Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, to my friend from Maine, it is an expression of the partnership we have had over the years on the committee that the hearing in our committee went until 2 o'clock so Senator Collins was able to get here before I was. If she will please finish her statement and I will go after her.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Collins, for her excellent statement and for her work as she led the committee, which produced a significant part of the bill before the Senate. I will speak about it and put it in a larger context. We all know that the trust that people have in Congress is at a low point. I don't know that it is a historic low point, but it is a lot lower than anyone wants it to be, both for the national interest and out of a sense of pride we have in the service we attempt to give. The reasons for the low level of public trust and confidence in Members of Congress and, more to the point, in Congress as an institution are more than one. One of the significant reasons for the low level of confidence in Congress is the partisanship that has divided this institution and, too often, made it impossible to do anything for the people who sent us here, who gave us the privilege of coming here to serve them. Partisanship is one part of the lack of esteem and trust the public has in us. A second part is the public's doubt about the ethics of Members of Congress and the process we have for judging our ethics. Scandal after scandal unfolded last year. The public was left with the impression that the self-interest of lawmakers and lobbyists too often triumphed over the national good and the national interests. That is not true, but that was certainly the impression made by some of the awful exposures and scandals that were uncovered and by the prosecution of Members and lobbyists. Unless we take action to restore the public's trust in us--that central confidence between those who are privileged to govern and those who, if you will, are governed--we will not be able to do the things we need to do to take on and to respond, in a constructive way, to the challenges we have before the Senate, including a new strategy for Iraq, a momentous decision that will affect our national security to be kicked off, if you will, redirected, by the statement that the President will make to the Nation tomorrow night; fighting the war on terrorism, reducing the deficit, doing something to fix our health care system, which is broken; improving our public system of education which, for still does not offer an equal opportunity to too many of our children; taking stress off the middle class which is the heart and soul of our country. All of those things will not happen in a good way unless we can rebuild the public's trust in us. It involves less partisanship, a better self-policing of ethics--and I will come to that in a minute--but also doing some of the things I have talked about, responding to some of the problems, taking advantage of some of these opportunities that will restore the relationship between the people of the United States and those who serve them in the Congress. And so much of law--we legislate the law--as someone taught me years ago, is the way we express our values, the way we express our aspirations for ourselves as a society, the rights and wrongs, what we hope we will be, is apparent in the system by which we legislate ourselves and those who lobby us. But the reality is that the best system for doing that is our own ethical norms, which most of us, of course, have; that, ultimately, we have to self-police ourselves by not trifling with and demeaning the extraordinary opportunity to serve that our constituents have given us. Now we come to S. 1. I truly commend our new majority leader, Senator Reid, for introducing an ethics and lobbying reform bill as S. 1 and scheduling it as the very first legislative item of business for the Senate in this 110th Congress. I will give a little background to how we got here, particularly legislatively how we got here. In January of last year, I was privileged to join Senator McCain in cosponsoring a sweeping lobbying reform bill that he crafted following his and Senator Dorgan's courageous investigation into the scandal surrounding the lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Senator Feingold and Senator Reid also introduced comprehensive bills that added many constructive, progressive ideas to the debate. Senator Collins seized the moment as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and by early March of last year, our committee reported, with near unanimous bipartisan support, the most significant piece of lobbying reform legislation to come before Congress in over a decade. In the Rules Committee, Senators Lott and Dodd worked together to mark up a tough set of reforms to the Senate ethics rules. Senators Feinstein and Bennett, as the incoming and ranking members of that committee, have picked up the baton of reform where their predecessors left off. As a result of a truly bipartisan effort last year, the Senate combined provisions reported out of the two committees--Homeland Security and Rules--and passed the legislation overwhelmingly by a vote of 90 to 8. Unfortunately, the House did not pursue the same course. It passed a weak bill on a mostly partisan vote and the House and Senate never moved to conference. Now, we begin the new year with a fresh chance to finish old business and clean up our House and Senate for tomorrow. Last year's Senate- passed bill is the text of S. 1 before the Senate now, a set of reforms that would bring greater honesty and transparency to the way we do business in Washington. This year, we should go beyond last year's proposals, as Senator Collins said, and enact even stronger reforms because the demand and need is greater. Our legislation should go further to include an independent Office of Public Integrity. What we start with today in S. 1 is a very strong statement that the 110th Congress will put the public interest over special interest. I will spend a few moments describing the provisions of S. 1 that were reported out of our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in March of last year, dealing primarily with the Lobbying Disclosure Act which comes before our committee under the rules. The Lobbying Disclosure Act was passed in 1995, more than a decade ago. Since then, the number of lobbyists has skyrocketed. Last year, 6,554 lobbying firms or organizations, not individuals--firms or organizations--registered to lobby. That is almost double the 3,554 registrants in 1996, the first full year of reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The Office of Public Records received a total of 46,835 lobbying reports last year which represents a tremendous amount of activity. The amount of money spent each year on lobbying has skyrocketed, as well. Here we make estimates that put the number well over $2 billion a year for lobbying. Now, to state the obvious, but the obvious often needs to be stated, lobbying Congress is not an evil thing to do. Being a lobbyist is not a dishonorable profession. In fact, lobbying Congress is a constitutionally protected right. The first amendment protects the right of all people to petition the Government for redress of grievances. Therefore, we have to be respectful when we legislate in this area. But it is entirely consistent with the first amendment right, and, of course, essential to our Government to provide ethics and transparency for lobbying practices. First and foremost, are the politicians. In S. 1, we bring the Lobbying Disclosure Act into the age of the Internet by requiring electronic filing and creating a public-searchable database on the Internet, making the information as accessible as a click of the mouse to everyone interested. We bring greater transparency to the relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists by expanding the types of activities lobbyists must disclose, including their campaign contributions, the fundraisers they host for Federal candidates, travel arranged for Members of Congress, payments to events to honor Members of Congress, and contributions to entities such as charities that are established by, for or controlled by a Member. We would get more timely disclosure from lobbyists by requiring them to submit filings on a quarterly, rather than a semiannual, basis. S. 1 would also close a major loophole in the Lobbying Disclosure Act by requiring lobbyists, for the first time, to disclose paid efforts to generate grassroots lobbying. Our former colleague, the late and really great Lloyd Bentsen, a Senator from Texas, once described this kind of grassroots lobbying as ``Astroturf lobbying.'' Why? Because it generates manufactured, artificial rather than real, self-grown, grassroots pressures on Congress. As it stands now, the Lobbying Disclosure Act requires disclosure only by lobbyists directly in contact with Members. S. 1 would require disclosure of the identity of organizers of media campaigns, mass mailings, phone banks, and other large-scale efforts encouraging the public to contact Members of Congress about specific issues. This is important because it would provide the American people, Members of Congress, ourselves, and the media with a better understanding of whose money is financing which efforts to influence Congress. This bill calls for transparency, but puts no limits on activity. We would also remove the cloak obscuring so-called stealth lobbying campaigns which occur when a group of individuals, companies, unions, or associations ban together to form a lobbying coalition. These coalitions frequently have innocent-sounding names that give the impression they are promoting positive mom-and-pop, apple pie goals. But, in fact, they lobby on a range of issues that could never be identified by the name of the coalition. S. 1 would also toughen the enforcement provisions under the Lobbying Disclosure Act by doubling to $100,000 the civil penalty that a lobbyist is subject to for violations of the law's requirements. And, for the first time, this proposal would forbid a lobbyist from providing gifts or travel to a Member of Congress in violation of House or Senate rules. We would slow the revolving door between Congress and K Street by doubling from 1 to 2 years the so-called cooling off period for former Members of Congress, during which time they would face lobbying restrictions. In total, the provisions of S. 1, I believe, provide a strong foundation for reform. Can this bill be improved? Of course it can. And I believe it will in the amendment process that will come before this Chamber on S. 1. The majority leader, I know, is working to craft a comprehensive substitute bill that will go even further toward tightening earmark disclosure and revolving-door rules. I am confident that, through the amendment process, we will emerge with a bill that is even stronger than the good bill we passed last year. A final word. In my opinion, significant changes to our ethics rules must be accompanied by significant changes to the way we enforce those rules. The public is understandably skeptical about a system in which we investigate, consider, and pass final judgments on allegations of ethical responsibility. They have seen too many Members, in the last few years particularly, caught up in scandal. In order to win the public's confidence, and, frankly, to do what is right to demonstrate our seriousness in this effort, I believe it is time, this year, to create an independent, investigative, and enforcement Office of Public Integrity. That would in no way usurp the ultimate authority of the Senate Ethics Committee, under rules consistent with the Constitution to be the final arbiter of questions about the ethics of Members of the Senate. Mr. President, in closing, I would say this: We have an opportunity to begin anew--a fresh start at rebuilding the bonds of trust that have been broken between the Congress and the American people because of the unethical behavior of a few Members of this great institution. S. 1 is the beginning, and a strong beginning, of what I believe will be an even stronger ending to accomplishing that critically important goal. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to CPT Jason Hamill, U.S. Army, 31, who grew up in Salem, CT. Nearing the completion of a year-long tour in Bagdad, serving with E Company, 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX, Captain Hamill died of injuries sustained when his military vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device. Known for his sense of humor and as a bit of a mischief maker, he was a proud family man. He followed in his father's footsteps serving in the military with a deep, strong sense of purpose and belief in what he was doing. Prior to entering the Army, Captain Hamill was a member of ROTC at the University of Connecticut earning the respect of his fellow members and classmates, as well as his engineering degree. He lived as a true patriot and defender of our great Nation's principles of freedom and justice serving in Afghanistan and Kosovo in addition to Iraq. Captain Hamill is a true example of the powerful American spirit that permeates this Nation's history. He served as a messenger of high justice and idealism in the best tradition of American principles and patriotism. I am both proud and grateful that we have the kind of fighting force exemplified by Captain Hamill serving in the Persian Gulf--and the strong families back at home sending their love and support. He was a credit to his family, his community, his service, and his country. Our Nation extends its heartfelt condolences to his wife, Karen, who he just married last year, and his parents, Sharon and Richard. We extend our appreciation for sharing this outstanding soldier with us, and we offer our prayers and support. You may be justifiably proud of his contributions which extend above and beyond the normal call of duty. Corporal Adam A. Galvez, Usmc

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to give my thanks to Senators Burr and Kennedy for working with me and my esteemed colleagues, Senators Cochran, Obama, Kohl, and Landrieu, to pass a bill that together makes a difference to the health and well-being of Americans in the event of a public health emergency--natural or man-made. We saw in Hurricane Katrina that local, State, and Federal governments were not adequately prepared for a situation that could have been much worse. Also, much of the public was not prepared and could not get out of harm's way because of issues of capacity and trust. Regardless of our preparation then, it is clear that the government and the public must become better prepared now. We must come up with a disaster preparedness and response system which does a better job of knowing what is happening not in government cubicles but on the ground, which is able to prioritize the allocation and delivery of finite resources, and which utilizes our cumulative man and woman-power to work together to get anything that needs to be done, done. This is not a perfect bill, but S. 3678, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, does improve the ability of the Federal Government to coordinate response to emergencies and disasters. It centralizes command and control of Federal public health and medical emergency response and for the first time ever, lists the needs of at-risk individuals in emergencies as a national preparedness goal. Considering the needs of at-risk populations in public health emergencies and disasters is perhaps the most vital way to reduce casualties when treatment options are limited, environmental exposures place the public at risk and or when evacuation is necessary to get people out of harm's way. In disasters, the burden of casualties almost always fall on populations with unequal ability to protect themselves. These populations are termed special-needs populations, at-risk populations or at-risk individuals. They are populations who possess unique needs or limitations and may as a result not be able to receive, comprehend, or respond to public health messaging during emergencies in the way that bests support their safety and well-being. They are populations that may not able to fully address their own preparedness for, response to, and recovery from public health emergencies. At-risk individuals include the elderly, children, pregnant women, the poor, disabled, individuals with limited English proficiency, and others. Forty million Americans are over 65 years old, a number that will reach 71 million by 2030. There are over 70 million children under age 18. There are approximately 7 million pregnant women. Fourteen percent of Americans are limited in activity due to a chronic health condition. I thank Senators Burr and Kennedy for having the vision to address at-risk individuals in S. 3678 but also the willingness to work with Senators Cochran, Obama, Kohl, and Landrieu and me to make the language concerning at-risk individuals even stronger. The Lieberman-Cochran amendment, which has been incorporated into the final S. 3678 managers' package, publicly designates a person with a budget, who would ideally be called the Director Office of At-Risk Individuals, to oversee the implementation of the national preparedness goal concerning at-risk individuals; assist Federal agencies responsible with planning for, responding to, and recovering from public health emergencies in addressing the needs of at-risk individuals; provide guidance to State and local public health grant recipients as to how to incorporate the needs of at-risk individuals in emergency preparedness and response strategies; and develop and disseminate best principles and practices regarding outreach to and care of at-risk individuals in public health emergencies. Senators Cochran, Obama, Kohl, and Landrieu and I believe that a new director of At-Risk Individuals will be a great resource to the Assistant Secretary in keeping the needs of at-risk individuals central as the Secretary works to implement the Nation's disaster preparedness goals across the Federal agencies. In the past, the Nation has not done enough to break down the artificial silos between the agencies charged with the health aspects of disaster planning and response, which is vital for the public in general but particularly to at-risk individuals in disasters. At-risk individuals are not monolithic, and their identities change depending upon the type, location, and character of disasters. Yet they are many, and their existence poses consistent challenges which must be addressed. These groups include people with disabilities, the elderly, non-English speakers, children, the poor, and the homeless. We understand that there is often significant overlap between at-risk groups. Individuals who are homeless, for example, are also poor and often disabled. Senators Cochran, Obama, Kohl, and Landrieu and I also believe that a new director of At-Risk Individuals will also be a great resource to States, which will now have to incorporate the needs of at-risk individuals into disaster plans as a condition of receiving Federal disaster preparedness funding. The process by which the needs of at- risk individuals are incorporated into State, let alone Federal disaster plans is not obvious and will require both accumulation and dissemination of expertise. The committee envisions the Office of At- Risk Individuals as an ideal repository and resource for information in this regard. This information can be gathered from entities already doing excellent work in the field. Within HHS, this includes the Administration on Aging, the Office on Disability, and Administration on Developmental Disabilities. Within DHS, this includes the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Preparedness Directorate, and the Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities. Within the community, this includes organizations like C.A.R.D. in California and the Kellogg Foundation's Redefining Readiness Projects. Within Academia, this includes work done by the Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies in Maryland and the New York Academy of Medicine. Nationally, this includes the National Organization on Disability's Emergency Preparedness, Initiative, the Center for Disability and Special Needs Preparedness, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Finally, Senators Cochran, Obama, Kohl, and Landrieu and I believe that a new Director of At-Risk Individuals can be an important source of funding and support for a community engagement process focused on organizing ordinary citizens to prepare and to respond to public health emergencies. The public is not a passive entity and must be viewed as a valuable partner in disaster planning and response. Communities are better able, for example, to identify the location of their special needs populations, to communicate with them, and to intervene in ways that are consistent with the reality of people's lives. In addition, during disasters, the governmental response is often delayed, and people must be able to protect themselves why they wait for help. Last of all, community-derived public health emergency plans must be coordinated with local, State and Federal disaster plans and the new Office of At-Risk Individuals can fund opportunities to bring all key stakeholders together. The AARP, the American Red Cross, United Cerebral Palsy, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all endorsed this important amendment. These are groups that most would agree know much about at- risk individuals, disaster preparedness and response. In short, the process of addressing the needs of at-risk individuals during public health emergencies is a necessary and immense task that must be overseen. A new Director of At-Risk Individuals with a budget of up to $5 million as specified in S. 3678 will provide the focus, expertise, personnel, and institutional memory to assure that the at- risk language in S. 3678 is followed and that the Government, in planning for and responding to emergencies, keeps the needs of all Americans, front and center. I thank Senators Burr and Kennedy again for writing and passing S. 3678 and being open to the Lieberman-Cochran language.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I speak today in honor of The Orchard House Adult Day Center and its hardworking and dedicated staff on the occasion of their 25th anniversary. For the past 25 years, Orchard House has been serving the needs of the elderly and the disabled, with loving care. The center has provided medical monitoring, recreational therapeutic treatment, and innovative programs to the mentally and physically challenged adults of the Connecticut community. Hundreds of families from the greater New Haven area have been granted respite at the Orchard House and both the State and the Nation have recognized Orchard House with awards for service and humanitarianism. The Orchard House's dedication and commitment to the citizens of Connecticut can be seen not only through its continued efforts to provide clients and families with comfort and support but also in its Intergenerational Program, a program designed to involve children from various local schools in the area, in activities at the center. Considering this, it is no wonder that Governor M. Jodi Rell has called Orchard House ``a jewel of the Connecticut shoreline.'' I am confident that I speak for all the citizens of Connecticut in expressing pride and gratitude for the Orchard House Adult Day Center as it celebrates its 25th anniversary. The executive director, Thomas Russell Romano, and his staff have committed themselves to providing much needed care and treatment for the people of Connecticut.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I speak in memory of Sigmund Strochiltz, a truly remarkable man from New London, Connecticut who passed away on Monday October 16, at the age of 89. I was saddened to hear about Mr. Strochiltz's death, and I will keep his friends and family in my thoughts and prayers. Mr. Strochlitz was best known as the owner of Whaling City Ford, a successful car dealership that became a local institution in New London. Almost anyone who has lived in southeastern Connecticut can recall the television commercials for his dealership, in which Mr. Strochiltz would pleasantly invite the viewer to ``Come in. I would like to meet you,'' a simple slogan that reflected his pleasant demeanor and truly optimistic outlook on life. Those who knew him best say that he had a deep appreciation for the simple joys in life, like dining with friends or spending time with his grandchildren. Mr. Strochiltz's optimism is incredible considering the horrors he had to endure early in life. Mr. Strochiltz grew up in Poland, where he lived through both world wars. During the Second World War, he was held in a concentration camp in Auschwitz, Poland, for over 15 months. During this truly horrible experience, Mr. Strochiltz was forced to watch as his parents, two sisters, his first wife, and countless others marched off to their deaths. Yet Mr. Strochiltz's spirit could not be broken, and he refused to give up hope that the people of all nations could live together in peace. After being released, he was determined to ensure that no one else ever had to suffer as he had. Mr. Strochiltz believed that if mankind was never allowed to forget the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, such atrocities might never be repeated. He worked tirelessly toward this end. He served on the U.S. Memorial Holocaust Council, which worked to establish the National Holocaust Memorial and Museum. He served as chairman of the council's remembrance committee, where he lobbied the governments of every State and the District of Columbia to hold annual ceremonies to remember victims and survivors of the Holocaust. In addition to his great work with the council, Mr. Strochiltz helped elevate the writer Elie Wiesel, a close friend of his, to international fame. The two were partners in their mission to make sure the world never forgot the evils of the Holocaust. Together they traveled the globe, meeting with world leaders, such as German Chancellor Helmut Schmitt and Pope John Paul II. Mr. Strochiltz also lobbied Capitol Hill to have Mr. Wiesel nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize; he was successful, and Mr. Wiesel was deservedly awarded the prize. The passing of Sigmund Strochiltz is truly a loss for the people of Connecticut and throughout the world. May his kind nature and devotion to promoting peace and tolerance in the world live on in all those he has touched.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate final passage of the National Heritage Areas of 2006. I am grateful that Congress finally has recognized the Upper Housatonic Valley in Connecticut and Massachusetts for its special contribution to the American experience. This new law designates the Upper Housatonic Valley as a National Heritage Area and authorizes $10 million to preserve its historic and cultural assets. Today's victory has been a long time in coming. In 2000, I sponsored legislation directing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the feasibility of establishing the Upper Housatonic Valley as a National Heritage Area. After the Interior Department completed that report, Senator Dodd and I in 2003 introduced the first bill to create the Upper Housatonic National Heritage Area. Last Congress, a bill that would have created that area and a dozen others passed the Senate but died in the House. In this Congress, we reintroduced the Senate bill, and Representative Nancy Johnson reintroduced its House companion. Finally, after 6 years of hard work, I can stand announce that legislation to create the Upper Housatonic National Heritage Area has passed the Senate and the House. The act now goes to the President, who is expected to sign it into law without delay. The Upper Housatonic Valley's history is this Nation's history in microcosm--spanning Native American civilization, European settlement, the industrial revolution, and the present day. In contrast to many other areas of the country, the Upper Housatonic Valley's early historical and natural landscape remains largely intact. What is more, the area presents excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation, on waterways and greenways or trails, and a wide range of other activities for visitors or residents. For example, the section of the river below Falls Village, Connecticut is one of the Northeast's most prized fly- fishing centers. This unique 950-square-mile region encompasses 29 towns in the Housatonic River watershed, extending 60 miles from Lanesboro, MA, to Kent, CT. The valley brims with more than 100 historically important sites--some dating back to pre-Revolutionary times--including five National Historic Landmarks and four National Natural Landmarks. The Iron Heritage Trail celebrates the valley's distinctive role in iron production. During the Revolutionary War, cannons and rifles were forged for Gen. George Washington's Army from abundant local iron ore, and iron used in the USS Constitution also came from this area. More than 40 iron blast furnaces in the region fueled the Industrial Revolution. Within Upper Housatonic Valley, the African-American Heritage Trail celebrates the region's significant contributions to our Nation's African-American history, including the abolitionist and civil rights movements. For example, the valley was home to Elizabeth ``Mumbet'' Freeman, a pioneer in the fight against slavery, W.E.B. Du Bois, a father of the modern civil rights movement, NAACP leader Mary White Ovington, and Frank Grant of the Negro Baseball League. The valley has produced writers, painters, sculptors, photographers, and musicians, among them Herman Melville, Edith Wharton, Norman Rockwell, Daniel Chester French, James VanDerZee, and James Weldon Johnson. These artists have left the Nation a rich cultural inheritance. Today, the region remains a vibrant center for ongoing literary, artistic, musical, and architectural achievements. Coordinated efforts to preserve the natural and cultural resources of this region are already well underway. The designation of the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area supports and enhances these local efforts to interpret, preserve, and showcase the diverse historic, cultural, and natural resources of the valley. In closing, I would like to congratulate the many dedicated advocates in Connecticut, whose dogged efforts led to today's achievement.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate final passage of the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act. I am proud to have coauthored and introduced this bill in the Senate in April 2004. This body passed the bill that October, but then the bill died in the House. So we reintroduced it in the Senate last January, and Representative Rob Simmons reintroduced its House companion. The House passed its bill on Wednesday, and we in the Senate have just followed suit. Now the bill will go to the President, who is expected to sign it into law without delay. Today's final passage will ensure expanded protection and restoration of a national treasure. A healthy Long Island Sound is crucial to our region's economy, quality of life, and heritage. I am deeply gratified that Congress has acted to support a new way for communities and citizens to work together to preserve this ecologically important estuary for years to come. The Long Island Sound Stewardship Act, or LISSA, will help protect the sound by providing financial incentives for land owners within the sound area to preserve the environmental quality of and public access to this endangered habitat. Long Island Sound is a unique estuary with profound economic, ecological and cultural importance for the United States. This critical resource contributes approximately $6 billion annually to the economy of the region, and it is especially important to the tens of millions of people who live within 50 miles of its shores. We have come a long way in restoring the Sound and its rich biodiversity. Take, for example, the osprey--a bird that has come to symbolize the Sound. In 1940, there were approximately 1,000 osprey nests along the Sound shoreline. But by 1974, pollution reduced the number of osprey nests to just nine. Because of proactive conservation measures, the osprey has rebounded. That is real progress. Despite our efforts, however, the sound remains in a diminished condition. It suffers from hypoxia, habitat loss, and contamination by toxic substances, pathogens, and solid waste, all of which negatively affect the health of all the organisms, including humans, who live in or near the sound. I have been working to defend the sound since I arrived in the Senate. In 1989, I sponsored legislation that established a Long Island Sound office within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Long Island Sound Office went on to identify the sound region as vulnerable to degradation and, with my support, established the Long Island Sound Study to develop a plan for protecting the sound. In 2000, I kicked off a ``Listen to the Sound'' campaign, which focused on establishing a comprehensive network of open space and natural areas along the sound's rim, as well as creating more opportunities for public access and habitat restoration. More than 1,500 Connecticut and New York residents attended those meetings. In 2002, the EPA released the results of its Long Island Sound study, which concluded that coordinated action to save the sound was necessary. Building on several of the EPA study's recommendations and on feedback from my Listen to the Sound meetings, I introduced LISSA in April 2004 with Senators Dodd, Schumer, and Clinton as cosponsors. LISSA establishes a broad-based Long Island Sound Stewardship Advisory Committee comprised of all sound stakeholders, including Federal, State, local governments, tribal interests, nongovernmental organizations, academic interests, private interests including land, agriculture, and business interests, and recreational and commercial fishing interests. The advisory committee is charged with evaluating the parcels of land within the sound region and recommending crucial parcels for designation by the Environmental Protection Agency as Stewardship Sites eligible for special preservation funds. LISSA authorizes $25 million per year for fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to the EPA Administrator to carry out this act. By enacting this legislation, we aim to preserve the natural beauty and ecological wonder of this majestic waterway between New York and Connecticut. LISSA will ensure that our children and grandchildren can enjoy the sound's beauty, ecology, and recreational opportunities. In closing, I wish to acknowledge the many Long Island Sound advocates in Connecticut and New York who have worked so hard to achieve today's great success.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Security and Accountability for Every Port, or SAFE Port, Act marks a significant advancement for the security of our ports, authorizing $400 million for critical port security grant programs and enabling all ports--not merely a select few--to become eligible to apply for that funding. These improvements are desperately needed to help close one of our most dangerous security vulnerabilities. But when the Senate approved our version of this bill, it was a broader, comprehensive transportation security bill. It was not limited to the security of our ports but extended to several other modes of transportation--namely, rail, transit, trucking, and pipelines. It authorized over $4.5 billion for the security of mass transit systems, freight railroads, and passenger rail. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership, acting alone and without participation from the appointed Democratic conferees, stripped those provisions from the bill we are voting on tonight. I am deeply disappointed that conferees were never given an opportunity to frankly discuss and amend the conference report, even when Member after Member asked for that opportunity. This unilateral, partisan process also resulted in the eleventh hour insertion of a bill that purportedly outlaws Internet gambling but which may have unintended consequences. This issue clearly deserves more deliberation, and it is unfortunate that such a measure has been added to a critical bill designed to protect the Nation's ports, legislation which this Congress must pass. I hope that the Senate will return to this issue and give it the attention it deserves, in the future. On the issue which is what this bill is about, securing our homeland, we had a golden opportunity to present the President with legislation to enhance the security of our rail and transit systems. Fourteen million people ride the rails every day in America, and Connecticut is no different, where 110,000 people use the New Haven MTA line each day. Improving security for rail and transit is an enormous concern and it should have been addressed tonight, rather than in a future Congress. It is unfortunate that the bill no longer contains most of the well- advised Senate provisions which would have strengthened our open and highly vulnerable rail and transit systems. While the rail and transit provisions authorized a large sum of money, it is but a fraction of what the experts say is needed to address rail and transit vulnerabilities--vulnerabilities which have been exploited time and again by terrorists in London, Madrid, and Mumbai. I regret that the money was stripped out of the bill and that I was prevented from even trying to reinstate it by offering an amendment in a conference that was never formally completed. Nevertheless, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the port security legislation at the heart of this conference report and to have worked with my colleagues in the Senate and House to craft the port security provisions we will be voting on shortly. Let me thank Senators Collins, Murray, Coleman, Stevens, and Inouye for their hard work not only in bringing a comprehensive, bipartisan port security bill before the Senate but also for expertly guiding it toward a 98 to 0 vote, and now through conference. I would also like to tip my hat to Senators Grassley and Baucus of the Finance Committee for their hard work as well. Mr. President, 95 percent of our international trade flows through our ports. Prior to 9/11, the main goal was to move these goods through our ports efficiently. Since 9/11, we have come to realize we need to bring security into that equation but without harming our economy which depends on international trade. It is a tricky--but imperative--balancing act. The 9/11 Commission reported that ``major vulnerabilities still exist in cargo [security]'' and that, since aviation security has been significantly improved since 9/11, ``terrorists may turn their attention to other modes. Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime and surface transportation.'' Just last month, RAND's Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy published a report titled: ``Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack'' that considered the effects of a nuclear weapon smuggled in a shipping container sent to the Port of Long Beach and detonated on a pier. The potential short- and long-term effects truly are devastating. The report estimated that up to 60,000 people might die instantly from the blast or radiation poisoning, with 150,000 more exposed to hazardous levels of radiation. The blast and the fires could completely destroy both the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles and every ship in the port. As many as 6 million people might have to be evacuated from the Los Angeles area and another 2 to 3 million from the surrounding area might have to relocate due to the fallout. Short-term costs could exceed $1 trillion. Besides the damage to the United States, such an attack would cause economic ripple effects across the globe. The dangerous little secret of port security--and why we need this bill--is that we still have very little idea about the contents of thousands of containers that are shipped into and across the heart of this Nation every day. Just 5 or 6 percent of those containers are physically inspected. While Senator Collins and I began working on port security legislation in late 2004, the truth is port security received a major shot of adrenaline after the Dubai Ports World controversy earlier this year. Looking back on it, perhaps we should be thankful for that uproar, since it raised the collective consciousness of the American people and Members of Congress to the vulnerabilities that we face at our ports. Following that skirmish, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee marked up the GreenLane bill, and later, Senator Collins and I started working with the Senate Commerce and Finance Committees, as well as our House colleagues to craft the comprehensive legislation we are voting on today. The SAFE Port Act builds on the GreenLane foundation by providing both direction and much needed resources to port security. The bill moves us closer toward the goal of inspecting all of the containers entering the United States through our ports. The legislation requires DHS to establish a pilot program to inspect 100 percent of all containers bound for the United States from three foreign ports within 1 year and then report to Congress on how DHS can expand that system. We should move toward 100 percent inspection as fast as we can, understanding that we are at cross purposes if commerce slows to a halt. This legislation will provide us critical information about how soon we can achieve this goal. This bill authorizes port security grant, training, and exercise programs, with a $400-million grant program for which all ports can apply. And it requires DHS to deploy both radiation detection and imaging equipment to improve our ability to find dangerous goods and people being smuggled into the United States. DHS says it will deploy radiation portal monitors at all of our largest seaports by the end of 2007. But this solution is only half of the equation. To provide real port security, radiation detection equipment must be paired with imaging equipment capable of seeing through dense materials that might shield radiation. This legislation requires DHS to develop a strategy for deploying both types of equipment, as does the three-port pilot program for screening 100 percent of containers. Lastly, since most experts agree that the next terrorist attack is a matter of when, not if, this bill requires DHS to develop a plan to deal with the effects of a maritime security incident, including protocols for resuming trade and identifying specific responsibilities for different agencies. I cannot stress the importance of this provision enough. The private sector and our global partners must have confidence that we can mitigate an economic disruption with the least amount of harm to our trading partners and foil terrorism's chief goal, which is to instill chaos. Mr. President, again let me stress that the absence of funding for rail and transit security is a major omission that leaves wide open an entire transportation sector that we know from history is an appealing target for terrorists. Nevertheless, when it comes to our ports, the SAFE Port Act will move us one giant step closer to better security by building a robust security regime domestically and abroad and by providing the resources necessary to protect the American people and our global economy.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, for years, homeland security experts have been warning that chemical facilities are one of our most glaring homeland security vulnerabilities. Yet Congressional efforts to empower the Department of Homeland Security to regulate such facilities have foundered in the face of administration inaction and opposition from some industry groups and their allies. That is why I am pleased that Congress has at last authorized DHS to begin regulating some of the most risky chemical facilities. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations conference report directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to begin regulating high risk chemical facilities. It gives DHS 6 months to develop interim regulations for chemical site security and specifies that the program should require chemical facilities to develop vulnerability assessments and site security plans. DHS would have to review such documents and approve or disapprove the security plans based on whether they address the vulnerabilities identified for that facility and meet security performance standards designed by the Department. The Secretary would have authority to audit and inspect facilities in the program and to seek civil penalties against those who do not comply. The Secretary could also order the shutdown of a facility that does not meet the standards until it comes into compliance. This is undoubtedly progress, and I hope DHS will fulfill its responsibility to promptly and vigorously exercise this new authority to address an extremely dangerous homeland security weakness. But while this provision is an improvement on the status quo, it falls well short of what we need to fully address this threat. That is particularly disappointing because both the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees have approved bipartisan, comprehensive chemical security bills that could have and should have received floor debate and become the basis for final legislation this fall. I deeply regret that we were not able to advance the bipartisan committee bills or to retain many of their provisions. On the Senate side, Senator Collins and I introduced the Senate chemical security bill, S. 2145, after holding four hearings on chemical security this session and consulting with many interested parties. Our legislation was marked up in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in mid-June, and reported out on a 15 to 0 vote. While that bill did not include everything I wished, it was a balanced and comprehensive program for chemical security that was able to garner broad support on the Committee. I wish to address a few specific issues that were part of S. 2145 but which have been lost or distorted in this chemical security provision. First, let me speak to the issue of inherently safer technology or IST. The bipartisan chemical security bill approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recognizes that sometimes the best security will come not from adding guards and gates but from reexamining the way chemical operations are carried out in order to reduce the amount of hazardous substances on site, improve the way they are stored or processed, or find safer substitutes for the chemicals themselves. These changes limit the loss of life or other damage in the event of an attack and therefore make a facility a less inviting target for terrorists to begin with. They also have the added benefit of limiting the harm from an accidental release. S. 2145 clearly requires facilities to look at the risks and consequences related to the dangerous chemicals on site and address those specific vulnerabilities in their security plan. And it includes these process changes among the menu of security measures that chemical facilities should examine when designing their security plans. The House chemical security bill, H.R. 5695, goes further and would require high risk chemical facilities to implement safer technologies under certain conditions. That requirement is similar to an amendment I offered at markup which, had it been adopted, would have required the riskiest chemical facilities to consider such technologies and implement them if feasible. This is not a question of forcing industry to conduct its operations off a government-issued play book. Companies would analyze for themselves whether there are less dangerous ways to conduct their business and would not be required to implement any changes that were not feasible or merely shifted risk elsewhere. But given the extraordinary risks involved, it is imperative that companies be required to at least take a long hard look at some of the commonsense solutions that have been advocated or already adopted by others within the industry. Unfortunately, the chemical security provision included in the DHS appropriations conference report has no language to encourage safer technologies, and actually includes language aimed at preventing the Secretary from even urging a facility to consider such options. Second, I regret that this chemical security provision includes flawed language on information protection and judicial review. Of course, none of us would want to release sensitive information about a chemical plant that would be useful to a terrorist. However, excessive secrecy in a Government security program can actually make us less, not more safe. This is because some degree of transparency is necessary to help us make Government programs more accountable and effective. Also, local communities and their elected officials deserve to know whether local facilities are being kept safe against a terrorist attack, and the community's vigilance can help make us all safer. I believe S. 2145 as introduced achieved the right combination of protecting real security information, while allowing enough disclosure to create accountability. Unfortunately, those carefully drafted provisions have been replaced, in this measure, by a mechanism that will impose undue secrecy on information submitted and developed in relation to this program and could deny the ability of Congress and affected communities to ensure that the program operates effectively. This measure also puts cumbersome restrictions on the use of such information in court enforcement proceedings and includes an ill- considered provision that would limit court review of a chemical facility's conduct. Finally, I am extremely disappointed that this measure does not include the provision from S. 2145 guaranteeing States and localities the right to enact stronger chemical security measures. S. 2145 explicitly recognizes that Congress is not the only body that can and should help ensure the safety and security of the Nation's chemical facilities. States and localities have long regulated such facilities for various safety and environmental concerns. Since 9/11, some States have also moved to require security improvements at these facilities. These State and local protections are critical companions to our effort at the Federal level and should not be displaced unless there is an absolute conflict, such that it is impossible for a facility to comply with both the Federal law and a State or local law or regulation on chemical security. S. 2145 also specifies that it does not disrupt State and local safety and environmental law regarding chemical facilities, and it does not seek to dislodge or alter the operation of State common law with respect to such facilities. Contrary to calls by industry, the chemical security language Congress is approving does not affirmatively preempt State and local chemical security rules and I do not believe it should or will have the effect of preempting such laws. Nevertheless, it is preferable that Congress speak clearly and decisively on such an important security matter, and it is unfortunate that the conference report does not retain the strong antipreemption language of our bipartisan Senate bill. These are only a few of the issues that must be revisited, or visited anew, in a complete authorization bill. This chemical security provision is clearly a stopgap measure, one which will expire as soon as we can replace it with a permanent authorization or, at the latest, three years after enactment. So while we have given DHS the authority immediately to begin regulating chemical facilities, we must not let up in our efforts to reach agreement on a permanent and comprehensive chemical security bill as soon as possible. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which will direct nearly $35 billion toward strengthening the homeland security of this great Nation. The measure, though imperfect, addresses one of my top priorities, particularly the recreation of our ineffectual Federal emergency management system into an organization capable of preparing for and effectively responding to disasters, whether caused by nature or terrorists. This month, we observed the fifth anniversary of September 11--a day that changed the course of history for this Nation. We are all united in our desire to defeat the threat of global terrorism and to prevent any more families from having to experience the unfathomable sense of loss that the survivors of 9/11 have experienced. I believe we have made real progress in strengthening our homeland security since 9/11, and I am privileged to have had a role in bringing about that progress. I must add, however, that we are still a ways off from assuring the American people they are as safe as they should be. We continue to work toward that goal, and each day we get a little bit closer. This appropriations bill moves us in the right direction in large part because of its provisions to refashion the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of its disastrous preparations for and response to Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in our country's history which took the lives of over 1,500 citizens and permanently altered the lives of millions more. Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Susan Collins and I conducted an 8-month-long investigation into the government's disgraceful response to Hurricane Katrina. We found negligence, lack of resources, lack of capability, and lack of leadership at all levels of government, which, as we know too well, resulted in the failure to relieve the massive suffering that occurred along the gulf coast. To guarantee more effective planning and a more successful response in the future, Chairman Collins and I made a number of recommendations in our final report, entitled ``A Nation Still Unprepared.'' The most prominent of these recommendations, a FEMA redesign, is in this legislation before us today. With these changes, which add strength and commonsense restructuring, the Federal Government will be better prepared to protect its citizens in times of disaster. Let me briefly describe the most important provisions. First, we elevate FEMA to a special, independent status within the Department of Homeland Security much like what the Coast Guard and Secret Service now have--so that reorganizations could only occur by congressional action. The FEMA Administrator will be the President's principal adviser in an emergency and the administrator and top regional officials will have to have appropriate experience and qualifications for the job. This legislation also restores unity to FEMA's preparedness and response functions. In other words, there will be one organization-- FEMA--responsible for both responding to a disaster and planning and training for that response. To strengthen the ties between Federal and local officials, we will elevate FEMA's regional offices, taking the focus away from Washington and putting it where the real work of preparedness is performed: on the front lines, in the States, towns, and cities most affected by a disaster. The goal is to familiarize Federal officials with regional and local threats, vulnerabilities, and capabilities and ensure that they are familiar with each of them and their State and local counterparts before disaster strikes. The legislation also creates a new Office for Emergency Communications dedicated to achieving the operability and interoperability of emergency communications among first responders that is fundamental to any disaster response. These mission changes will begin to be put into place by authorizing a 10 percent increase in FEMA's operations budget in each of the next 3 years--above the much-needed increase in FEMA's fiscal year 2007 appropriations that is included in this bill. Of course, more is needed, but this legislation makes a start. In addition, we authorize additional funds for States to carry out their disaster preparedness responsibilities, including doubling funding for critical emergency management performance grants. This bill also provides additional assistance to people and communities struck by disaster. It will, for example, allow FEMA more flexibility in the type of housing it can provide disaster victims to find more cost-effective alternatives to the widely criticized FEMA trailers. It establishes measures to assist with family reunification. And it requires FEMA to better address the needs of those with disabilities in disaster preparedness training and an actual disaster. As is inevitably the case, there are things missing from this bill that would have made it better--provisions that were included in the bill that Senator Collins and I introduced and that was passed out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee but that were lost in conference. These include funding for a dedicated grant program to support and promote communications interoperability among first responders and additional assistance for individuals and communities that fall victim to catastrophic disasters. This appropriations bill advances the safety of all Americans in other important ways. For the first time ever, the Department of Homeland Security would have the authority to regulate high risk chemical facilities. I am disappointed; however, that the bill does not preserve more of the comprehensive and bipartisan legislation passed out of both House and Senate homeland security committees. The Senate bill, for example, guaranteed the rights of states to enact stronger chemical security provisions. And both bills encouraged the use of safer chemicals and methods to lessen the vulnerability of chemical facilities in the first place. These provisions are vital because, as we most recently observed with the breech of security here at our own heavily guarded Capitol complex, guards and gates alone are always subject to failure. The American people will not be safe from attacks on these facilities until we provide comprehensive security. September 11 showed us the flaws in our ability to detect and avert terrorist attacks. Hurricane Katrina showed we still haven't grasped many of the lessons of 9/11 and so we remain unprepared. This spending bill moves us toward better preparedness and response to the catastrophes we know await our future. But, unfortunately, there is no cheap way to be better prepared. It takes money--more money than this budget offers. Too few dollars have been set aside to secure our ports, our transit systems, our railways. Our first responders--who need equipment, training, interoperable communications--continue to be critically under funded. The cuts this bill makes in State homeland security funding are far less deep than those proposed by the President in his budget this year, but they are cuts nonetheless, and they continue what has been a disturbing downward trend over the last few years. Since 2004, for example, the state homeland security grant program--which provides the central preparedness assistance to states throughout the country--has been slashed by 69 percent. Additional resources are needed, and I will continue to advocate for them as a wise investment in the greater protection it will provide the American people. But overall, I think this bill is a significant step toward ensuring that we have a strong, capable agency to lead the country's response to future disasters, whether natural disasters or terrorist attacks--and that is primarily why I will vote for its passage and urge my colleagues to do the same. Lastly, I thank all of the staff on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, whose many months of work investigating the Katrina response and overseeing the recovery process, formulating recommendations, fashioning those recommendations into legislation, and guiding that legislation through the Congress has resulted in the important changes to our nation's emergency preparedness and response capabilities included in this appropriations bill. The minority staff members are: Joyce Rechtschaffen, Laurie Rubenstein, Robert Muse, Michael Alexander, Eric Andersen, David Berick, Dan Berkovitz, Stacey Bosshardt, Janet Burrell, Scott Campbell, William Corboy, Troy Cribb, Heather Fine, Boris Fishman, Susan Fleming, Jeffrey Greene, Elyse Greenwald, Beth Grossman, R. Denton Herring, Holly Idelson, Kristine Lam, Kevin Landy, Joshua Levy, Alysha Liljeqvist, F. James McGee, Lawrence Novey, Siobhan Oat-Judge, Leslie Phillips, Alistair Anagnostou Reader, Patricia Rojas, Mary Beth Schultz, Adam Sedgewick, Todd Stein, Traci Taylor, Donny Ray Williams, and Jason Yanussi.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in early August, I was unable to be in Washington for the cloture vote on the so-called trifecta bill, which so insidiously tried to hold hostage a necessary increase in the minimum wage and necessary extensions of tax credits important to American families and business to an excessive and unjustifiable reduction in the estate tax paid by the richest families in our country. I want to make clear that I would not have voted to allow this bill to proceed and that my inability to cast a vote in no way undercut the effort to stop this outrageous legislation. Since it was necessary for proponents of the legislation to find 60 votes irrespective of the number of votes against cloture cast by those of us in opposition, the very act of not voting for the cloture motion was, in effect, a vote against the motion. At the time of the vote, I issued a press statement expressing my disappointment over the Senate's failure to enact a minimum wage hike and my dismay at the Republican proponents' tactic of linking the wage hike to an estate tax giveaway that would have increased an already out-of-control Federal budget deficit. In that statement, I rejected the Republicans proponents' hollow claim to favor a minimum wage increase. In fact, they have actively opposed a minimum wage increase for years; in this trifecta bill, they were using the wage hike only as a cynical ploy to attract votes for the estate tax rollback. In my statement, I noted that the failure of the trifecta bill, though a victory for fiscal sanity, was no cause for rejoicing. An inappropriately low national minimum wage has been a big part of the problem of working-family poverty for many years. It is a problem for workers in Connecticut where the State minimum wage is higher, since a low national minimum wage creates pressure for companies to move Connecticut jobs to low wage States. The minimum wage was last raised almost 10 years ago. We need to act this year to pass a minimum wage increase--without tying it to an excessive cut in the estate tax. It is also essential that we pass the tax ``extenders'' which will support families paying college tuition, promote work opportunities for low- income Americans, and give incentives to businesses pursuing important research and development. These and other important tax extenders were also taken hostage by the Republicans' irresponsible estate tax scheme. I have cosponsored a separate bill that would raise the minimum wage and extend these important tax incentives for middle-class families and businesses. I will continue to work with my colleagues to accomplish these goals without paying the high cost of excessive estate tax cuts to the wealthiest sliver of the population. Mr. President, I also wish to express my support for the pension reform legislation which passed the Senate on August 2. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the conference report. While we all recognize that the legislation that passed was not perfect, it marked the end of a long and difficult legislative process that necessarily involved a great deal of compromise on all sides. It represents a success in terms of bipartisan cooperation in the Senate, something we need to see much more of in the future so we can truly begin to address many of the serious and complex problems our nation faces. Senate passage of the pension reform bill was the culmination of more than a year of work by lawmakers concerned about record unfunded liabilities at the PBGC--which is supposed to be the bulwark against pension collapse--as well as what had become a widespread epidemic of chronic underfunding of pension plans. The legislation as passed by the House and Senate, and now signed by the President, would require companies to fund 100 percent of their plan liabilities, up from 90 percent under current law. Those with funding shortfalls generally would have 7 years to make up the difference. Companies at risk of default would be subject to other restrictions and would have to make accelerated contributions. The legislation provides specific relief for financially troubled airlines, giving up to 17 years to fully fund their plans. Some airlines were given more relief than others, so there may be an effort to pass a technical corrections bill to address this issue. Also included in the legislation are provisions aimed at encouraging workers to make contributions to retirement savings plans, including allowing companies to automatically enroll employees in a 401(k). This will accomplish a relatively simple but tremendously effective change to ensure that more Americans are saving for their retirement The legislation also contains many other improvements and protections to the necessarily complex system we have constructed to address the retirement security of tens of millions of our citizens. The bill would provide needed reforms to both single employer and multiemployer plans; to defined benefit as well as defined contribution plans; and to hybrid ``cash balance'' plans. It also provides greater security to spouses with respect to their share of a spouse's retirement plan after death or divorce. Further, the bill includes tax incentives for charitable giving. Many of these incentives were in the CARE Act which I have sponsored in this as well as previous congresses.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to PFC Nicholas A. Madaras, U.S. Army, of Wilton, CT. While in Boqouba, Iraq, with the 168th Combined Arms Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Private Madaras died on September 3, 2006, of injuries he sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his dismounted patrol. He is remembered by those who knew him in the community as a leader on the soccer field, a sharp and focused student, a quiet but intense warrior, and as a caring and creative young man. He is remembered by his comrades as a good-humored soldier in a league of extraordinary heroes, mature beyond his years. Described as having tremendous potential with a heart of courage, he caused many to wonder why he had interrupted a promising education and chose the Army instead. Feeling uncomfortable just watching others serve, he responded to them that he was compelled to do his part for his country. Private Madaras epitomizes the American spirit which permeates our great Nation. Living as a true patriot and defender of our principles of freedom and justice, he consistently put others ahead of himself. While I am saddened by his loss, I am also both proud and grateful that we have the kind of fighting force exemplified by Private Madaras serving in our Armed Forces. Our Nation extends its heartfelt sympathy to his family. I offer my condolences to his father William, to his mother Shalini, to his sister Marie, and to his brother Christopher. We extend our appreciation for sharing this outstanding soldier with us, and we offer our prayers and support.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with so many important questions facing this Senate, and so little time left before we adjourn before the fall elections, I am dismayed that we are considering this so-called Secure Fence Act. I say this as a supporter of the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform we passed in May. I say this as one of many who followed the leadership of Senators Frist and Reid, Specter and Leahy, McCain and Kennedy, when 62 Senators voted for true reform legislation. And now look where we are. After a great success, the Senate is now considering abandoning that truly comprehensive and bipartisan solution to a festering national problem and replacing it with an incomplete, ineffective response to our broken immigration system. How did we come to such a low point this fall, after such promise this spring? I will tell you how. The opponents of reform obstructed and delayed. They refused to enter into a conference--even to discuss the possibility of reconciling House and Senate legislation. Instead we watched the opponents of reform roll out a farcical road show of hearings designed to distort the facts, confuse the issues and roil the waters to create a national anxiety that need not exist. With that out of the way, these same obstructionists have now reintroduced large portions of the punitive and ineffective House legislation the Senate already rejected earlier this year. Without deliberation or debate they are attempting to add their measures onto appropriations legislation already in conference--contradicting the views of a majority of Senators. One of those measures sent from the House is this legislation to build fences across specific sections of our southern border. The cost of these fences is conservatively estimated at $2.2 billion but could easily double. And for this price America will be no more secure, its borders no more protected, and illegal immigration still out of control. As the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I am more focused on protecting Americans from harm than I am on any other issue. Effective border security is a vital national priority--not just to stop the flow of illegal immigration into this country, but also to keep terrorists and criminals from entering the U.S. through our airports and seaports, and across our land borders. We will continue to push for better border security, but this is not the way to do it. The money spent on this bill could be used in much more effective ways to bolster our borders and strengthen our security. In fact, Congress has already significantly expanded funding for border security--for Border Patrol officers, detention beds, and new equipment and technology. This year the Senate already provided the Department with funds to build sections of fence where it makes a difference--in heavily populated areas. But an additional few hundred miles of fence along small portions of our vast desert border will do virtually nothing to stop illegal immigration. Building a few more sections of fence and saying we have solved the problem of illegal immigration doesn't make sense. The President said it himself in a speech days before the Senate passed its immigration bill in May. He said: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements ofthis problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all. That is what the Senate did. And we are on the verge of losing this historic opportunity to address this border challenge the American people expect us to fix. Let's remind ourselves of what is contained in the Senate's immigration bill--and let's be proud of our work. The Senate legislation authorized extensive enhancements of border security and immigration enforcement--many more Border Patrol officers, immigration agents, detention beds, new technologies, and new legal authorities. The Senate bill cracks down on unscrupulous employers who would hire and exploit undocumented workers, by creating verification systems that would leave those employers no excuse for hiring the undocumented and punish them if they do. But what made the Senate bill so forward looking was our bipartisan decision that an enforcement-only bill would not solve the problem of illegal immigration. To control future immigration, we also created a guest worker program that will channel future immigrants into legal avenues, where they will be screened to make sure they pose no threat to public safety and will not take jobs from American workers. And for immigration reform to work we had to squarely face the fact that there are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants already working in the United States. Many have lived here for years and have children who were born in this country and are American citizens. We wisely decided that criminalizing these 11 million people was not going to happen. We couldn't jail that many people. We couldn't deport that many people. We knew that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants living in this country came here to work hard, support their families, pay their taxes and obey the law. Those are the kind of people we want here. Yes, they are here illegally and that can't be treated lightly. And we didn't. The Senate bill does not offer amnesty or a free pass to anyone. If you want to stay here, you have to earn it. Under the comprehensive, bipartisan Senate bill, undocumented immigrants who have been present in the U.S. for at least 5 years would be able to apply for a work visa lasting 6 years. They would also pay thousands of dollars in fines, clear background checks, and must remain gainfully employed and lawabiding. They would go to the back of the line behind those already waiting for their applications to be judged. After 6 years of working in the U.S. on a temporary visa, an immigrant could apply for permanent residency--a process that takes 5 years--provided he or she paid an additional fee, proved payment of taxes and could show knowledge of English and United States civics. Only after a combined period of 11 years could the immigrant apply for U.S. citizenship. Those who have been here betwee 2 to 5 years would have to apply through a stricter guest worker program, and would have to wait even longer before they could win legal residency. We should have rolled up our sleeves long ago to pass realistic and compassionate immigration reform. And the Senate finally has. But the House has shirked its responsibilities with its enforcement-only focus. Now, instead of doing our constitutional duty and hammering out our differences, cogressional leadership has declared that reform is dead for this year and instead says the best we can do is build fences in the desert and create a mirage of security. This is not sensible or right. But we must not give up. We must fight--and I will continue to fight--for true reform. We must do the job the American people sent us here to do--solve the tough problems without falling into divisive, partisan posturing. That is why I hope and expect that we will be allowed to offer true immigration reform amendments to this bill. If we are not allowed to offer immigration reform amendments, I will oppose cloture on this bill, and I hope all my colleagues who support reform will do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in memory of Ella Little Cromwell, a truly remarkable woman from Hartford who passed away Sunday, September 17. Mrs. Cromwell was one of the most engaging and charismatic people I have ever had the pleasure to know. Through tireless effort, Ella Cromwell became a real political institution in Hartford, and was a leader in many efforts to promote justice and equal rights. Mrs. Cromwell believed very deeply in the value of political participation and believed that it was essential for Americans from all backgrounds to become involved in the democratic process in order to reach their fullest potential. Growing up in Hartford, she saw that there were various obstacles preventing African Americans and other minorities from being involved in the political process, and she dedicated her life to helping people overcome those obstacles. Through her hard work with both the Hartford Democratic Town Committee and the Hartford chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, of which she served as second vice president for many years, Mrs. Cromwell played an active role in helping African Americans develop a stronger voice in the city's politics. A master of both grassroots and retail politics, she was able to quickly increase her influence in Hartford politics, and helped to elect African-American candidates to local and State level offices. In many ways, her home in Hartford served as a kind of political club, where prospective candidates would come seeking her support and advice. It was well known that her support could be extremely helpful for any candidate. Also, as a member of the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee for 38 years, right up until her death, she made certain the interests of her community were represented at the State level as well. Almost every democratic candidate for statewide office would have to pay a visit to Ella Cromwell. Rarely does an individual have such a meaningful and lasting effect on her community, but whether with the NAACP or the Democratic State Central Committee, Ella Cromwell never failed to touch the lives of the people around her. What is truly remarkable is the faith she continued to show in the power of the political process to effect change in her community, and the way in which she would continue to engage in the hard, sometimes thankless, work of grassroots campaigning even after she had achieved considerable political influence. Even at the age of 76 she would campaign door-to-door at the same brisk pace she had employed years earlier as young women first getting involved. Ella Cromwell truly embodied the democratic sprit upon which our country was founded. With this in mind, I bid a sad farewell to Ella Little Cromwell, and I will keep her friends and family in my thoughts and prayers. May her commitment to the well-being of others continue to serve as an inspiration for all who knew her.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Illinois and do expect that publicly available information about the procurement procedures used in government contracting will be made available through the Web site.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, passage of this vital port security legislation is a tremendous achievement, and I wish to extend thanks to my hardworking staff members, Jason Yanussi and Josh Levy--as well as the staff of all the involved committees--for all their effort to bring this legislation to fruition. Visit to the Senate by a Member of the Lebanese Parliament

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am voting today to remove the budgetary point of order in order to consider the REAL security amendment offered by Senator Reid. In doing so, I am following through on my longstanding commitment to pass and adequately fund all of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission for preventing future terrorist attacks and protecting our country and our people. If the Senate votes to allow consideration of the amendment, I will introduce a second-degree amendment to strike the provisions on Iraq from the REAL security proposal because they contain language calling for a deadline-driven withdrawal of troops from Iraq, which I have consistently opposed. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to herald two amendments to this important homeland security legislation that, I hope, will go a long way toward improving the security of our nation's rail and mass transit systems. Yesterday, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing at which Secretary Chertoff, representatives from the New York and Los Angeles County police departments, and two security experts testified about the future direction of homeland security. The witnesses expressed an eclectic array of views. But on at least one point, they were all in agreement: radical Islamic terrorists have targeted railroads and mass transit systems in Europe, and the United States could very well be next. Terrorists have hit the subways, trains, and buses of London, Madrid, Mumbai, Tokyo, Moscow, and Israel. It is inconceivable that they have forgotten about us in the United States. In fact, ``Jane's Intelligence Review'' posted a story on its Web site at the end of last month, stating that ``Terrorist attacks on trains and metro rail systems in cities such as Mumbai, London, Madrid, and Moscow suggest a sustained interest by terrorists in exploiting the often open aspect of commuter rail infrastructure to execute mass casualty attacks.'' This is an enormous concern to nearly all of us in this body. Fourteen million people use rail and mass transit every day in this country. In my home State of Connecticut, for example, the Metro North New Haven line is one of the busiest rail lines in the United States, carrying about 110,000 riders each day. And the Stamford, CT, train station on that line is among the busiest city rail stations in the United States. Mass transit is a way of life for so many Americans. Our subways, trolleys, buses, and ferries carry millions of us to work each day, to shop, to sporting events, and to see friends and family. The speed, reliability, and convenience of mass transit has become a part of the cultural fabric of this Nation and helps to make us as mobile a Nation as we are. Unfortunately, transit systems pose one of the greatest challenges to security experts--a challenge that calls for the attention of our Nation's best and brightest minds and should be a much bigger priority for the Federal Government than it is has been. After the London bombings last July, our committee led a bipartisan investigation of the state of mass transit systems in the United States, culminating in a hearing on September 21, 2005. Chairman Collins and I examined the vulnerability of those systems, the threats to them, and the level and types of attention that our governments should devote to them. Unlike airports, which are closed systems, rail and transit systems are open and carry seven times as many people in a year. With so many stops, stations, and lines, we cannot install airport security type checks at every subway station, bus stop, and rail terminal. Traffic would come to a dead halt. But we can and must apply the ``can do, will do'' attitude we have adopted toward aviation security to mass transit and rail security. The amendments that we have added to this bill are an important step in that direction. The first of these amendments is Senators Shelby's and Sarbanes' proposal to beef up the security of our public transportation systems. I proudly cosponsored this amendment because of my strong belief and conviction that we need to do all we can to secure our mass transit systems. This week, the Commerce and Homeland Security Committees have put the interests of the country ahead of jurisdictional and party differences to work to improve the security of America's ports. That is real leadership. The Shelby-Sarbanes amendment was adopted by the Senate in the same vein. The Banking and Homeland Security Committees also have put aside their jurisdictional differences to promote the interests of the country first. If the Senate produced more legislation in this manner, perhaps the American public could suspend its cynicism about our overwhelming absorption with scoring political points. The Shelby-Sarbanes amendment will authorize $3.5 billion in grants for mass transit security, including capital improvements, research and development, and operations. This amendment is an authorization but it sets a marker for the Congress to fund these grant programs in the subsequent appropriations cycles. The amendment also restores funding for the Public Transportation Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which is the vehicle for mass transit systems all over the country to share and analyze intelligence about threats to their sector, and defenses against them. The second amendment I want to address is Senator McCain's rail security amendment, which I also cosponsored. In fact, when my friend from Arizona introduced this amendment as a bill in the 108th Congress, I cosponsored it then. It will make marked improvements in the security of our passenger rail systems with an authorization of $1.2 billion. The amendment directs the Department of Homeland Security to complete and prioritize recommendations regarding vulnerability assessments for freight and passenger rail transportation systems. Notably, the amendment would benefit Amtrak and its thousands of daily riders in three direct ways. The amendment also creates a pilot program to conduct random security screens of passengers and baggage at a specified number of Amtrak stations. It calls for certain fire and life-safety improvements and infrastructure upgrades to Amtrak tunnels on the Northeast Corridor. And it directs Amtrak to submit to the National Transportation Safety Board and the Secretary of Transportation a plan to address the needs of families of passengers involved in rail passenger accidents. Combined, the authorizations contained within these two amendments are in line with the American Public Transportation Association's estimate that $7.2 billion is needed to secure the country's rail and transit systems. Over the last few years, we have seen the decentralization of al- Qaida and with it the growth of homegrown terrorist activities directed toward the open, densely populated, and vulnerable mass transit and rail systems. I am pleased the Senate has accepted these amendments which will help cities and States defend against these deadly threats. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to give my support to the 2007 Defense appropriations bill which passed the Senate last week by a unanimous vote of 98 to 0. The bill provides $469.7 billion in discretionary spending authority for the Department of Defense and will supply critical funding to many Connecticut defense companies that provide our Nation's military with the cutting edge technology, weaponry, and equipment it needs. It includes $2.5 billion for the construction of another Virginia class submarine, which will be built at Connecticut's submarine base in New London. It also includes $54 million for submarine research. This funding will support the significant work of our submarine designers and engineers in New London and will enable important cost-cutting improvements to the Virginia class. Eight million dollars of that funding is targeted for advanced submarine research, which will allow our designers and engineers in New London to begin the early steps of designing a new class of nuclear attack submarines. In aircraft procurement, the bill contains funding for 12 additional Black Hawk helicopters for a total of 94 aircraft and 12 C-17 transport aircraft, also produced in Connecticut. Finally, I am particularly heartened by the inclusion of funding for several of our smaller defense companies and contractors in Connecticut, which provide our troops with sophisticated technological support. Fuel cell development, sonar technology, clotting agents for troops wounded in battle, mobile military health units, and laser machine tool systems are all products of the high-tech defense industry in Connecticut, and I am proud that I was able to secure funding for this burgeoning sector of my State's economy. There were several important amendments proposed to the Defense appropriations bill. Senator Kennedy offered an amendment that would have required the Pentagon to provide information about whether a civil war has developed in Iraq as part of the Defense Department's already mandated quarterly reports. Senator Menendez's proposed amendment prohibited the use of funds for a public relations program designed to monitor news media in the United States and the Middle East to create a database of news stories to promote positive coverage of the Iraq war. Both of these amendments were prevented from being considered explicitly by procedural votes on the Senate floor. If I had voted on those motions, I would have supported both amendments, which would have meant voting against both motions to table. Unfortunately, both amendments were set aside, and my vote would not have changed the procedural outcome in either instance, nor prevented their defeat in a party-line vote. As I have stated earlier, I will be spending much of my time before the November election in Connecticut. I believe it is important for me to spend time with people in Connecticut, listening to their ideas and concerns. These next 2 months will provide me with a good opportunity to learn more about their views on how we can move forward to solving our Nation's most pressing problems. That being said, I plan to return to the Senate for votes when my presence is a deciding factor and important committee business in which my participation is crucial. The task of representation is truly a two-way street, and I value those times, such as during campaigns, when citizens and their elected representatives can engage in a democratic dialogue. I am looking forward to continuing to participate in that process and also continuing to represent the people of Connecticut in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the overall bill before the Senate to express my strong support for it and to say I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 and its predecessor, the GreenLane Cargo Act. Seeing that the clock is reaching noon, I ask unanimous consent we extend the time for the scheduled vote by 10 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the bill and say I am proud to be a cosponsor with Senator Collins, Senator Murray, and Senator Coleman. This is a comprehensive, bipartisan port security bill. I would also like to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus of the Finance Committee, for their hard work, leadership, and commitment to passing a port security bill this Congress. This is really important. In the midst of a Congress and a Capitol that has become all too reflexively and destructively--I might say self-destructively--partisan, and that partisanship getting in the way of us getting anything done, this is a bill on which members of our Homeland Security Committee and the other relevant committees have risen above partisanship and focused on a real threat to our security, a terrorist threat that would come to us in containers moving through our ports or in terrorist acts at our ports. I know there will be many amendments offered this week. I hope we will consider them in the fullness of debate that is part of the Senate but that we always ask ourselves the question: Will this amendment stand in the way of this bill passing and making it through conference committee to be signed by the President? This is urgent and this bill responds comprehensively to the urgent terrorist threat that we face. Ninety-five percent of our international trade flows through our ports. Prior to 9/11, the main goal was to move these millions of tons through our ports efficiently, quickly, for reasons obviously of commerce, jobs, and employment. Since 9/11, we have realized that we need to bring security into the equation but without inflicting on ourselves the precise economic harm that the terrorists intend to do to us. This is a difficult but imperative balance we must achieve. The 9/11 Commission report said that ``major vulnerabilities still exist in cargo security,'' and that, since aviation security has been significantly improved since 9/11, ``terrorists may turn their attention to other modes. Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime and surface transportation''--i.e. ports. Just last month, RAND's Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy published a report entitled ``Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack'' that considered the effects of a nuclear weapon smuggled in a shipping container sent to the Port of Long Beach in California and detonated on a pier. This is chilling. But I remember that the 9/11 Commission, in its conclusions, said one of the great shortcomings we had prior to 9/11 was a failure of imagination. Imagination is usually thought to be a wonderful thing, but what they meant by that is our inability to imagine how brutal, inhumane, and murderous terrorists could be. The potential short- and long-term effects of a nuclear weapon smuggled in a shipping container sent to the Port of Long Beach and detonated on a pier are devastating. The report estimated that up to 60,000 people might die instantly from the blast or radiation poisoning, with 150,000 more exposed to hazardous levels of radiation. The blast and fires could completely destroy both the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles and every ship in the port. As many as 6 million people might have to be evacuated from the Los Angeles area, and another 2 to 3 million people from the surrounding area might have to relocate due to the fallout. Gasoline supplies would quickly dry up because one-third of all the gas used on the west coast is processed at the refineries of the Port of Long Beach. Short-term costs for medical care, insurance claims, workers' compensation, and evacuation and reconstruction could exceed $1 trillion. By comparison, the cost in similar categories resulting from the attacks on America on September 11, 2001 were between $50 billion and $100 billion. Besides damage to the United States, the attack would cause economic effects that would ripple across the globe. That is devastating and chilling. I hesitate to even speak it on the floor of the Senate, and yet it is the world in which we live, and the threat is real. The unsettling fact is, we still have too little idea about the contents of thousands of containers that are shipped into and across the heart of America every day. It is strange to say, but perhaps the controversy over the Dubai Ports World incident raised the collective consciousness of the American people and Members of Congress to the vulnerabilities that we face at our ports. Following that incident, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee marked up the GreenLane bill, and later Senators Collins, Murray, and I started working with the Senate Commerce and Finance Committees to craft the comprehensive port security legislation that is before the Senate today. The Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 builds on these foundations for homeland security by strengthening key port security programs by providing both direction and much-needed resources. I would like to focus my colleagues' attention on a few critically important parts of the bill. First, the bill moves us closer to the goal of inspecting all of the containers entering the United States through our ports. The legislation requires DHS to establish a pilot program to inspect 100 percent of all containers bound for the U.S. from three foreign ports within 1 year and then report to Congress on how DHS can expand that system. There is legitimate concern that inspecting 100 percent of containers would be so burdensome that it would bring commerce to a halt. However, technology companies have been working for several years to build more efficient inspection systems. The Port of Hong Kong is currently testing an integrated inspection system to scan every container entering the two largest terminals at that port, while the research and development offices of DHS have begun work on developing automated systems to analyze this data. We should move towards 100 percent inspection as fast as we can get there, understanding that we can not afford to bring commerce to a halt. This legislation will provide us critical information about how soon we can achieve this goal. Second, this bill authorizes comprehensive and robust port security grant, training, and exercise programs, with a $400 million grant program available to all ports. Third, this legislation requires DHS to deploy both radiation detection and imaging equipment to improve our ability to find dangerous goods and people being smuggled into the United States. DHS has committed to deploying radiation portal monitors at all of our largest seaports by the end of 2007. Unfortunately, this ``solution'' is, in fact, only half of the equation. To provide real port security, radiation detection equipment capable of detecting unshielded radiological materials, as these portal monitors do, must be paired with imaging equipment capable of detecting dense objects, like shielding. This legislation requires DHS to develop a strategy for deploying both types of equipment, and the pilot program for screening 100 percent of containers at three ports similarly requires that both types of equipment be used. Fourth, this bill requires DHS to develop a strategic port and cargo security plan, and it creates an Office of Cargo Security Policy in DHS to ensure Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector coordinate their policies. Currently, the Coast Guard is responsible for the waterside security of our ports. U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulates the flow of commerce through our ports. The Transportation Security Administration is responsible for overseeing the movement of cargo domestically. And the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office has been working with the Defense Department and the Department of Energy to strengthen our ability to detect radiological materials anywhere in the country. It is imperative that these agencies, offices, and departments are working closely with each other, as well as State and local government and the private sector to develop and coordinate port security policies and programs. Lastly, this bill requires DHS to develop a plan to deal with the effects of a maritime security incident, including developing protocols for resuming trade and identifying specific responsibilities for different agencies. This is critically important to ensuring the private sector and our global partners have enough confidence in our system, so that we can mitigate any economic disruption and foil a terrorist's plan to hurt our economy. Moving the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 forward will take us one giant step closer to where we ought to be by building a robust port security regime, domestically and abroad, and provide the resources necessary to protect the American people. I look forward to continuing to work with Senators Collins, Stevens, Inouye, Grassley and Baucus, and our colleagues in the House, to finalizing meaningful port security legislation. Yesterday was a day of remembrance and requiem. Today is a day to resolve that we will do everything in our capacity to make sure that no terrorist attack against our country and our people succeeds in the future. That is the intention of this bill. I urge Members of the Senate to adopt it by this week's end. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Marine Cpl Jordan C. Pierson of Milford, CT. Corporal Pierson, a member of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, was killed in action on August 24 while conducting combat operations against anti-Iraqi forces in Al Anbar Province. He was shot while on foot patrol. He had been previously awarded the Purple Heart for wounds to his arms and legs by shrapnel from an insurgent's grenade 3 months prior. Having delayed his education at the University of Connecticut, Corporal Pierson joined the Marine Corps in December 2003. It seems to be apparent by the many recollections of his friends and family that Jordan had already proven himself a leader. They recount many of the high-spirited exploits that he both engineered and led. However, his wily deeds quickly gave way to an outstanding performance as a marine devoted to his comrades and mission. He is fondly remembered as a brilliant light and strong leader with strength of character and self assurance, persistently watching out for his fellow marines. He is described best by his first sergeant: ``Corporal Pierson had been a bright spot in his platoon, in a place, that can take the softest of hearts into a void of darkness. Even when the gloom of combat reached deep in a man's soul, Corporal Pierson could bring the Marine back to a sense of purpose, a sense of why we were here, and that we were making a difference. Corporal Pierson was destined not to only be a Marine, but a leader among Marines. He fostered a sense of caring for Marines while still embodying all it meant to be a Marine.'' Corporal Jordan Pierson was a true patriot and defender of our great Nation's principles of freedom of justice. He served as an example of the potent American spirit, which permeates this Nation's history. I am both proud and grateful that we have the kind of defender exemplified by Corporal Pierson serving our great Nation. Our Nation extends its heartfelt condolences to his family. To his father Eric, his mother Beverly, and brother Ethan, we extend our profound gratitude for sharing this outstanding marine with us, and we offer our prayers and support.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in memory of Matthew S. Costa, an outstanding young man from Cheshire, CT who died tragically on September 3. I am very saddened to hear of Matthew's death and will be keeping his friends and family in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time. At the time of his death Matthew was serving in Mali as a volunteer for the U.S. Peace Corps. Matthew enrolled in the Peace Corps in 2003 and had been serving in the Malian village of Kati since November 2005, after teaching English in Chad for 2 years. While in Kati, Matthew helped foster one of the Peace Corps core missions, fostering cultural exchange, by fully immersing himself in the local community. He taught English to local high school students and organized training for other teachers in the community. He was also widely known in the community as the host of a popular radio program that played popular American music and then worked with the radio station to improve its marketing strategy. Matthew also sought to involve himself with the village community by playing in a local soccer league and helping to distribute donations of sports equipment. What I think was truly remarkable about Matthew is that after graduating from Tulane University in 2003, a time in which there must have been unlimited opportunities open for Matthew to pursue, he chose to delay any future career plans to help others and broaden his cultural understanding. Matthew volunteered to travel many miles from home and, if necessary, to give up many of the modern conveniences we often take for granted. Matthew liked it so much, that in 2005 he extended his service. Matthew's sacrifice and dedication is truly inspiring. The passing of Matthew Costa is truly a loss for the Peace Corps, for the people of Mali, and for Connecticut. May his selfless devotion to helping others live on in the hearts and minds of those who knew him best and were served by his good works.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition of the Child Custody Protection Act, S. 403. This bill is not about reducing the numbers of abortions in America. S. 403 is about politics played at the expense of young women in the United States. S. 403 would make it a Federal crime for adults other than guardians to transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion. This is not nearly as simple as it may sound. S. 403 is another direct attack on the reproductive rights of women. It turns its back on young women who do not inform their parents about their decision to obtain an abortion even if they face threats of personal harm. S. 403 would criminalize grandmothers, religious leaders, aunts and uncles, and doctors fighting for the health and well-being of young women. This bill would take us back to the time before Roe v. Wade where women did not have the right to control their own bodies and too often were forced to seek an abortion at any cost. The supporters of S. 403 want us to believe that there is a significant problem with young women being transported involuntarily over State lines to receive unwanted abortions without their parents' consent. But this is not what this bill is about. The majority of young women involve their parents in a vital decision such as this. In fact, over 60 percent of young women involve their parents in their decision to have an abortion. For adolescents 14 years and younger, the number is 90 percent. So what is happening in cases when young women choose not to involve their parents? Studies show that in one-third of the cases where young women do not involve a parent, they fear family violence or being forced to leave the home. Research tells us that almost 50 percent of pregnant young women with a history of physical abuse report that they were hit during their pregnancy. Unfortunately, the person they were most often hit by was a family member. The truth is adolescents that are most at risk for teen pregnancy are also the most likely to come from violent homes. Here, they often may not receive the parental guidance they need to make healthy decisions. Therefore, many experts tell us that teens at greatest risk for teen pregnancy also suffer the most from mandatory parental consent laws. These are young women that often do not have access to good parental support and guidance. They are likely to turn to other adult role models in their lives--grandmothers, aunts, cousins, or sisters for that guidance and support. But S. 403 would send these people--grandmothers, aunts and religious figures--to prison for assisting young women in need. Mr. President, is this the way the Nation should be focusing on as a solution to teen pregnancy? Why don't we work together to reduce the numbers of unintended pregnancies and give people the social supports they need to make healthy choices? Why aren't the administration and the congressional majority talking about finding new pregnancy prevention programs that do not include jails? Instead, this administration and the majority in Congress are initiating programs that are reversing the declines in abortion rates that we saw in the late 1990s. The Bush administration is more concerned with parental notification laws that we know hurt teens and would only affect a minority of cases than with actually preventing abortions. On their watch, abortion rates have stopped declining. In fact, according to government statistics, 90 percent of the States that attract the most out-of-State abortions actually have moderate to strict parental involvement laws. S. 403 will do nothing to keep young women from having to make a difficult choice--it will only make it harder for them. The American Psychological Association has listed studies that show that parental notification laws increase adolescent stress and anxiety. They increase the likelihood of teenage pregnancy. Parental notification laws also make it more likely that teens will turn to extralegal and unsafe methods of abortion that could result in serious injury. I wished we lived in a world where parents would always be involved in their children's health decisions. I would want any young woman in America contemplating abortion to trust her parents enough and feel safe enough to involve them in her decision. Unfortunately, that is not the reality that many of our young women face. They cannot go to their parents for fear of abuse and violence. This bill does nothing to protect these young women by including a strong judicial bypass, and does not take into consideration the difficult situations these young women face. I cannot even list the numbers of groups that have come out in strong opposition of S. 403, but they include the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Women's Association, the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the Republican Majority for Choice. I am joining those groups in opposition to S. 403. S. 403 is another attempt at curtailing a woman's right to choose--in this case, young women, who are often the most vulnerable to violence and abuse from those that are supposed to be protecting them. I ask my colleagues to defeat S. 403.