce a change by establishing innovative new models for graduate education and training that reach across traditional disciplinary boundaries. It is also intended to facilitate diversity in student participation, and to contribute to a world-class, broadly inclusive, and globally engaged science and engineering workforce. This legislation further addresses the issue of improving talent in scientific disciplines by expanding the existing STEM Talent Expansion Program, STEP, to the scope originally intended. The STEP, or Tech Talent program, which I first proposed in October 2001, provides competitive grants to undergraduate institutions to develop new methods of increasing the number of students earning degrees in science, math, and engineering. It is essential that we increase the number of college graduates with the skills to contribute to the science and technology workforce, yet this program has never been fully funded. The Department of Energy's Office of Science is the principal Federal agency for research in high energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences. This legislation puts the Office of Science on a doubling track, over 10 years, reaching more than $5.2 billion in 2011. We create important educational opportunities through Centers of Excellence in Mathematics and Science. These centers bring together our premier National Laboratories as partners with high-need high schools. National Laboratories also will host summer teacher institutes and will provide expert assistance to teachers at specialty schools in math and science. The bill also creates an ``Innovation Acceleration Grants'' program to stimulate high-risk research by setting a goal for Federal research agencies to allocate no less than 8 percent of their current R&D budgets to breakthrough research--the kind of research that gave us fiber optics, the Internet and countless other technologies relied on every day in this country and around the world. We anticipate this funding would be used for ``grand challenges'' and other transformation research at the frontiers of discovery and innovation. We must continue to encourage the groundbreaking experimentation and longer term outlook that made this country great. I am pleased to join my colleagues in this bipartisan effort to address the science, technology and education needs that will fuel innovation and continue to drive American growth and prosperity. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and support its passage.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the America COMPETES Act. I am pleased to join Senators Reid and McConnell in introducing this bipartisan bill that addresses the challenges in keeping the U.S. competitive in the global economy. The Council on Competitiveness, through their ``Innovate America'' report, and the National Academies, through the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, made it clear that we owe the economic vitality of the Nation to the productivity of highly trained people and the innovations they produce. This bill addresses recommendations in these reports to support the Nation's future health, vitality and economic prosperity. Only 29 percent of Americans believe the United States has the most innovative economy in the world. Nearly half choose China or Japan instead. Why? The No. 1 reason cited by Americans is that these other countries are more committed to their education, their youth or their schools. We need this to change. This bill addresses new and expanded approaches to science education and research to meet the future needs of our children and the Nation. Tests show that U.S. students are behind other developed nations in math and science. We also found out in February that seniors in high school cannot read as well as seniors back in 1992. This is telling us that in some areas we are moving backwards. A good education is every child's way to realize his and her American dream. We must keep moving forward. We need to consider how we can help our Nation's top universities lead some of their best and brightest students, especially in STEM and critical foreign languages, into successful teaching careers. This bill encourages integrated college math, science, engineering and foreign language programs with teacher development programs to produce certified, knowledgeable teachers in areas with critical needs. The resulting teachers will have the teaching credentials and, importantly, the necessary content expertise in STEM disciplines with the hope of improving student interest and achievement in STEM areas and critical foreign languages. New teachers are but a small portion of those teaching in STEM classrooms each year across the country. These new instructors need support and mentoring from established teachers. This bill supports master's degree programs for existing teachers seeking to enhance their content knowledge, teaching skills and leadership in STEM and foreign languages. Teachers in these programs study part-time over 2 to 3 years to obtain master's degrees. These programs also prepare them for leadership roles in their schools through participation in, for example, mentoring activities, math and science curriculum enhancements, teacher development, and student achievement evaluations and assessments. It is troubling that many students with their newly-obtained high school diplomas find themselves unprepared for college or the workforce. It is time to ensure that high schools prepare their students for the future. To do this right, States must start aligning what children learn starting in kindergarten, or earlier, to meet the evolving higher education and business needs for the 21st century and beyond. High schools are not preparing students for college or the workforce. We know that middle and high school students engaged in challenging coursework attend and succeed in college at a greater rate than those who follow programs of study without rigorous content. What happens to the others? To start, more than a quarter of college students end up taking remedial classes. The percentage is much higher, more than two in five, at institutions with large minority enrollments. We need to prepare for the future through college-ready course content and appropriate assessment standards all the way up through our high school and continue that rigor until completion of college. I am pleased that this legislation contains many of the components of S. 109-2337, the College Pathways Act of 2006, a bill I introduced to increase access to postsecondary education through better alignment of curriculum and enhanced data systems. High-quality data systems are also critical to improve schools and student outcomes. Accountability for high school graduation numbers and drop-out rates is important to addressing education reform in our high schools. States and schools need data systems to trace successful educational outcomes back to specific programs, coursework and interventions. They need to know what works and what doesn't work. Unique identifier for students from pre-kindergarten through college will permit States to analyze school progress. Test results, grades, college-readiness assessments, assigned teachers and whether students needed remedial courses in college can all go into the data system. This information should provide feedback to make needed improvements while expanding and rewarding areas of success. The legislation specifies that the unique student identifier could be a bar code. That is appropriate. Bar codes and scanners were created and expanded in the U.S. in part through federally funded research. The National Science Foundation, NSF, funded research on scanners starting back in the 1970s that made accurate bar codes a reality. Few realized at the time the eventual widespread use of the technology. But this is an example of the kinds of basic research investments in innovation and ingenuity that drive much of our economy. NSF is the principal agency sustaining basic research in all science and engineering fields. Basic research outcomes have led to many important innovations, stimulating economic growth and improving the quality of life for all Americans. This legislation increases the Nation's investment in this innovation by doubling the overall funding for NSF from approximately $5.6 billion in 2006 to $11.2 billion in 2011. NSF's three strategic goals for its portfolio are discovery, learning, and research infrastructure. These goals match up directly with the three primary areas of the America Competes Act: increased research investment, STEM education, and innovative infrastructure. To encourage more students to enter technical professions, this legislation increases Federal support for STEM graduate fellowships and trainee programs by expanding the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program by 1,250 fellowships. These fellowships follow the students permitting the greatest flexibility in choosing graduate programs that best fit their needs and interests. We also expand the NSF Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeship, IGERT, program by 1,250 new traineeships. In the IGERT program, grants are awarded to universities to develop cross- disciplinary training programs for students in areas including science, math, engineering, and policy. The program is intended to produce a change by establishing innovative new models for graduate education and training that reach across traditional disciplinary boundaries. It is also intended to facilitate diversity in student participation, and to contribute to a world-class, broadly inclusive, and globally engaged science and engineering workforce. This legislation further addresses the issue of improving talent in scientific disciplines by expanding the existing STEM Talent Expansion Program, STEP, to the scope originally intended. The STEP, or Tech Talent program, which I first proposed in October 2001, provides competitive grants to undergraduate institutions to develop new methods of increasing the number of students earning degrees in science, math, and engineering. It is essential that we increase the number of college graduates with the skills to contribute to the science and technology workforce, yet this program has never been fully funded. The Department of Energy's Office of Science is the principal Federal agency for research in high energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences. This legislation puts the Office of Science on a doubling track, over 10 years, reaching more than $5.2 billion in 2011. We create important educational opportunities through Centers of Excellence in Mathematics and Science. These centers bring together our premier National Laboratories as partners with high-need high schools. National Laboratories also will host summer teacher institutes and will provide expert assistance to teachers at specialty schools in math and science. The bill also creates an ``Innovation Acceleration Grants'' program to stimulate high-risk research by setting a goal for Federal research agencies to allocate no less than 8 percent of their current R&D budgets to breakthrough research--the kind of research that gave us fiber optics, the Internet and countless other technologies relied on every day in this country and around the world. We anticipate this funding would be used for ``grand challenges'' and other transformation research at the frontiers of discovery and innovation. We must continue to encourage the groundbreaking experimentation and longer term outlook that made this country great. I am pleased to join my colleagues in this bipartisan effort to address the science, technology and education needs that will fuel innovation and continue to drive American growth and prosperity. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and support its passage.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing entitled, A Review of the Transportation Security Administration Personnel System.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

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