Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 28, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a markup on the Omnibus Budget for Senate Committees.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request for the Small Business Administration,'' on Wednesday, February 28, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in Room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Wednesday, February 28, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Special Committee on Aging

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Wednesday, February 28, 2007, from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing. Re: The Aging Workforce: What Does It Mean for Businesses and the Economy.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of cloture on the upcoming vote on S. 4, which is the bill relating to the 9/11 Commission implementation. I just saw, as I came into the Senate Chamber, outside in the reception room a handful of people whom I would call American heroes. These are women who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001, when terrorists brutally attacked innocent Americans here on our shores, in our homeland. They have taken their grief and worked very hard with many of us here, first to get the Congress and the administration to agree on the 9/11 Commission and then, when that Commission came in with its extraordinary findings and report, worked with us to see that legislation was passed which would implement so many of its recommendations. That was a remarkable bipartisan achievement which I believe has made our Nation safer from terrorist attack but not as safe as we need to be. In the time that followed, the 9/11 Commissioners themselves asked us to come back and implement the unimplemented parts of their original report or to go back and take another look at the parts they believed and we believed were not adequately implemented or funded, such as homeland security grants or money for interoperable communication systems that in a time of emergency, after a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, enable our first responders to speak to each other in order to adequately and promptly protect us. These women who are outside the Chamber, whom I saw as I came in, are here today to persuade the Senate to begin debate on legislation to fulfill the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. The legislation, S. 4, came out of our committee, and it was an honor and a pleasure, as always, to work with Senator Collins. The bill passed our committee with 16 votes in the affirmative and one abstention. It is a very significant, solid piece of work and will make America and the American people even safer. Is it a perfect piece of work? No. We expect that many of our colleagues will look at different parts of the bill and will want to offer amendments. That is the nature of this process, and we look forward to a good, healthy debate. There is a sense of urgency, however. We are talking about homeland security. We are talking about continuing to raise our guard against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, 2001 and who we know are planning and intending to attack us again in this most unconventional and deadly warfare on behalf of a totalitarian ideology, radical Islam, which threatens us as much as the totalitarian ideologies we defeated in the last century. Together, both here at home and throughout the world, we will defeat this threat. I wish to indicate that most of the bill before us, S. 4, came out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. There are other parts that came out of the Commerce and Banking Committees, and they, in the ongoing process, will be blended with our bill. I hope all of the Members of the Senate will vote for cloture so we can proceed to the debate, consider the amendments, get the bill passed, meet with the House in conference, and get a good bill to the President to sign that will build on the security enhancements we have achieved since that dark day of 9/11. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield back all the remaining time, and I ask for a vote.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak about S. 4, but I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for his report. It was very interesting for me to hear, and he will probably not be surprised to hear I was both encouraged and in agreement with a lot of what he had to say. I particularly heard that Senator Kyl found in the field the first reactions to the implementation of the new plan for Iraq have been encouraging. We all understand it is early, but it conforms with what I have heard from people I have spoken to from Iraq, in that particularly in the neighborhoods in which the joint United States-Iraqi security forces have established dominance in Baghdad, there has been a remarkable and significant drop in the sectarian violence via death squads. Obviously, it is still possible, if someone is crazy enough to be prepared to blow themselves up in a car in a crowd, that the bombings will occur, but I appreciate that encouragement. I also agree with Senator Kyl that both Houses of Congress spoke on these nonbinding resolutions. My colleague and I were both against them. So I suppose what it shows is at this point there is a majority in both Chambers, although not 60 votes here, that is prepared to say in a nonbinding resolution they don't support the new plan, which Senator Kyl and I would say is a new plan to achieve success in Iraq, but that there clearly, in my opinion, are not the votes, not a majority in either Chamber, to do anything else, and certainly not to cut off funding for the new plan, which is the specific authority Congress is given in the Constitution. So I want to echo what I heard Senator Kyl say, which is that I think this is the moment for a pause over on this side for what I have called a truce in the political war here about the war in Iraq. Let's give General Petraeus and his troops an opportunity to make this work. If, God forbid, they don't, then there will be plenty of time for amendments and resolutions and all the rest because between now and then--General Petraeus said to us, when he was here before the Armed Services Committee, that by the summer he would have an idea, based on some evidence, of whether the new plan was working, and he would report to us. He will begin to report quite soon, I think, on what he is seeing. Since I don't see that there is anything that will pass both Houses, certainly nothing that will pass both Houses and be signed by the President to try to block the carrying out of this new strategy, then I think everybody would gain if we just did something that doesn't come naturally to us, which is to remain silent for a while--particularly if the sound and the fury will ultimately accomplish nothing between now and then. I thank my friend from Arizona. Madam President, I rise to speak about S. 4. I thank my colleagues for voting overwhelmingly to invoke cloture on S. 4. The bill, if I understand the state of parliamentary play now, actually will not be formally before the Senate for debate and amendments until tomorrow morning. But I thought I might expedite the matter--because this is a big bill, it is an important bill, there will be many amendments; I think we will be on it several days--if I came over and offered my opening statement on the bill today. I believe Senator Collins, the ranking Republican member on the committee, may intend, as her schedule allows, to do the same. Incidentally, Senator Collins and I have--what was for me an honor-- worked very closely together on this bill to bring it out of committee. I am very pleased the final vote was across party lines: 16 in favor, 1 abstention. So we bring the bill to the floor with a real sense of bipartisanship. The bill represents the hard work of the membership of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and includes provisions that are in the jurisdictions of other key committees as well, particularly Commerce and Banking, during which occasions Senator Inouye and Senator Dodd may exercise their right, with my encouragement, to manage those parts of the debate. I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for working with all of the committees that have contributed to this effort in bringing before the Senate this comprehensive legislation that I am convinced will make our country safer. I look forward to working in the days ahead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move the legislation through the Senate, into conference committee, and then ultimately to the President's desk for signature. September 11, 2001, shocked us. It was a tragedy of unspeakable proportions and human loss. It showed us, in that loss, how we had suffered from what the 9/11 Commission itself called a failure of imagination. By that they meant an inability to imagine that there were people in the world who would do something this outrageously inhuman, striking buildings, symbols of America, but without regard to the diversity of human beings in those buildings and the lives that they were leading. Someone said that on 9/11 the terrorists showed that they hate us more than they love their own lives. That awakened us to our vulnerability and brought us into a new age. I spoke, when I spoke on behalf of cloture, of the families of those we lost on 9/11 who have been persistent and honorable and inspiring advocates for closing the vulnerabilities that compromised and ended the lives of so many of their loved ones. They fought with us on behalf of the bill that Senator McCain and I introduced to create the 9/11 Commission. They then worked very hard to advocate for the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They deserve a lot of credit, as do a lot of other people in Congress and in the administration, for the passage of the 2004 intelligence reform legislation that adopted so many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In that bill we created a strong Director of National Intelligence to forge greater unity of effort among our intelligence agencies as they moved forward to inform us about the plans and activities and intentions of our enemies, to stop them before they strike us again. There are many reasons on this day we can be grateful that America has not been the victim of terrorist acts again. Some of it is just plain good fortune. Some of it, however, I think is the work of the agencies created by the 9/11 legislation in 2004. Some of it is, without doubt, a result of the grace of God. We created in that bill also a National Counterterrorism Center to improve interagency planning to achieve goals in the war against terrorism. One of the most exciting moments I have had as a Senator was to go out to the National Counterterrorism Center. I urge my colleagues to take the time. Established by the 9/11 legislation in 2004 to make sure, to use a very simplistic metaphor for a very complicated situation, that never again would our Government fail to connect the dots that would have presented the warning that a terrorist attack was coming. This National Counterterrorism Center is out there. It has all the relevant agencies, they are constantly streaming information, receiving information from around the country, around the world, and cooperating with one another to protect our security. We mandated in the 2004 legislation the development of an information sharing environment to facilitate the sharing of national-security-related information among the different branches and agencies of the Federal Government and also to make sure that the Federal, State, and local governments were cooperating. When you think about it, State and local first responders are not just first responders, they have the ability, with the hundreds of thousands of eyes and ears that they bring to law enforcement, to be also first preventers. That was a goal of the information sharing environment we established. In the 2004 legislation we made significant improvements to border and transportation security, focusing on aviation security, of course; building on legislation passed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, because of our obvious anger that the existing systems of our aviation structure were used to attack the American people directly. This is only a partial list of some of the significant achievements that resulted from that legislation that I am convinced improved our Nation's intelligence capability and the security of the American people at home. But we know from ongoing congressional oversight, from the work of the members of the 9/11 Commission who continued to be focused on our homeland security, and from common sense, that there is more to be done. Senator Reid made adoption of this 9/11 implementation legislation a priority for this Congress. At a hearing in January that I was privileged to call as the new chairman of our committee, Homeland Security, 9/11 Commissioners and family members of 9/11 victims urged us to go forward and finish the job that we started with the 2004 legislation: to implement parts of the report that were unimplemented by that legislation and to go back and look at some things that were not quite working right or were not fully implemented and see if we could do a better job to close some of the gaps that we left after 2004. Some of the important Commission recommendations we included in the Senate legislation in 2004 were taken out or diluted in conference. Other provisions that Congress did enact have unfortunately been implemented poorly. How important is it that we go ahead with this legislation to finish the job we started after the 9/11 Commission report? Let me quote from the 9/11 Report: The men and women of the World War II generation rose to the challenges of the 1940s and 1950s. They restructured the government so it could protect the country. That is now the job of the generation that experienced 9/ 11. Those attacks showed emphatically, that ways of doing business rooted in a different era are just not good enough. Americans should not settle for incremental, ad hoc, adjustments to a system designed generations ago for a world that no longer exists. This bill that we will begin considering in the Senate tomorrow continues the process of securing our Nation in this new era where our enemies don't wear the uniforms of soldiers or follow any traditional laws of combat but, rather, move silently among us, probing for weaknesses while plotting attacks on innocent civilians. This bill will strengthen our ability to respond to not just terrorist attacks but also preparing our Federal, State, and local governments to better respond to natural disasters. We are trying to create an attitude in this bill, an ``all hazards'' attitude that increases our homeland security against the threat of terrorist attack, but also, in doing so, prepares our Government to respond better to natural disasters--of course, thinking now of the extent to which our Government at all levels showed that it was incapable of responding adequately during Hurricane Katrina. Let me now discuss some of the important provisions in the bill. The first I want to talk about is information sharing. The 9/11 Report showed us that the different agencies had different pieces of information that should have aroused suspicion about the attack that came on 9/11, but because those pieces were never pulled together, there was no way to assemble that monstrous mosaic and to see the full picture it created so as to be able to stop it. One of the most important innovations since 9/11 is the establishment of fusion centers to share information within and between States. This legislation would improve the crucial sharing of intelligence and information both within the Federal Government and with State, local, and tribal governments, as well as creating standards for those State, local, and regional fusion centers that will be tied to the allocation of homeland security grants. While preserving the authority of State and local governments over fusion centers, this legislation, S. 4, requires DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, to provide essential elements of support and coordination to the centers. It authorizes the assignment of homeland security intelligence analysts to the centers to lend their expertise and to serve as a channel for information to and from the Federal Government. It also creates a program for State, local, and tribal officials to spend time at the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis to learn about its intelligence information sharing functions and to serve as a link to the State and local governments. This legislation also will strengthen the information sharing environment which we created in the 2004 legislation. It will enhance the authority of the Program Manager for that environment by allowing the issuance of Government-wide standards whereby all agencies of the Federal Government would be required to operate under the same rules and guidelines and would not be permitted to conceal information. The legislation, S. 4, would encourage the elimination of principles such as ``need to know'' which allow the holder of information in a given Federal agency to control its dissemination to other governmental agencies and, thus, act as a bureaucratic barrier to effective information sharing. We, instead, aim to encourage, through this legislation, the development of a ``need to share information'' culture in which information is made available--with appropriate safeguards, of course--to all who could make use of it in the war against terror. Let me go now to homeland security grants. This legislation will enhance homeland security grants to State and local governments and first responders. We simply have underfunded this critical element of homeland security. The first responders, first preventers, need more help to better protect their constituents, those who live in the areas they serve, from potential terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Our proposal, S. 4, would authorize over $3.5 billion for each of the next 3 years for key grant programs. It turns around a precipitous decline in funding for homeland security. It provides for a comprehensive system of both terrorism-oriented and all-hazards grants. It will ensure that grants primarily intended to bolster prevention of and preparedness for terrorist attacks will be distributed overwhelmingly based on the risk to an area from a terrorist attack. Our committee believes we have achieved a balanced proposal that gives most of the money out based on risk but still recognizes there is risk in this new post-9/11 age everywhere and that in an all-hazards approach, first responders everywhere need to be assisted to protect their citizens not just from a potential terrorist attack but from the consequences of a natural disaster. Interoperable communications: We have known for decades we needed to improve communications operability and interoperability at the different levels of Government. Yet tragically the inability of fire and police to communicate with one another at the World Trade Center after the attacks of 9/11 cost lives. That is a painful fact. Hurricane Katrina showed us once again how important it is to have communications that can both survive the initial disaster and have the capabilities to allow different first responding agencies to talk to each other by sharing voice as well as data communications. Under this grant program, States would be required to demonstrate that the grants they are applying for and receive would be used in a way that is consistent with their statewide communications interoperability plans and the National Emergency Communications Plan. In other words, this is not going to be just ad hoc proposals from every first responder for some money to use as he or she desires for their vision of interoperability. It has to be part of a statewide plan connected to the national plan. The States receiving the money would be required to pass at least 80 percent of the total amount of the grants they receive on to local and tribal governments. The legislation authorizes $400 million for interoperability improvements--lifesaving, in my opinion--in 2008; $500 million in 2009; $600 million in 2010; $800 million in 2011; and $1 billion in 2012. Let me go on to terrorist travel. The legislation contains provisions to improve our ability to disrupt terrorists' travel and infiltration of the United States, which the 9/11 Commission said was just as important as crippling their financial networks. That certainly makes sense. It requires the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to implement security enhancements to the so-called visa waiver program. It also is increasingly clear that serious vulnerabilities exist within the visa waiver program. There are enhancements to the program that, if adopted in this bill, will close many of those vulnerabilities, including mandating improved reporting by foreign countries on the visa waiver program of lost or stolen passports, requiring countries to share information about prospective visitors who may pose a threat to the U.S., and authorizing an electronic travel authorization system which would require travelers to apply in advance for authorization to visit America, thus allowing their names to be checked against terrorist watch lists well before they board airplanes. I note Senator Collins is on the floor of the Senate, our ranking member. I am going to yield to her in a few minutes. But she has considerably strengthened this section of the bill to protect America from people with the intent to harm us through acts of terrorism using this visa waiver program. Next, privacy and civil liberties: This legislation also makes important steps forward to ensure that as we fight terrorism, we do not trample on the rights of Americans we are pledged to defend. The legislation includes provisions very similar to those included in the Senate-passed version of the Terrorism Prevention Act with regard to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. I now move on to biosurveillance. The legislation enhances sharing of critical information by authorizing and improving upon an existing effort within the Department of Homeland Security to establish a National Biosurveillance Integration Center. Next, private sector preparedness: The 9/11 Commission found that the private sector remains largely unprepared and that ignoring private sector preparedness could come at a huge cost because so much infrastructure, so many targets of terrorists are in private hands. To address this critical problem, S. 4 will promote private sector preparedness, without a mandate, by creating a voluntary certification program that will allow private sector entities to become certified as being in compliance with recommended national preparedness standards. This is an important step forward and will quite sensibly promote, for instance, evacuation plans and steps beyond that. The legislation also strengthens private sector preparedness by requiring that the Department of Homeland Security establish and report on a list of critical infrastructure across the Nation that would cause catastrophic damage if disrupted, or destroyed. This will strengthen and clarify what is a murky process right now and will focus our attention on protecting those parts of critical infrastructure. Our legislation also improves upon the existing National Strategy for Transportation Security by ensuring that risk-based priorities identified by the Department are based on the risk assessments conducted by the Department. The legislation also requires the President and Congress to publicly disclose the total amounts of appropriations requested, authorized, and ultimately appropriated for the American intelligence community. This responds directly to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and will improve Congress's ability to oversee the conduct and progress of our intelligence agencies creating standards of accountability. I stress, this is the bottom line of the budget: to give Members of Congress and the American people an idea of how much we are investing in intelligence to protect their security and give us some sense of the accountability that we should apply to the intelligence community in delivering that funding. TSA screeners: This will be debated at some length, I am sure. The legislation includes a provision which I was pleased to cosponsor with the occupant of the Chair, Senator McCaskill from Missouri, which will ensure that screeners at the Transportation Security Administration-- with whom we have become very familiar as we come and go from airports--have the same employment rights as others in TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. There is no good reason to deny these rights to these people. We are only applying to them the same rights as other people within TSA and others in law enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security have, with no negative effect on their performance of those responsibilities. Madam President, as you can see, this is a very comprehensive bill. I have not touched on many parts of it in this statement. I have tried to focus on the most important. What I am convinced of is that if this bill passes and becomes law, the American people will be safer from both terrorism and the consequences of natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, than they are today. All of the hard work of the committee members, including particularly my ranking member, Senator Collins, gives me some sense of confidence, along with the work done by our staffs on both sides of the aisle, that this bill really will achieve the goals the 9/11 Commission stated in their report and the hopes that the families of those who were lost on 9/11 have that we act in a way on their behalf and on behalf of all the American people to be able to say we have done everything possible to make sure no other Americans suffer the tragic pain and continuing loss that these American heroes suffered when their loved ones' lives were ended in the brutal terrorist attacks of 9/11. I have a sense of urgency about this bill. I believe every day we do not do some of the things this bill would enable and establish and support financially is another day in which we are not as secure at home as we should be. This is the carrying out of the first constitutional responsibility we have to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense, to do so in a way that those who wrote the Constitution could never have dreamed we would have to do. But that is the world we live in today. That is the reality we must face. This is the action we must summon and carry out together to dispatch our responsibility. Madam President, in the preface to the 9/11 Report, Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton wrote: We hope our report will encourage our fellow citizens to study, reflect--and act. Well, we have studied and we have reflected. Now is the time, once again, to act to build a safer and more secure America for the generations to come. I look forward to a good, spirited debate. I hope when we are done, the bill will be even stronger than it is today. We will start tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor, even this afternoon, to file amendments because Senator Collins and I would like, when we move to this bill tomorrow morning--having carried out our managers' responsibility to make opening statements--to move right to the amendments. I thank the Chair. I think Senator Collins was called from the Senate floor momentarily, but I know she will be back before I yield. Madam President, the consent request I am about to propound has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that following morning business on Wednesday, February 28, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 57, S. 4, the 9/11 Commission recommendations legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I am happy to announce there will be no further rollcall votes today. I know Senator Collins will return soon and make her opening statement on the bill. I thank the Chair very much, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Aaron Firoved and Nathan Lesser, both fellows on detail to my Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs staff, and Cherrie Daniels, a fellow on detail from my personal office, have leave to the floor for the duration of the debate on the bill, S. 4.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, 225 years ago, on October 17, 1781, a few thousand American and French soldiers laid siege to Yorktown, forced the surrender of General Cornwallis and his British regulars, and won American independence. Although we often remember the victory at Yorktown, too often we lose sight of the heroic efforts that made it possible. Too often we forget that this victory was the culmination of a miraculous campaign--when two nations, two armies, and two great men put aside their differences and worked together for a common purpose. I, along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Menendez, Reed, Specter, and Whitehouse, am privileged to call for the commemoration of the events leading to our victory at Yorktown and the end of the American Revolution with the designation of the Washington- Rochambeau Revolutionary Route as a National Historic Trail. The Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route is 600 miles of history, winding from Providence, RI, to Yorktown, VA. In the opinion of my colleagues and me, it is worthy of designation as a National Historic Trail. Let us document the events in the cities and towns all along the road to Yorktown and the birth of this great Nation. Let us celebrate the unprecedented Franco-American alliance and the superhuman efforts of Generals George Washington and Jean Baptiste de Rochambeau to preserve that alliance in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Let us create a National Historic Trail along whose course we can pause and remember these heroes, their travels, and sacrifices--from the journey's beginning when Rochambeau led the French army out of Newport and Providence, RI, into New York where he joined Washington's troops, and through a cross section of colonial America to its culmination at Yorktown. Each of the nine States on the trail makes its own unique contribution to the tale of the journey. In my own State of Connecticut--the two generals met and through a translator planned their strategy. In Phillipsburg, NY, the French and American armies first joined together and faced off against the British in New York City. Here, Washington and Rochambeau planned their high risk strategy--abandoning established positions in the north and racing hundreds of miles south to surprise and trap an unsuspecting British army. In Chatham, New Jersey, the French made a show of storing supplies and building bread ovens in order to disguise their march towards Cornwallis in Virginia. They moved on through Princeton and Trenton, New Jersey--sites of previous colonial victories against great odds. The trail goes through Philadelphia, PA--then capital of the colonies. Here Washington and Rochambeau stopped their men outside town, had them clean off the dirt of the trail and marched them through town with drums beating and flags unfurled before the Continental Congress and the people of Philadelphia. The grandeur of their new European ally helped restore the spirit of America during this very uncertain time. A few days later in Chester, PA, Washington, the normally reserved commander-in-chief, literally danced on the dock when he learned the French fleet had arrived in the Chesapeake and trapped the British at Yorktown. For the first time, it seemed that victory for the colonies was possible. The armies marched on to Wilmington, DE and Elkton, MD, where American troops were finally paid for some of their efforts, using money borrowed by the bankrupt Continental Army from General Rochambeau. Our Nation's capital region also played its part in this story. Troops camped in Baltimore near the site of today's Camden Yards. Some crossed the Potomac near Georgetown, while others camped in Alexandria, VA. Along the way, General Washington made a triumphal return to Mount Vernon, and hosted a celebration for his French allies. All along the route, towns were touched and thrilled by the passage of the army and events swirling around them. The armies marched on through Williamsburg, VA until they reached positions outside Yorktown in late September. Washington and Rochambeau and their troops went on to win this battle and the war. Let us take the time to better remember the heroes of our past, those who sacrificed so much for our freedom today, deserve no less. This bill ensures that this history, in all its rich detail, is not forgotten.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, 225 years ago, on October 17, 1781, a few thousand American and French soldiers laid siege to Yorktown, forced the surrender of General Cornwallis and his British regulars, and won American independence. Although we often remember the victory at Yorktown, too often we lose sight of the heroic efforts that made it possible. Too often we forget that this victory was the culmination of a miraculous campaign--when two nations, two armies, and two great men put aside their differences and worked together for a common purpose. I, along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Menendez, Reed, Specter, and Whitehouse, am privileged to call for the commemoration of the events leading to our victory at Yorktown and the end of the American Revolution with the designation of the Washington- Rochambeau Revolutionary Route as a National Historic Trail. The Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route is 600 miles of history, winding from Providence, RI, to Yorktown, VA. In the opinion of my colleagues and me, it is worthy of designation as a National Historic Trail. Let us document the events in the cities and towns all along the road to Yorktown and the birth of this great Nation. Let us celebrate the unprecedented Franco-American alliance and the superhuman efforts of Generals George Washington and Jean Baptiste de Rochambeau to preserve that alliance in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Let us create a National Historic Trail along whose course we can pause and remember these heroes, their travels, and sacrifices--from the journey's beginning when Rochambeau led the French army out of Newport and Providence, RI, into New York where he joined Washington's troops, and through a cross section of colonial America to its culmination at Yorktown. Each of the nine States on the trail makes its own unique contribution to the tale of the journey. In my own State of Connecticut--the two generals met and through a translator planned their strategy. In Phillipsburg, NY, the French and American armies first joined together and faced off against the British in New York City. Here, Washington and Rochambeau planned their high risk strategy--abandoning established positions in the north and racing hundreds of miles south to surprise and trap an unsuspecting British army. In Chatham, New Jersey, the French made a show of storing supplies and building bread ovens in order to disguise their march towards Cornwallis in Virginia. They moved on through Princeton and Trenton, New Jersey--sites of previous colonial victories against great odds. The trail goes through Philadelphia, PA--then capital of the colonies. Here Washington and Rochambeau stopped their men outside town, had them clean off the dirt of the trail and marched them through town with drums beating and flags unfurled before the Continental Congress and the people of Philadelphia. The grandeur of their new European ally helped restore the spirit of America during this very uncertain time. A few days later in Chester, PA, Washington, the normally reserved commander-in-chief, literally danced on the dock when he learned the French fleet had arrived in the Chesapeake and trapped the British at Yorktown. For the first time, it seemed that victory for the colonies was possible. The armies marched on to Wilmington, DE and Elkton, MD, where American troops were finally paid for some of their efforts, using money borrowed by the bankrupt Continental Army from General Rochambeau. Our Nation's capital region also played its part in this story. Troops camped in Baltimore near the site of today's Camden Yards. Some crossed the Potomac near Georgetown, while others camped in Alexandria, VA. Along the way, General Washington made a triumphal return to Mount Vernon, and hosted a celebration for his French allies. All along the route, towns were touched and thrilled by the passage of the army and events swirling around them. The armies marched on through Williamsburg, VA until they reached positions outside Yorktown in late September. Washington and Rochambeau and their troops went on to win this battle and the war. Let us take the time to better remember the heroes of our past, those who sacrificed so much for our freedom today, deserve no less. This bill ensures that this history, in all its rich detail, is not forgotten.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, when the roll is called tomorrow on the motion for cloture with regard to the resolution the House is expected to pass tonight on Iraq, I will vote no. I will vote against cloture. I will do so not because I wish to stifle debate. The fact is that debate has occurred, it is occurring now, and it will continue to occur on our policy in Iraq. I will vote against cloture because I feel so strongly against the resolution. It condemns the new plan for success in Iraq. I support that plan. It does something that, from all of the research my staff and I have done, including asking the Library of Congress, we have found no case in American history where Congress has done what this resolution does, which is, in a nonbinding resolution, oppose a plan our military is implementing right now. Congress has expressed nonbinding resolutions of disapproval before a plan of military action has been carried out. Congress has obviously taken much more direct steps, authorized to do so by the Constitution, to cut off funds for a military action or a war in progress. But never before has the Congress of the United States passed a nonbinding resolution of disapproval of a military plan that is already being carried out by American military personnel. I believe it is a bad precedent, and that is why I will do everything I can to oppose it. In the immediate context, that means I will vote against cloture. Mr. President, more broadly, we are approaching an important moment in the history of this institution and of our Republic, a moment I fear future historians will look back to and see the beginning of a cycle that not only damaged the remaining possibilities for success America has in Iraq but, more broadly, established political precedents that weaken the power of the Presidency to protect the American people over the long term. The nonbinding resolution before us today, we all know, is only a prologue. That is why the fight over it, procedural and substantive, over these past weeks has been so intense. It is the first skirmish in an escalating battle that threatens to consume our Government over many months ahead, a battle that will neither solve the sprawling challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our Nation to defeat the challenges to our security throughout the world from Islamist extremists--that is to say, in our war against the terrorists who attacked us. We still have a choice not to go down this path. It is a choice that goes beyond the immediate resolution that will be before the Senate, a chance to step back from the brink and find better ways to express and arbitrate our differences of opinion. I hope we will seize the moment and take those steps. Mr. President, as we meet in this Chamber today, the battle for Baghdad has already begun. One of our most decorated generals, David Petraeus, whom this Senate confirmed 81 to 0 a few weeks ago, has now taken command in Baghdad. Thousands of American soldiers have moved out across the Iraqi capital putting their lives on the line as they put a new strategy into effect. We can now see for ourselves on the ground in Iraq, in Baghdad, where it matters what this new strategy looks like. And we can see why it is different from all that preceded it. For the first time in Baghdad, our primary focus is no longer on training Iraqi forces or chasing down insurgents or providing for our own force protection, though those remain objectives. Our primary focus is on ensuring basic security for the Iraqi people working side by side with Iraqi security forces, exactly what classic counterinsurgency doctrine tells us must be our first goal now. Where previously there were not enough troops to hold the neighborhoods cleared of insurgents, now more troops are either in place or on the way. Where previously American soldiers were based on the outskirts of Baghdad unable to secure the city, now they are living and working side by side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases that are being set up right now throughout the Iraqi capital. At least six of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad, the same neighborhoods where a few weeks ago jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in with their Iraqi counterparts, and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army are moving out. We do not know if this new strategy for success in Iraq will work over the long term, and we probably will not know for some time. The Mahdi Army may be in retreat for the moment, but they are not defeated. They have gone to ground, and they are watching. Our hope, of course, is that our determination and that of the Iraqi Government will lead them now to devote themselves to politics instead of death squads, but only time will tell. The fact is any realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq tells us we must expect there will be more attacks and there will be more casualties in the months ahead as the enemies of a free and independent Iraq see the progress we are making and adapt to try to destroy it with more violence. The question they will pose to us, which is the question that is posed every time a fanatic suicide bomb goes off and that person expresses their hatred of everyone else more than love of their own life by ending their own life, is: Will we yield Baghdad, Iraq, the Middle East, our own future to those fanatical suicide bombers? We must also recognize we are in a different place in Iraq from where we were a month ago because of the implementation of this new strategy. We are in a stronger position today to provide basic security in Baghdad, and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates, a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and the militias of their public support, a stronger position to press the Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises that everyone acknowledges are necessary. John Maynard Keynes famously said: When the facts change, I change my mind. In the real world, in the past month, the facts in Iraq have changed, and they are changing still. I ask my colleagues to allow themselves to wait and consider changing their minds as further facts unfold in Iraq. The nonbinding resolution before us is not about stopping a hypothetical plan. It is about disapproving a plan that is being carried out now by our fellow Americans in uniform in the field. In that sense, as I have said, it is unprecedented in congressional history, in American history. This resolution is about shouting into the wind. It is about ignoring the realities of what is happening on the ground in Baghdad. It proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat. It is a strategy of ``no,'' while our soldiers are saying ``yes, sir,'' to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle. And that is why I will vote against the resolution by voting against cloture. I understand the frustration, the anger, and the exhaustion that so many Americans, so many Members of this Congress feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up one's hands and simply say ``enough.'' And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life and of the mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct. But let us now not make another mistake. In the midst of a fluid and uncertain situation in Iraq, we should not be so bound up in our own arguments and disagreements, so committed to the positions we have staked out that the political battle over here takes precedence over the real battle over there. Whatever the passions of the moment, the point of reference for our decisionmaking should be military movements on the battlefields of Iraq, not political maneuverings in the Halls of Congress. Even as our troops have begun to take Baghdad back step by step, there are many in this Congress who have, nevertheless, already reached a conclusion about the futility of America's cause there and declared their intention to put an end to this mission, not with one direct attempt to cut off funds but step by political step. No matter what the rhetoric of this resolution, that is the reality of this moment. This nonbinding measure before us is a first step toward a constitutional crisis that we can and must avoid. Let me explain what I mean by ``a constitutional crisis.'' Let us be clear about the likely consequences if we go down this path beyond this nonbinding resolution. Congress has been given constitutional responsibilities, but the micromanagement of wars is not one of them. The appropriation of funds for war is. I appreciate that each of us has our own ideas about the best way forward in Iraq. I respect those who take a different position than I. I understand many feel strongly that the President's strategy is the wrong one, but the Constitution, which has served us now for more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 Commanders in Chief but 1, the President of the United States, who is authorized to lead the day-to-day conduct of war. Whatever our preponderance of this war or its conduct, it is in no one's interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of Government over war powers. The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, Presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our Nation's interests over the long term, this is it. We need to step back from the brink and reason together, as Scripture urges us to do, about how we will proceed to express our disagreements about this war. We must recognize that while the decisions we are making today and we are about to make seem irretrievably bound up in the immediacy of this moment, and the particular people now holding positions of power in our Government, these decisions will set constitutional precedents that will go far beyond the moment and these people. President Bush has less than 2 years left in office, and a Democrat may well succeed him. If we do not act thoughtfully in the weeks and months ahead, we will establish precedents that future Congresses, future Presidents, and future generations of Americans will regret. Right now, as the battle for Baghdad begins, this institution is obviously deeply divided. However, we should not allow our divisions to lead us to a constitutional crisis in which no one wins and our national security is greatly damaged. We are engaged, as all my colleagues know, in a larger war against a totalitarian enemy, Islamist extremism, and terrorism that seeks to vanquish all the democratic values that is our national purpose to protect and defend. Whatever our differences in this Chamber about this war, let us never forget those great values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given, and today give, the last full measure of their devotion. Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult junction, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not shout at one another but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today's disagreements and secure the Nation's future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I honor G. Martin Wagner-- a dedicated public servant who, on January 31, 2007, retired from Federal service after 31 years. Marty Wagner has had an exemplary career working for the Federal Government. Far removed from the apocryphal ``faceless bureaucrat'' that so many of those who wrongly belittle our Federal workforce often refer to, Marty should serve as an example to us all in how to best serve the people of this great country. Marty was a leader and a doer who accomplished much over the past three decades, and leaves the Federal Government a far better place than how he found it. Over his 31 years in the Federal civil service, Marty earned many honors and awards for his efforts to make the Federal Government a better place to work for all Federal employees. His service has also resulted in a Federal Government that is more caring and responsive to the needs of the American public. Marty grew up in Tucson, AZ. In his youth, he played guitar and sang folk songs in old time ``hootenannies.'' He has a deep, recognizable voice, which would have served him well as a professional musician or radio persona. Fortunately for us, his career took a different path and Marty became a dedicated, hard-working Federal employee--serving in a number of agencies and departments over the past 31 years. Most of us who know and have worked with Mr. Wagner over the years, associate him with his almost two decades of service with the General Services Administration, GSA, where he has been an innovative leader and promoter of initiatives for improved and more accessible information technology for Federal workers and the public alike. Most recently, Marty has served as Deputy Commissioner of the new Federal Acquisition Service, FAS. Prior to accepting this position, Mary also served as Acting Commissioner and Acting Deputy Commissioner of FAS. However, Marty was also a leader before his days at GSA, and I call to my colleagues attention just one of his major accomplishments over his Federal career. Early on, Marty was an economic analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency. His outstanding work in the environmental arena proved to be invaluable to the quality of the air we breathe. In addressing the economic impact of pending EPA regulations, Marty was instrumental in producing the findings that resulted in the first requirement to remove lead from gasoline. I believe Marty could have retired at this point and have served his country well but, fortunately, this was just the first step in a long and distinguished career with the Federal Government. G. Martin Wagner was a masterful manager and leader of innovative change within the Federal Government. The results of his untiring efforts over the past 30 years are evident in numerous Federal programs, resulting in a much more effective and efficient Federal Government. Throughout his career, Deputy Commissioner Wagner has been a leader for positive change and modernization. When you worked with Marty you knew where you stood and that his positions were based upon his strong personal beliefs in how best to serve the American public and the Federal employees that he managed and with whom he worked. He is an honest, straightforward individual who did not shy away from challenges and difficult issues but, rather, sought the middle ground of compromise while always championing progress and better service. From his work on implementing the gargantuan task of modernizing Federal telecommunications to his personal crusade of making sure each and every Federal worker was treated with respect and provided opportunities for advancement, Marty Wagner has always proved to be a capable and innovative leader. When we think of a government that is more efficient and effective, we need to pay our thanks to the good work of Deputy Commissioner Wagner. I am sure that Marty's retirement from the Federal Government will not be the last we hear of him. Such an active, well-rounded, intelligent individual is not going to just while away the hours but, rather, seek out new challenges and opportunities to help his country and fellow citizens. G. Martin Wagner and his good work will be missed but not forgotten.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, America has reached a critical crossroad in the war in Iraq. More than 4 years ago, this Senate voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who slaughtered his own people, attacked his neighbors, and threatened our security. Thanks to the courageous service of the men and women of the American military, that evil regime was overthrown and in its place came hopes for a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, hopes for a victory in the war for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. As of today, sadly, as we all know, those hopes have not been realized. Because of the ruthless conduct of our enemies in Iraq, as well as our own failures, we instead today find ourselves on a knife's edge in Iraq. Now a new course has been chosen. A new commander is in place in Iraq, confirmed unanimously by this Senate. A new Secretary of Defense is in place at the Pentagon, also confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate. And a new strategy has begun to be put into action on the ground in Iraq by American troops. It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war. But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with the greatest respect for my colleagues who have offered it. But I believe its passage would compromise America's security, and I will say so within the clearest terms I can muster. The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward on the ground in Iraq. In fact, as we speak in the Senate, thousands of American troops are already there in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander's orders. This resolution does nothing to alter those facts. Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from this Senate to the President of the United States, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But the President has made clear he will not be deterred in carrying out what he sees as his duties and responsibilities as Commander in Chief. And there is a world well beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is also watching and listening to what we do. What we say is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi political leaders, by moderates trying to decide whether we Americans will stand with them over the long term. What we say is being heard by our men and women in uniform who naturally will be interested in knowing whether we support the plan they have been asked to carry out at risk to their own lives. What we say in the Senate will be heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria and by al-Qaida terrorists eager for evidence that America's will is breaking. And what we say in the Senate will be heard across America by our constituents who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not hollow posturing. This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. This is a resolution of irresolution. For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented. But it is not inconsequential. It is an act which I fear will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against the motion for cloture. My colleagues, if you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead and oppose this resolution. On the other hand, if you believe this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should put aside this resolution--nonbinding--and you should vote to stop what is happening in Iraq, vote to cut off the funds, vote for a binding time line for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution. This nonbinding resolution before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but then washes its hands of what they have been commanded to do. It urges more troops be sent for Anbar Province but not for Baghdad. My colleagues, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus but no confidence in the strategy he says he needs for success. We cannot say our troops have our full support but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. And that is why the Constitution gave the authority of Commander in Chief to one person, the President. Cynics may say this kind of irresolution happens all the time in Congress. In this case, however, they would be wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I asked the Library of Congress this question last week and was told that never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a nonbinding resolution such as this one, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy. I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider the precedent that passage of this resolution would establish. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a nonbinding resolution such as this one. Past Congresses certainly debated wars. They argued heatedly about them. And they sometimes clashed directly with the executive branch, with the President, over their execution. But in so doing, they accepted the consequences of their convictions This resolution does no such thing. It is simply an expression of opinion. It does not pretend to have any substantive effect on policy on the ground in Iraq. But again, I ask my colleagues, what will this resolution say to our soldiers? What will it say to our allies? What will it say to our enemies? We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe they are winning in Iraq today. They believe they can outlast us, that sooner or later we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home and leave the field in that country open for them. That is the lesson Osama bin Laden has told us, in his writings and statements, he took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq and at the core of the fanatical goals of radical Islam worldwide. I fear this resolution before the Senate, by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake, will confirm our enemies' beliefs that America has grown impatient and unable to fight the long fight to victory. This resolution also sends a terrible message to our allies. Of course, I agree that we must hold the Iraqi Government to account. That is exactly what the resolution Senator McCain and I and others have offered would do. But I ask you, imagine for a moment that you are a Sunni or Shia politician in Baghdad who wants the violence to end, and ask yourself how the Warner-Levin resolution would affect your thinking, your calculations of risk, your willingness to stand against the forces of extremism. Will the resolution empower you or will it undermine you? Will it make you feel safer or will it make you feel you should hedge your bets, or go over to the extremists, or leave Iraq? Finally, what is the message this resolution sends to our soldiers? I know that every Member of the Senate supports our troops but actions have consequences, often unintended. I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional moment to finish my statement. That would come from Senator McConnell's time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. When we send a message of irresolution, it does not support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops. We heard recently in the Senate Armed Services Committee from GEN Jack Keane, a former chief of staff of the U.S. Army, who said of a resolution like this one: It's just not helpful . . . What the enemy sees is an erosion of the political and moral will of the American people . . . Our soldiers are Americans first. They clearly understand there's a political process in this country that they clearly support . . . But at the end of the day, they are going to go out and do a tough mission, and I certainly would like to see them supported in that mission as opposed to declaring nonsupport. . . . I agree. Everyone here knows the American people are frustrated about the lack of progress in Iraq. Everyone here shares that frustration. And as elected representatives of the people, everyone here feels pressure to give expression to that frustration. This is not a new challenge. It is one that every democracy in every long war has had to confront. Nearly a century and a half ago, an American President wrestled with just this problem. It was in the midst of a terrible war, a civil war in which hundreds of thousands of Americans were fighting and dying to secure the freedom of millions long and cruelly denied it. ``We here highly resolve,'' that was Lincoln's message at Gettysburg. It was a message of resolution. I ask unanimous consent for an additional moment from the time of Senator McConnell to finish the statement.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Lincoln said at Gettysburg: ``We here highly resolve.'' It was a message of resolution, of steadfastness in the face of adversity, of hope over despair, and of confidence in the cause of freedom which is America's eternal cause. Today, in the depths of a terrible war, on the brink of a decisive battle for Baghdad, let us have a serious debate about where we stand and where we must go in Iraq. But that is not the debate this resolution of irresolution would bring. The 60-vote requirement to close debate was put in place by our predecessors as a way to make it harder for the passions of a particular moment to sweep through the American people and across this Congress in a way that would do serious damage to our Nation in the long term. Because I believe this resolution, if passed, would have such an effect, I will respectfully oppose the motion for cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would be happy to, briefly. The resolution Senator McCain and I and others have has been prepared and I gather has been the subject of negotiation between Senator Reid and Senator McConnell.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is right. The debate going on now----

Mr. LIEBERMAN. My dear friend, it is more than a possibility; it is a promise.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. There are copies of it around now, and we will get you one. They were publicly distributed Thursday of last week.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. The difference, of course, is that ours is as nonbinding as yours, but ours is a statement of support to our troops and benchmarks to the Iraqis.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. One is not less patriotic than the other, but actions have consequences. As I said during my remarks, for the Senate to take this unprecedented action on a nonbinding resolution, to disavow, disapprove a mission that our troops are being asked to carry out right now cannot help their morale.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of rule XXVI, section 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for the 110th Congress adopted by the committee on January 24, 2007.