Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for and cosponsorship of this comprehensive piece of legislation that Chairman Collins and I are proposing based on our investigation into the failed preparations and response to Hurricane Katrina. About 1 month ago, we introduced a bill to transform FEMA into the U.S. Emergency Management Authority to guarantee that our national emergency response system can handle a catastrophe--whether it is a hurricane the size and scope of Katrina or a terrorist attack. U.S. EMA would have special, protected status--much like the Coast Guard has within the Department of Homeland Security. The Senate overwhelmingly adopted that legislation by a vote of 87 to 11 as part of the Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2007 Appropriations Act. Today, we reintroduce that legislation backed up by additional reforms to improve emergency communications, planning, training, and to make necessary changes to the Stafford Act, which governs relief and emergency assistance to victims of disasters. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, at the request of the Senate leadership, spent 7 months culling through hundreds of thousands of documents, interviewing hundreds of witnesses, and holding scores of hearings into the botched Government response to that catastrophic hurricane. We found that at all levels, our Government was ill-equipped to deal with the massive human suffering all along the gulf coast that followed the storm's landfall, suffering that shocked and angered the American people who expect more from their government when fellow Americans are in need. These failings were the result of many things--negligence, lack of resources, lack of capability. But most of all they were the result of a failure of leadership--by the White House, DHS, FEMA, the Louisiana Governor's office, and the New Orleans mayor's office. To this day, the Department of Homeland Security does not make sufficient distinction between everyday problems that States must deal with on a seasonal basis and the larger catastrophes which, as Katrina demonstrated, quickly overwhelm local and State authorities. The legislation we are introducing today is an effort to get the Department of Homeland Security to understand that distinction better and to target its preparedness and response to cope better with normal disasters as well as with those rarer but truly catastrophic events. It addresses--to the extent possible--many of the Federal shortcomings exposed by our investigation. And it reflects many of the 88 recommendations the committee reached in its final report on the Katrina investigation. Let me briefly summarize the bill. First and foremost, we are concerned about our first responders who rush into the middle of catastrophes to save lives. First responders must have the tools they need to protect and save our communities. Think back to September 11. Hundreds of firefighters lost their lives that day for many reasons. Among them was that their radio equipment was not compatible with the police force radios, making it more difficult to learn of the warnings others had that the Twin Towers were going to fall. During Hurricane Katrina, first responders not only lacked compatible radio equipment, but they lost communication completely when power lines and sub stations were knocked out of operation. Whether responding to a terrorist attack, natural disaster, fire, a missing child, or a fleeing suspect, police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and other responders too frequently cannot share crucial, lifesaving information at the scene of a disaster. Senator Collins and I introduced a bill, reported out of committee last year, to improve emergency communications, the Assure Emergency and Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005, S.1725. We have borrowed liberally from it. For example, today's legislation, like S.1725, would require the development of a national strategy for emergency communications; the establishment of an emergency communications research and development program; and dedicated funding for State and local communications and interoperability grants, authorized at $3.3 billion over 5 years. We would also establish a new Office of Emergency Communications within U.S. EMA by combining existing offices at the Department of Homeland Security that deal with various aspects of emergency communications. Among the offices to be combined are SAFECOM within the Science and Technology Directorate and the National Communications System, which was under the Infrastructure Protection Office during Katrina. This office will make sure that DHS actually has someone in charge of leading the Department's splintered efforts to fix these persistent communications problems. This legislation also makes changes to the Stafford Act and improves upon other recovery and assistance benefits for the victims of disaster. Among other things, we would require U.S. EMA to develop housing and recovery strategies; we would increase the assistance provided under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program from 7.5 percent of funds paid out under title IV of the Stafford Act up to 15 percent, depending on the size of the disaster; and we would expand FEMA's authority so that in addition to providing temporary housing it could provide permanent or semipermanent housing, giving it greater flexibility to meet the needs of those affected by a disaster. Unlike FEMA, U.S. EMA would not have to reflexively rely on travel trailers to house victims when other types of housing make more sense. Victims would be aided further under this legislation by elimination of the subcaps that limited the amount of specific assistance for repairs and home replacement during Katrina and by increased transportation benefits. We would clarify the statute by reinforcing Congress's intent to allow for the use of rental assistance to pay for utility costs and to provide treatment of mental health problems resulting from or aggravated by a disaster. And we would allow U.S. EMA to provide temporary residences to all parts of a household that necessarily must split following a disaster--because of multiple relocations or cases of domestic violence, for example. If the President finds ``catastrophic damages'' to a locale hit by disaster, he would be able to provide even more assistance under our legislation. The President would be able to double the cap for individual assistance from $26,000 to $52,000, provide unemployment benefits for 52 weeks instead of 26 weeks, provide help with mortgage and rental assistance, and waive maximum limitations on the amount of assistance that can be provided under the Community Disaster Loan Program. Other provisions in our bill call for increased planning for people with special needs, better ways to get disaster information to those who need it, and measures to assist with family reunification. We would also require government contractors to hire more local firms and local workers. This legislation also has an extensive section dedicated to saving money for the taxpayers while preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, we would require the U.S. EMA Director to establish an identity verification process to ensure that victims who apply for benefits under the Individuals and Households Program are who they say they are and are in true need. We would create a registry of contractors able to perform common postdisaster work and use advance, competitively awarded contracts for predictably required goods and services. And we would create a contingent of volunteer contracting officers from throughout the Federal Government to assist with additional contracting needs during emergencies. Our bill would also require U.S. EMA to plan for a disaster far more extensively than it has previously. It requires the development of a national training and exercise program, involving both Federal and State officials, to prepare for natural and manmade disasters. And the U.S. EMA Administrator would have to review the National Response Plan and clarify overlapping or confusing law enforcement, search and rescue, and medical responsibilities. Mr. President, we are approaching the 1-year anniversary of Katrina-- August 29. Much has changed since that time. Certainly, the gulf coast is better prepared to meet a disaster this hurricane season. Yet many victimized by Hurricane Katrina, as well as those vulnerable to natural disasters or terrorist attacks elsewhere, still face uncertain futures. We cannot forget those still struggling to rebuild their lives from the devastation wrought by Katrina almost a year ago. This legislation was designed to address specific problems exposed by Katrina, so as it moves through the legislative process, we must do all that we can to ensure that the President has the authority he needs to provide assistance to past victims, as well as to victims of future disasters. We must also make certain that, unlike FEMA, U.S. EMA has all of the resources it needs to lead a national preparedness effort and to respond to whatever occurs in a manner that the American people have a right to expect. The committee's investigation found that FEMA had never been prepared for a catastrophic event but also that it had budget shortages that hindered its preparedness and impeded its performance. Scott Wells, FEMA's Deputy Federal Coordinating Officer in Lousiana, summed it up. He said, ``This was a catastrophic disaster. We don't have the structure; we don't have the people for catastrophic disaster. It's that simple . . . If you want a big capability, you've got to make a big investment. And there is no investment in response operations for a catastrophic disaster. It's not there.'' Clearly, if the Federal Government is to improve its performance in the next disaster, we must give it sufficient resources. This legislation takes an important step in that direction by providing a $49 million increase for FEMA's two key operating accounts in fiscal year 2008 and an additional $53 million in fiscal year 2009. However, I believe even more is necessary, and I will work to secure additional resources as U.S. EMA becomes a reality. The Department of Homeland Security was established not to address average disasters--the hurricanes that reliably strike certain parts of the country each year or flooding from heavy rains. DHS was established to prevent, prepare for, and if necessary respond to horrific catastrophes that demand all the resources our Federal Government has to offer in times of need or when local and State governments are overwhelmed by what has befallen them. This legislation is a reminder of that original purpose, an effort to get the Department of Homeland Security back to where Congress originally envisioned it should be. This bill will help the Department be as prepared for and able to respond to catastrophes as the American public expects it to be.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for and cosponsorship of this comprehensive piece of legislation that Chairman Collins and I are proposing based on our investigation into the failed preparations and response to Hurricane Katrina. About 1 month ago, we introduced a bill to transform FEMA into the U.S. Emergency Management Authority to guarantee that our national emergency response system can handle a catastrophe--whether it is a hurricane the size and scope of Katrina or a terrorist attack. U.S. EMA would have special, protected status--much like the Coast Guard has within the Department of Homeland Security. The Senate overwhelmingly adopted that legislation by a vote of 87 to 11 as part of the Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2007 Appropriations Act. Today, we reintroduce that legislation backed up by additional reforms to improve emergency communications, planning, training, and to make necessary changes to the Stafford Act, which governs relief and emergency assistance to victims of disasters. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, at the request of the Senate leadership, spent 7 months culling through hundreds of thousands of documents, interviewing hundreds of witnesses, and holding scores of hearings into the botched Government response to that catastrophic hurricane. We found that at all levels, our Government was ill-equipped to deal with the massive human suffering all along the gulf coast that followed the storm's landfall, suffering that shocked and angered the American people who expect more from their government when fellow Americans are in need. These failings were the result of many things--negligence, lack of resources, lack of capability. But most of all they were the result of a failure of leadership--by the White House, DHS, FEMA, the Louisiana Governor's office, and the New Orleans mayor's office. To this day, the Department of Homeland Security does not make sufficient distinction between everyday problems that States must deal with on a seasonal basis and the larger catastrophes which, as Katrina demonstrated, quickly overwhelm local and State authorities. The legislation we are introducing today is an effort to get the Department of Homeland Security to understand that distinction better and to target its preparedness and response to cope better with normal disasters as well as with those rarer but truly catastrophic events. It addresses--to the extent possible--many of the Federal shortcomings exposed by our investigation. And it reflects many of the 88 recommendations the committee reached in its final report on the Katrina investigation. Let me briefly summarize the bill. First and foremost, we are concerned about our first responders who rush into the middle of catastrophes to save lives. First responders must have the tools they need to protect and save our communities. Think back to September 11. Hundreds of firefighters lost their lives that day for many reasons. Among them was that their radio equipment was not compatible with the police force radios, making it more difficult to learn of the warnings others had that the Twin Towers were going to fall. During Hurricane Katrina, first responders not only lacked compatible radio equipment, but they lost communication completely when power lines and sub stations were knocked out of operation. Whether responding to a terrorist attack, natural disaster, fire, a missing child, or a fleeing suspect, police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and other responders too frequently cannot share crucial, lifesaving information at the scene of a disaster. Senator Collins and I introduced a bill, reported out of committee last year, to improve emergency communications, the Assure Emergency and Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005, S.1725. We have borrowed liberally from it. For example, today's legislation, like S.1725, would require the development of a national strategy for emergency communications; the establishment of an emergency communications research and development program; and dedicated funding for State and local communications and interoperability grants, authorized at $3.3 billion over 5 years. We would also establish a new Office of Emergency Communications within U.S. EMA by combining existing offices at the Department of Homeland Security that deal with various aspects of emergency communications. Among the offices to be combined are SAFECOM within the Science and Technology Directorate and the National Communications System, which was under the Infrastructure Protection Office during Katrina. This office will make sure that DHS actually has someone in charge of leading the Department's splintered efforts to fix these persistent communications problems. This legislation also makes changes to the Stafford Act and improves upon other recovery and assistance benefits for the victims of disaster. Among other things, we would require U.S. EMA to develop housing and recovery strategies; we would increase the assistance provided under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program from 7.5 percent of funds paid out under title IV of the Stafford Act up to 15 percent, depending on the size of the disaster; and we would expand FEMA's authority so that in addition to providing temporary housing it could provide permanent or semipermanent housing, giving it greater flexibility to meet the needs of those affected by a disaster. Unlike FEMA, U.S. EMA would not have to reflexively rely on travel trailers to house victims when other types of housing make more sense. Victims would be aided further under this legislation by elimination of the subcaps that limited the amount of specific assistance for repairs and home replacement during Katrina and by increased transportation benefits. We would clarify the statute by reinforcing Congress's intent to allow for the use of rental assistance to pay for utility costs and to provide treatment of mental health problems resulting from or aggravated by a disaster. And we would allow U.S. EMA to provide temporary residences to all parts of a household that necessarily must split following a disaster--because of multiple relocations or cases of domestic violence, for example. If the President finds ``catastrophic damages'' to a locale hit by disaster, he would be able to provide even more assistance under our legislation. The President would be able to double the cap for individual assistance from $26,000 to $52,000, provide unemployment benefits for 52 weeks instead of 26 weeks, provide help with mortgage and rental assistance, and waive maximum limitations on the amount of assistance that can be provided under the Community Disaster Loan Program. Other provisions in our bill call for increased planning for people with special needs, better ways to get disaster information to those who need it, and measures to assist with family reunification. We would also require government contractors to hire more local firms and local workers. This legislation also has an extensive section dedicated to saving money for the taxpayers while preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, we would require the U.S. EMA Director to establish an identity verification process to ensure that victims who apply for benefits under the Individuals and Households Program are who they say they are and are in true need. We would create a registry of contractors able to perform common postdisaster work and use advance, competitively awarded contracts for predictably required goods and services. And we would create a contingent of volunteer contracting officers from throughout the Federal Government to assist with additional contracting needs during emergencies. Our bill would also require U.S. EMA to plan for a disaster far more extensively than it has previously. It requires the development of a national training and exercise program, involving both Federal and State officials, to prepare for natural and manmade disasters. And the U.S. EMA Administrator would have to review the National Response Plan and clarify overlapping or confusing law enforcement, search and rescue, and medical responsibilities. Mr. President, we are approaching the 1-year anniversary of Katrina-- August 29. Much has changed since that time. Certainly, the gulf coast is better prepared to meet a disaster this hurricane season. Yet many victimized by Hurricane Katrina, as well as those vulnerable to natural disasters or terrorist attacks elsewhere, still face uncertain futures. We cannot forget those still struggling to rebuild their lives from the devastation wrought by Katrina almost a year ago. This legislation was designed to address specific problems exposed by Katrina, so as it moves through the legislative process, we must do all that we can to ensure that the President has the authority he needs to provide assistance to past victims, as well as to victims of future disasters. We must also make certain that, unlike FEMA, U.S. EMA has all of the resources it needs to lead a national preparedness effort and to respond to whatever occurs in a manner that the American people have a right to expect. The committee's investigation found that FEMA had never been prepared for a catastrophic event but also that it had budget shortages that hindered its preparedness and impeded its performance. Scott Wells, FEMA's Deputy Federal Coordinating Officer in Lousiana, summed it up. He said, ``This was a catastrophic disaster. We don't have the structure; we don't have the people for catastrophic disaster. It's that simple . . . If you want a big capability, you've got to make a big investment. And there is no investment in response operations for a catastrophic disaster. It's not there.'' Clearly, if the Federal Government is to improve its performance in the next disaster, we must give it sufficient resources. This legislation takes an important step in that direction by providing a $49 million increase for FEMA's two key operating accounts in fiscal year 2008 and an additional $53 million in fiscal year 2009. However, I believe even more is necessary, and I will work to secure additional resources as U.S. EMA becomes a reality. The Department of Homeland Security was established not to address average disasters--the hurricanes that reliably strike certain parts of the country each year or flooding from heavy rains. DHS was established to prevent, prepare for, and if necessary respond to horrific catastrophes that demand all the resources our Federal Government has to offer in times of need or when local and State governments are overwhelmed by what has befallen them. This legislation is a reminder of that original purpose, an effort to get the Department of Homeland Security back to where Congress originally envisioned it should be. This bill will help the Department be as prepared for and able to respond to catastrophes as the American public expects it to be.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the vital need to reauthorize key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, among the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation Congress has ever passed. As we are approaching the 41st anniversary of the act, perhaps it is important to remember the words of President Lyndon Johnson who signed this bill into law on August 6, 1965, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. looked on. Johnson's words spoke to all Americans--then and now--about the importance of the right to vote. He said: The central fact of American civilization--one so hard for others to understand--is that freedom and justice and the dignity of man are not just words to us. We believe in them. . . . Every family across this great, entire, searching land will live stronger in liberty, will live more splendid in expectation, and will be prouder to be American because of the Act you have passed and that I will sign today. Now is the time to renew that pledge for freedom by reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, and I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. I thank Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy for their efforts to report this legislation out of their committee with unanimous support yesterday. I hope the full Senate will show the same level of support when the bill is voted on this afternoon. The importance of renewing this act was driven home to me yesterday when, like many of my colleagues, I met with a delegation from my State's chapter of the NAACP--here for the annual NAACP meeting and to visit with their congressional delegation. The meeting was not only a wonderful opportunity to see about 40 old friends, it was a demonstration of the fundamental constitutional principle that powers our Republic--the right to petition the government about the issues that matter most. Of course, it strikes me that 40 years ago, while Senators on the floor of this very Chamber debated the original Voting Rights Act, some of those constituents' own parents and grandparents could not even cast a vote without fear for their own lives. And that was for one reason-- because they were Black. Those were tragic times for America. I remember my own trip to Mississippi in 1963, as a senior in college when I joined with friends on a trip to Mississippi to draw attention to the cause of enfranchising African-American voters. Our goal, like others who made similar journeys, was to support the fight of the young heroes of the civil rights movement--Black men and women who. sat at lunch counters, who refused to move to the back of the buses, who peacefully but powerfully demanded the most basic rights every American deserves--including the right to cast a vote. I like to believe our trip to Mississippi was a small step in the march toward equality that Dr. King and other civil rights leaders, like Representative John Lewis from Georgia, who sat at those lunch counters, pressed upon the American conscience in those heavy days. But my meeting with the Connecticut chapter of the NAACP reminded me the march toward equal rights is not over. In my meeting, one woman asked, ``Why does Congress even have to extend the Voting Rights Act? Why is the law not permanent?'' I explained that Congress passes legislation that automatically expires because it is important to assess whether a law is working as intended, whether it needs changing to address new concerns, or whether it is needed at all. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, every American now has the opportunity to vote and any American can come to Washington to meet with his or her Senators, and I am grateful so many people do. Across the country, the number of African-American elected officials has increased from just 300 in 1964 to more than 9,000 today, including 43 Members of Congress. But with some regret, we must conclude that the Voting Rights Act is as necessary today as it has ever been. For as long as the law continues to be violated, we still need that law. Since 1982, when the act was last extended, there have been more than 1,000 complaints of violations of the Voting Rights Act all across the country. Just last month, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the redistricting plan in Texas because the court ruled that the plan disenfranchised large numbers of Hispanic voters. As long as there are efforts to dilute the votes of some or to make it more difficult for any of our fellow citizens to vote, we need the Voting Rights Act and the provisions that are set to expire next year. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation today because the march toward equality must continue. But I look forward to the day when it is no longer needed because we have achieved the ideal where each and every vote cast in this great democracy of ours has the same voice and carries the same weight and that everyone who wants to vote can do so with ease and without fear of discrimination. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation today because the civil rights march must continue because we cannot confuse progress with victory. As Martin Luther King said on the front steps of the Lincoln Memorial, a speech I heard in person, we can never be satisfied until every citizen can vote and every citizen has something to vote for. And when that day comes, when we have achieved full voting rights and civil rights for all Americans, Dr. King can look down from Heaven, his mission finally fulfilled, and call out: ``Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, they are free at last.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 4684, the McCain-Feingold-Prioritization amendment, to the Water Resources Development Act. The city of New Orleans has been under a constant threat of flooding from the ``big one'' ever since it was founded in 1718. Though the city has survived, its flood control defenses have been tested and occasionally overwhelmed. There was the great flood of 1927 when the Mississippi River spilled into the city, and there was Hurricane Betsy in 1965, which, according to Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, ``picked up ... [Lake Pontchartrain] and put it inside New Orleans and Jefferson Parish.'' In the same year that Betsy inundated the city, Congress authorized a hurricane protection project to protect the city. That project was supposed to take 13 years, cost $85 million, and, according to the Army Corps, protect greater New Orleans from the equivalent of a fast-moving category 3 hurricane. In the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's investigation into the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina, our committee learned that that project was still a decade or more away from completion--close to 50 years after this body authorized its construction--and the total cost of the project had ballooned to more than $750 million. In addition, the project did not provide the level of protection for New Orleans and the region that it was expected to provide. There were many reasons for the delay, including natural ones such as the subsidence of the land in southeastern Louisiana. Building levees in this part of the country required the Army Corps to return time and time again to add additional layers to the levees, known as lifts, to accommodate for the sinking soils. But there were also manmade reasons for the delay, such as the absence of Federal funding. In recent years, local Army Corps officials have had to scramble to move these Louisiana hurricane protection projects forward. Local Army Corps officials had to urge local levee boards to contact their congressional delegation to ask for financial help to restore levees to their original design height, and on two recent occasions, the Army Corps had to rely on the local levee districts, which share in the cost of these projects, to advance them money so they could continue construction of segments of the hurricane protection system. As the Corps of Engineers' own Interagency Performance Evaluation Taskforce, or IPET, investigators observed, if one part of the levee system comes up short, it can compromise the entire protection system. Yet this levee system, which was supposed to be protecting one of America's most vulnerable cities, was never finished, and as a result, when Katrina hit last August, dire consequences ensued. We learned from Katrina that there is a need to focus limited Federal resources on finishing flood control projects that are critical to our Nation's health, safety, and welfare. The Army Corps' current process to do this is inadequate. As the GAO testified before the House in March, ``The Corps' planning and project management processes cannot ensure that national priorities are appropriately established across the hundreds of civil works projects that are competing for scarce federal resources.'' The McCain-Feingold amendment on prioritization, which I am proud to cosponsor, will address this problem by requiring the Water Resources Planning Coordinating Committee, which the underlying WRDA Bill already establishes for other purposes to evaluate the importance of Corps projects in three different categories--storm damage reduction projects, navigation projects, and environmental restoration projects. The amendment also requires the committee to rank projects in each category so that Congress, and the Corps itself, can determine what projects are the most important to pursue and most worthy of funding. The Coordinating Committee will then submit its report to Congress and make the report available to the public. With that information, Congress can make better decisions about how to spend scarce Federal resources on critical infrastructure projects across the country. We have to learn from Katrina and we should never again allow a project that is so critical to the very livelihood of so many to languish because we did not give it the priority it deserved. I know many of my colleagues are concerned that this amendment will remove authority from individual Members about how to spend Army Corps dollars. I understand that concern, but the reality is that the Corps has more work to do than funding to do it. This WRDA bill will add another $10 to $12 billion in Army Corps projects on top of the estimated $58 billion in backlogged Army Corps projects that are authorized but not yet funded. Without some system of prioritizing projects, as this amendment would require, we run the risk of another Katrina-like situation where critical projects are not given the priority they deserve. On the other hand, by requiring the Corps to prioritize projects in each category--flood control, navigation, and environmental restoration--we can ensure that there is a balance among the types of projects that are funded and that the most important and cost-effective projects in each category get the attention they deserve. Water resources projects are important to each and every State, but we need to heed the lessons of Katrina and make sure that we spend our tax dollars where they are most needed. I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the McCain-Feingold amendment on independent review. I do so because of the investigation that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently completed into the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. In that investigation, Senator Collins and I and the rest of the committee learned a great deal about the inadequacy of the levee system that was supposed to protect New Orleans. And we were greatly aided by the work of the three different independent forensic investigations carried out by the State of Louisiana, the National Science Foundation, and by the Army Corps' own Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force or IPET. The results of these reviews were truly shocking. In the words of the Army Corps' own IPET report, ``The System did not perform as a system: the hurricane protection in New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana was a system in name only.'' IPET found that the system was only as strong as its weakest links, and that there were many weak links. IPET found: That the materials and designs used in the levees were inadequate and failed faster than expected in fending off Katrina. That project designs failed to incorporate redundancy and measures to respond to a hurricane that was larger than expected. For instance, there was no shielding on the back of the flood walls to prevent their collapse if they were overtopped by the storm surge. That some parts of the system were not prepared to handle a category 3 storm even though the Army Corps had been telling the city and the Nation for years that the system offered comprehensive category 3 level protection. That the floodwalls along the 17th Street and London Avenue Canals collapsed because of foundation failures caused by design and construction mistakes. Those walls collapsed well before the water reached the height the walls were designed to protect against, causing a major portion of the flooding in the city and the suffering at the Superdome and Convention Center. The Army Corps considered those floodwalls complete, ready to defend against a hurricane of Katrina's strength. Unfortunately, it took Katrina and the subsequent IPET report to learn that those floodwalls were not designed, built, or constructed to protect those who lived in nearby neighborhoods. And one of the most shocking discoveries, IPET found that, because of subsidence in the area, parts of the levee system were anywhere from 2 to 3 feet below their design height. What was even more shocking was that the Army Corps was aware of the subsidence before Katrina but did nothing to address the obvious deficiency. Mr. President, I am on the Senate floor today because while it is enormously important that we have learned of these failures after Katrina, it is even more important that we learn of them before the next Katrina, before the next failure of a major flood control project. And that is what this amendment will do. It will require that major Corps projects, and especially flood control projects that protect people and property, be subject to the kind of independent oversight that has proven so beneficial in the aftermath of Katrina. Why did the citizens of Louisiana not know any of these problems before Katrina made landfall, and why did the Army Corps not feel compelled to fix the ones they knew about? How different the preparation for and response to the storm would have been had an independent review process like IPET been initiated before the Army Corps designed and constructed the levee system rather than after a storm like Katrina left it and the city it was supposed to protect in tatters. We have learned valuable lessons from Katrina, and one of those lessons is that we need an independent review process for our most critical projects before they are battle tested. We need assurances that what the Army Corps builds will function as planned. And unfortunately, we have also learned that we cannot count on the Army Corps of Engineers to do this themselves. These reviews need to be independent, conducted by 3 outside experts who can objectively evaluate what is being proposed, and in the case of major flood control projects, also how it is being designed and built. The Army Corps has already given us an effective model to do that-- IPET. This amendment, introduced by Senators McCain and Feingold, would create within the Army Corps a Director of Independent Review. The Director's job will be to establish a panel of distinguished experts to conduct a thorough review of the planning process for major projects, including engineering analyses, and to issue a report and make recommendations to the Army Corps. For major flood control projects, where lives are at stake, the Director would create an additional panel to review the detailed design and construction so that we do not find ourselves in another Katrina situation where we find, after the fact, that designs and construction were flawed. It is then up the Army Corps to implement those recommendations. The Army Corps will also be required to make the independent panel's report public so Congress and the American people will be aware of possible problems before the project is funded and before the public relies on the project for protection. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee learned a great deal in our investigation into Hurricane Katrina, and we made some recommendations in our report to address what we found. One of those recommendations was to create an independent review process like IPET and the one established in this amendment to oversee the design and construction of critical flood control projects. These were joint, bipartisan recommendations, and I am pleased that the chairman of our committee, Senator Collins, is also joining as a cosponsor of this amendment. Catastrophes like Katrina will be repeated unless we learn from our mistake, and this amendment is a tremendous opportunity to do just that. We already have a model for the proposed solution in the independent forensic teams that were created after Katrina whose reports and recommendations have been applauded from all circles--the Army Corps, independent professional engineers, and local interests in New Orleans. But those efforts need to be in place before disaster strikes, and that is exactly what this amendment would do. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today in Fort Yukon, people from all over the State of Alaska and the country will come together to celebrate the life of a remarkable leader of the Gwich'in Nation, Jonathon Solomon, who passed away last week at the age of 74. As traditional chief of Fort Yukon, and chairman of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, Jonathon was a tireless advocate for the Gwich'in people. Born in Fort Yukon, he was raised to live a traditional subsistence lifestyle, and his upbringing directly influenced his passion and work throughout his life. Although Jonathon fought for many issues on behalf of the Gwich'in, his life's passion was the protection of the porcupine caribou herd and their birthing grounds on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Jonathon's efforts to protect the Arctic Refuge began in 1978, as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act was first being negotiated and he continued this work determinedly throughout his entire life. Among his many accomplishments, he led the 7-year effort to negotiate the U.S.- Canada agreement to protect the porcupine caribou herd and its habitat, signed July 1987, and was one of the chief organizers of the first Gwich'in gathering in 1988, which led to the creation of the Gwich'in Steering Committee. It was at this meeting in 1988, that the Gwich'in first came together as a nation to pass a resolution calling for permanent protection of the caribou calving and nursery grounds as congressionally designated wilderness. Jonathon's work took him all over the country, including to Washington, DC, where on numerous occasions he spoke to Members of Congress and their staffs about the importance of protecting the Arctic Refuge. Throughout his life, Jonathon was an inspiration to all who knew him. He represented the Gwich'in people with dignity, devotion and respect. While we mourn his loss, I know that his energy will live on in all of us who carry on the fight to protect the Arctic Refuge and other places throughout the country that are special to all of us.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the stem cell bills currently being considered by the Senate. Frankly, this debate has been too long in coming and I commend my friends, Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid, on coming to an agreement and bringing this debate to the floor. This is as real as it gets. This is about life over death and hope over despair. This is about encouraging astounding scientific advances that can relieve the suffering of millions of our fellow citizens, or accepting a shriveling stasis that, in fact, sounds a retreat as we watch the rest of the world march past us. We have before us three stem cell bills, but only one, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810, deals with embryonic stem cells. Let me say that with a big ``E.'' These embryonic stem cells actually hold the greatest promise for those afflicted with currently incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's, heart failure, and spinal cord injury. These stem cells are pluripotent--that is they can differentiate into any and all tissues. There is still much to know about what causes appropriate differentiation of embryonic stem cells, but if we conduct research to answer these questions, we will have the scientific power to replace dead neural tissue and muscle and cancerous white blood cells, with fresh new ones. The potential is breathtaking. What this means is that an individual with quadriplegia could walk again. The elderly affected by Alzheimer's can be brought back from a hellish twilight and rejoin their families. Childhood leukemia could be banished to the realm of distant memory. And Americans everywhere will have a second chance at running with strong loud hearts. The science on embryonic stem cells is new and complicated, which is why we need our Nation's brightest minds working on this. Yet in 2001, President Bush issued an executive order which effectively banned federally funded embryonic stem cell research. This has stifled our Nation's attempts to lead the world in harnessing the potential and miracles of embryonic stem cells. The President reasoned, like many who oppose this bill, that the process of embryonic stem cell extraction amounts to abortion because these cells have to be taken from microscopic embryos that do not survive the process. What the President did not mention is that the embryos under discussion number in the tens of thousands. They are the unused embryos from in-vitro fertilization, are frozen in fertility clinics, are unique, and will be thrown away. I repeat: Thrown away. The chance to offer new life to millions of Americans suffering from debilitating by disease or injury will be discarded as medical waste. Given these facts, the choice seems clear. The Senate must choose to advance the scope of our scientific knowledge and expand the horizons of our medical technologies. The House has already done this. Last year, by a vote of 238 to 194, the House passed H.R. 810, introduced by Representative Michael Castle, which authorized federally funded research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from surplus embryos at in-vitro fertilization clinics, provided that donors give consent and that they are not paid for the embryos. The Senate today has the opportunity to join the House and we must do so by a resounding majority to convince the President that a veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is contrary to what Americans want. More than 65% of Americans support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research across all party lines. Finally, I do support the other two pills being considered alongside the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. But a vote for them without a vote for H.R. 810 is the height of cynicism. Let us be clear, alternatives to embryonic stem cells, such as umbilical cord and adult bone marrow stem cells, are inferior alternatives. They do not have the same regenerative potential and Congress has already authorized money that is currently being used for research in this area. Today we stand at destiny's doorstep with the chance to have it swing wide and open into a new age of scientific and medical understanding. We must not hesitate. I urge my colleagues to join me in passage of H.R. 810 and I call on President Bush to sign it into law and not veto the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans for whom astounding new cures may lie just over the threshold of our present knowledge. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe my friends from New Jersey, New York, others who support this amendment, and I share the same goals: we want to ensure that those areas of our country that are predictably at higher risk of terrorism receive enough support to prevent and, if necessary, respond to attacks; we want to make our Nation as a whole a safer place. Where I must respectfully disagree, however, is in how best to accomplish those goals. This amendment would not do so. In May, when the Department of Homeland Security announced its 2006 homeland security grant awards, for States and also for urban areas, 48 States and the District of Columbia found they had lost money from the year before. Many of these States, Connecticut and New York included, lost substantial sums. This was not primarily because of a change in the formula, however; it was because funding for these critical programs had been reduced by 29 percent. Since 2004, these programs have been cut in half, so there is increasingly less funding for all. I was therefore disappointed yesterday to see the Senate reject Senator Clinton's amendment--which both Senator Menendez and I cosponsored--that would have restored some of this funding. The fundamental problem here is the shrinking pie, not how we divide it. When Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, awards were announced, I, like many others, was disturbed to learn that New York City and Washington, DC--the two cities that were the targets of the terrorists on September 11th, and two that by any commonsense measure remain among those at risk by terrorists--had suffered sharp, and seemingly inexplicable, cuts in their UASI grants. But this wasn't because UASI money is awarded to cities not deemed at risk. There is not now nor has there ever been a guaranteed minimum or formula for UASI grants. Within the UASI pot, one of the reasons that New York City's share went down was because the Department didn't want its grants to be used for what New York deemed to be an essential need: paying for law enforcement personnel to staff its anti-terrorism efforts. This amendment does not solve that problem. Finally, as we should have learned--by now--the hard way, even in the best of circumstances, risk assessment is at least as much art as science. And I think most of us can agree that DHS's shifting methodology for calculating risk does not represent the best of circumstances. Thus we have learned that DHS has had trouble counting national icons and government buildings and figuring out which infrastructure really is critical. I have also learned, in what will surely come as a surprise to my constituents in Greenwich and Stamford, that according to DHS, southwestern Connecticut is not even considered part of the New York metropolitan area. This despite the fact that 100,000 people each day commute from Connecticut into New York, that major rail and commuter lines connect my state with New York, and that when the terror alert level is raised in New York City, additional Connecticut State Police must be activated. And, of course, that on that tragic day nearly 5 years ago, 67 Connecticut citizens perished in the World Trade Center towers. DHS's risk assessment method, however, remains unable to account for the additional risk and demands of being part of the Connecticut-New York-New Jersey tristate area. This amendment also does not solve that problem. The fact is, the Senate has already approved legislation painstakingly negotiated within the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that represents a better approach. In S. 21 and in a nearly identical amendment to last year's Homeland Security appropriations bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 71 to 26-- Senator Collins and I tried to balance support for cities and States at known high risk of a terrorist attack without sacrificing the security of locations that have not suffered in the past, but very well could in the future, and which are still critical to our preparedness and response. While we provide more funding based on assessments of risk--we need to recognize that our intelligence is not perfect, that we do not know where or when terrorists will strike next, and that we must be on notice they could strike anywhere. The fact is, terrorists alter their methods of destruction. One day they may strike fortified targets such as military facilities, and the next day they may strike soft targets, as they did when they blew up a discotheque in Indonesia and took hostage an entire school in a small town in Russia. And how dare we forget what terrorists--though of the homegrown variety--did in Oklahoma City in 1995 striking a target in the middle of our Nation's heartland. Common sense, therefore, requires us to continue to build basic capacity to prevent and respond to attacks wherever they may occur. And to build capacity over time, State and local officials need some predictability. They need to know when and how much assistance they are likely to receive from year to year if they are to plan and execute homeland security properly. Were we to adopt the pending amendment, it would mean that each State would only be guaranteed to receive slightly over $2 million this year a nearly trivial amount and short sighted in light of the significant national needs that we face. We know from Katrina that first responders will need to come from all over the country to respond to a catastrophic event, whether natural or manmade--and we need those responders to be properly trained and equipped. We know, too, that the next 9/11 attack on New York or Washington may be prevented by action taken in a town far away, where terrorist plotters are discovered by local law enforcement. Those local law enforcement officers also need access to intelligence, training, and resources to be most effective. In the end, we cannot simply build a wall around a few known high-risk cities--it not only leaves the rest of the country vulnerable, but it will leave the highest risk cities more vulnerable, too. The problems with homeland security funding are urgent and real, but this amendment will not solve them. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak on behalf of this amendment to strengthen our homeland security efforts--specifically the ability of first responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters. I commend my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Schumer and Mikulski, for authoring this critical amendment and am proud to join them as a cosponsor. September 11, 2001, changed our lives forever. We face new and dangerous threats from our enemies that we must be prepared to deal with. Furthermore, the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are still a nation unprepared for catastrophe. We know our first responders lack the training, equipment, and frequently the manpower they need to do their jobs. Most don't even have the basic capability to communicate with one another across jurisdictional and service lines, and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that sometimes during a major catastrophe they can't communicate at all. Yet the Bush administration seems to have turned its back on the lessons of September 11, 2001, and of August 29, 2005, the day Hurricane Katrina made landfall. The President's budget proposal did nothing to indicate otherwise. That proposal eliminates a number of first responder programs and cuts others, leaving those on the frontlines of the war against terror or on the frontlines of a hurricane, struggling to make do with less. It was the latest chapter in an ongoing assault on these vital programs: this is the third straight year the administration has sought dramatic cuts in first responder funding, down from $3.95 billion in fiscal year 2004 to just $1.97 billion in this year's request. The appropriators have done what they could to restore the worst of the proposed administration cuts, but their bill still leaves some programs below current levels. We simply cannot continue to shrink these accounts that form the backbone of our homeland defense. This amendment calls a halt to this dangerous slide. It would provide $790 million to restore the key first responder accounts to fiscal year 2005 levels. Specifically, the amendment would: Add $600 million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, the fundamental building block of States' homeland security efforts, to bring it to $1.1 billion; add $50 million for the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program, LETPP, to restore it to $400 million. This program helps empower our first responders to prevent terrorist attacks, not simply respond after the fact. Add $140 million for the urban areas security initiative, UASI, to restore the program to the FY 2005 total of $885 million. This program targets additional resources to urban centers that bear particular risk of terror attacks. Frankly, we can and should do more. Interoperability--the ability for our first responders to talk to each other--is an urgent need and one that will cost far more than even this amendment will provide. In 1993, an expert task force chaired by our former colleague Senator Warren Rudman concluded that the Nation needed to invest nearly $100 billion more in equipping and training our first responders. Instead of heeding that call, this administration has instead led us down a path of shrinking resources for first responder programs. This amendment would be an important step to reverse the erosion of these critical accounts. Our enemies are ruthless and choose their own battlefields in the communities where we live and work. Nature, too, can be ruthless and will strike in unpredictable ways year after year. We must have first responders who are trained and equipped not just to prepare for and respond to catastrophes but to work to prevent them, as well. We worked with a real sense of urgency after September 11, 2001, to secure our nation. We must summon that same sense of urgency now to close the security gaps that remain. I wish there was a cheap way to do that. But there isn't. It takes money--more money than the administration's budget offers and more money than this appropriations bill currently provides. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can make additional headway toward our goal of being better able to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the terrorist attacks and natural disasters that are sure to come.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Byrd, in offering an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 that would require the Department of Homeland Security to issue interim regulations to help secure the most dangerous chemical facilities around the country. Since 9/11 opened our eyes to the threats we face on U.S. soil from Islamist terrorist groups, we have moved to improve security for many of the critical elements of our society and economy. But somehow we have not yet protected one of our greatest vulnerabilities--the chemical sector. Chemicals are vital to many of the processes that feed us, heal us, and power our economy. Yet the very pervasiveness of the chemical sector makes it vulnerable to terrorism. Thousands of facilities throughout the country use or store potentially lethal materials, often near large population centers. We know that terrorists are interested in targeting these facilities. The Congressional Research Service reports that during the 1990s both international and domestic terrorists attempted to use explosives to release chemicals from manufacturing and storage facilities close to population centers. The Justice Department in 2002 described the threat posed by terrorists to chemical facilities as ``both real and credible,'' for the foreseeable future. When homeland security expert Richard Falkenrath testified before our committee last year, he said that one asset above all others stands out as being acutely vulnerable and uniquely dangerous: toxic-by-inhalation chemicals. He said the Federal Government had done virtually nothing to secure the facilities manufacturing and storing these chemicals and called on the 109th Congress to give the executive branch the authority to mandate and enforce security enhancements for these facilities. I think Congress has the responsibility to enact a strong and comprehensive chemical security program, and I believe we have started down the right road to do so. Last month, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously approved the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which Senator Collins and I introduced last December. I think this legislation--which was crafted and approved on a bipartisan basis after four hearings and extensive input--is the best way to address the vulnerability posed by chemical sites. The bill would authorize DHS to issue final regulations to help secure the Nation's most at-risk chemical facilities. I urge the administration--which has said it wants legislative authority to regulate chemical security--to actively support this strong, bipartisan legislation and the majority leader to give it with immediate consideration on the Senate floor. But we cannot afford to take chances where chemical security is concerned and every day of additional delay on chemical site security places the American people at unacceptable risk. So while it is my great hope that we will enact the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 soon to establish a permanent chemical security program, this amendment is critical to ending the long drought of inaction on chemical security by the Federal Government and ensuring we will move swiftly to begin to close this critical homeland security gap.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Chairman Collins, for an excellent introductory statement and to say, once again, how much I am honored and pleased to work with her as the ranking Democrat on our homeland security committee, and how pleased I am to join with her today and with Senators Carper and Lott to introduce this amendment to make FEMA into an agency capable of responding swiftly and effectively to the most serious disasters, whether a hurricane the size and scope of Katrina, a natural disaster the likes of which we see more routinely, or a terrorist attack which, of course, our enemies hope will be even more devastating than the attacks of September 11 and for which we must be perpetually on the defensive and prepared. This amendment would literally reinvent FEMA to give our Federal emergency preparedness and response experts the authority, the capabilities, the resources, and the integration with State and local officials needed to avoid the confused, uncoordinated, and ultimately ineffective response that the Nation and the world witnessed last August when Katrina made landfall. It would strengthen emergency preparedness and response within the Homeland Security Department which this Congress created a short time ago to prevent, prepare for, and ultimately respond to all kinds of disasters. In doing so, this amendment would create a truly national system of emergency management that will be able to draw on the Nation's vast resources for a cohesive and complete local, State, and Federal response. Mr. President, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee spent 7 months in 2005 and 2006 investigating the botched Government response to that catastrophic hurricane. We found all levels of our Government were ill-equipped to deal with the massive human suffering all along the gulf coast that followed that terrible storm's landfall, suffering that shocked, angered, and embarrassed the American people who expect more support from their Government for fellow Americans in need. These failings were caused by negligence in some cases, by a lack of resources in other cases, by a lack of capabilities in some cases, but most of all by a lack of leadership and preparation that comes with leadership from the very top to the very bottom. We cannot legislate leadership, although as Senator Collins said, we can at least require the kind of experience in the people who will lead America's emergency management effort that would make it more likely they would be leaders, and we can legislate changes in Government structures to make them more sensible and better suited to protect people in times of disaster. The homeland security committee's report had merit because we told the story of what happened and didn't happen, of the clear warnings that such a hurricane would one day strike the gulf coast, and the clear predictions that we were not ready. In telling the story, right through the weekend before landfall and then the days following the disaster itself, I believe the committee, on a truly bipartisan basis, made a contribution. Because sometimes just telling the truth and putting it before those in positions of responsibility is one of the great curatives, one of the great sources of reform. But the committee went beyond just telling the story and offered a number of recommendations about what was needed to improve our preparations, response, and recovery. Chairman Collins and I will soon introduce broader legislation to encompass all of our committee report's recommendations. These include changes to the Stafford Act to address the different kinds of assistance that are needed in response to catastrophic events rather than ``ordinary'' disasters; provisions to ensure that communications systems can work--and that first responders can talk to each other-- even in devastating disasters; requirements for the national planning for disasters and catastrophes that FEMA was never able to fully accomplish; and steps to ensure that USEMA has the kind of robust and capable workforce it needs to success. All of these are crucial pieces of the effort to remake our nations emergency response and recovery capabilities. But we begin today with the foundation, the most important recommendation we made, which is to rejoin the functions of disaster response with disaster preparedness within a new agency, a reinvented FEMA, which we will call USEMA, the U.S. Emergency Management Authority. It would be at the very core of the Department of Homeland Security, just as FEMA was originally intended to be when we proposed the new department in 2002 based on the recommendations of the Hart- Rudman Commission the previous year. How could one have a Department of Homeland Security, which is aimed at preparing for and responding to disasters, including terrorist attacks, without the Federal agency that is primarily responsible for emergency management? It makes no sense. Our investigation of what went wrong during Hurricane Katrina made it clear that part of the problem was caused by separate and uncoordinated Federal preparedness and response functions within the Department of Homeland Security. In the years before Katrina, FEMA, the agency charged with coordinating our Nation's response to terrorist attacks and natural disasters, too often was out of the loop when critical decisions about how to prepare were being made. It had no say in how to spend billions of dollars in preparedness grants. Training exercises were designed and held without serious input by FEMA. Relationships with State and local officials on the front lines were not fully developed and sometimes were nonexistent. So FEMA's ability to respond was crippled because it was not working hand in glove with those making preparations for responding to disaster. Our amendment, first and foremost, therefore, will ensure that our preparedness efforts are inseparable from the capabilities needed to respond. As Chairman Collins has said, preparation and response are two sides of the same coin. And the coin, which is the coin of America's emergency management in times of disaster, is stronger if those two sides are together. USEMA will provide the resources and it will have the ability and the responsibility to plan and train with State and local emergency management officials, just as it will have the responsibility to coordinate with them at the time of a disaster. Where FEMA has often struggled to cope with normal hurricanes, the mission of the new Authority will be to partner with State and local governments, other Federal agencies, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations to build a national system of emergency management that can respond effectively to catastrophic incident. Where FEMA has been slow to respond and too often reactive, the new Authority will be charged with developing a Federal response capability that can and will act rapidly and proactively when necessary to deliver assistance essential to saving lives in a disaster. Where FEMA has not been fully integrated with DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, the new Authority will be charged with coordinating with key agencies in the Department also involved in emergency management, also on the front lines at a time of disaster, such as the Coast Guard. Our amendment would also give the new Authority special status within the Department--the same status the Coast Guard and the Secret Service now have. With that status, changes to the agency's functions and its assets could only be made by congressional statute, not by executive action. That is a way of protecting the strength we intend to give this new authority. We would also insist in this legislation that the administrator and other key agency officials have the necessary experience and qualifications for the job. In other words, USEMA will not be plagued by unqualified appointees, as FEMA has been in the past. Chairman Collins and I also envision a new agency with robust regional offices which would focus on coordination of preparedness and response with local and State agencies. Let's take the focus away from Washington and place it where it belongs, where the real work of preparedness is done, on the front lines, in the States and in the municipalities. This will guarantee that Federal officials are familiar with regional and local threats and know their counterparts at the State and local levels. Different parts of the country face different natural disaster prospects. Unfortunately, most every part of the country is vulnerable today to terrorist attack. This regional approach will help ensure that officials are not exchanging business cards on the day the disaster strikes, that the local, State, and Federal officials are not meeting on the day or the day before the disaster or the day after the disaster. I know some of my colleagues in the Senate believe FEMA should be removed from the Department of Homeland Security and given independent status. Bu Senator Collins and I, after our extensive investigation, have concluded that is not the solution to the problems we saw in response to Hurricane Katrina, but instead would compound the problems. It would be a serious mistake to separate FEMA out of the Department. Even when it was independent, FEMA never developed the capacity to respond to a catastrophe like Hurricane Katrina. So returning it to independent status, as if those were the golden days of yore, is not based on fact, and it will in no way solve the problems we saw in response to Katrina and that we face today. In fact, it will make solutions and, I would say, preparations and responses to disaster far more difficult. Removing the agency from the Department would only create additional problems, duplications, and disconnectedness. The Department of Homeland Security, containing other emergency response agencies, such as the Coast Guard, and other components, would begin to rebuild the functions of FEMA in the Department, even though it was independent. FEMA--independent, out of the Department--would duplicate activities and functions that are in the Department resulting in a waste of money, bureaucratic inefficiencies and a lack of coordination that would not only put us at risk of repeating the inadequate response we saw to Hurricane Katrina last year but of making it even worse. To cope with a catastrophe, the Government's chief preparations and response agency must have access to the vast resources of the Department of Homeland Security, and it needs to work seamlessly with other agencies that have critical roles to play during a catastrophe. Those working relationships are going to be much easier and more real if officials know one another and if agencies have a history with each other and, of course, if everyone ultimately serves the same Secretary of Homeland Security. The grievous conditions of gulf coast communities in the week after Katrina's landfall embarrassed us before the world and, quite appropriately, angered us because we know that America can do better. But the gulf coast and the force of Katrina are not isolated examples. Other American communities and regions are similarly vulnerable today-- whether to a natural disaster or terrorist attack. We also know significant flaws in the Nation's readiness remain. Another response like the one we saw during Katrina is simply not an option. Our proposal is not about rearranging bureaucratic boxes. We have studied past failings and carefully considered how to improve our performance, the Federal Government performance, the next time. We have been driven by that singular goal. We have not had any thoughts in mind of protecting the status quo or favoring one bureaucratic entity over another. We have tried to come up with a recommendation that will put America's Government in the best position to protect America's people the next time disaster strikes. We are driven by the imperative to save people's lives, like the lives lost during Hurricane Katrina. The changes embodied in this amendment, I am convinced, promise a strong response, if enacted, the next time disaster strikes. So I ask my colleagues for their support of this amendment. I thank Senator Collins for her leadership and express once again my pleasure at the opportunity to work with her and in this instance to be joined by Senator Lott and Senator Carper in a truly bipartisan national-interest homeland security amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would just say amen to everything Senator Collins has said, but I will speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to quite literally say amen to everything Senator Collins has said on behalf of our amendment and in respectful opposition to the amendment that Senator Clinton has proposed. We had a disaster, a catastrophe last year in Hurricane Katrina that was natural, and then we had a manmade disaster which was the shockingly inadequate response of the Federal, State, and local governments to that catastrophe that was called Katrina. So our committee spent months investigating, told the story, and considered what we could do to make sure nothing like the Federal Government's inadequate, incompetent reaction and response ever occurred again. We considered the responsibility that some have raised of taking FEMA, or a replacement agency such as we are proposing, out of the Department and making it independent again. But it made no sense to us. If you have a Department of Homeland Security, which is supposed to be our major Department to prepare for and respond to disasters, natural and manmade, then why would we want to take the emergency management agency, which is all about responding to disasters, natural and terrorist, out of that Department? It would be, as I said at one of our hearings, like taking the U.S. Army out of the Department of Defense because you were not happy with the management of the U.S. Army, so you take it out. Or you had memories that there used to be a Chief of the Army who was good in a different time way back when it was independent, and you make it independent. It makes no sense. It is inefficient. I am afraid it would compromise the ability of our Government to prepare for and respond to another disaster. In some ways, this is a comparison between James Lee Witt and Michael Brown. I will be real specific about it. I am happy to say in public that James Lee Witt did a great job, and Michael Brown did not, particularly in Katrina. That shouldn't lead us to think that going back to the time when FEMA was independent and James Lee Witt was the Director would solve all of our problems. FEMA, under James Lee Witt, as good as he was--and he was very good-- never faced a catastrophe such as Katrina. We heard testimony to this effect from people in the Department, from inspectors general, from outside authorities that FEMA never, no matter how good James Lee Witt was, could have independently given an adequate response to a catastrophe such as Hurricane Katrina or, God forbid, a catastrophe such as a significant terrorist attack. That is why we kept FEMA, our new USEMA, in the Department of Homeland Security. We have strengthened it considerably. Senator Lott, who was an initial cosponsor of the amendment to take FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security, is now with us on keeping it in the Department because we made some significant changes. We gave the U.S. Emergency Management Agency that we would create, USEMA, the special legal status that only the Coast Guard and Secret Service have within the Department of Homeland Security. That means it cannot be changed except by statute. No executive action can change its status. We also made clear that during a time of crisis, though the head of the U.S. Emergency Management Authority normally reports to the Secretary of Homeland Security, that person reports directly to the President of the United States. I happen to have joined with Senator Specter, my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, in introducing the original legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. We did it a month or two after 9/ 11 because we felt we had entered a new age. We had been attacked here at home, innocent citizens were killed by terrorists, and we needed a whole new structure to prepare to defend the American people against similar attacks in the future--our enemies are still obviously out there--and to respond to those attacks. We built our proposal on the work of an independent commission headed by our former colleagues Warren Rudman and Gary Hart. They said loudly and clearly that FEMA must be the heart of this new Department if it is to adequately protect the American people from disaster or terrorism. It would be a profound mistake to take it out. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that Senator Collins and I are offering with Senator Carper and Senator Lott, and to oppose the amendment of Senator Clinton. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I saw Senator Lautenberg come into the Chamber. I do not see him now, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, consistent with my longstanding record of supporting trade as good for America's economy and economic development in Arab and Muslim countries as important for peace in the world, I am supporting the Oman Free Trade Agreement. However, I do so with some reluctance because of my concerns about its labor provisions. For me, trade must be fair. This agreement is flawed in its failure to provide the tools necessary to ensure rigorous labor protections. I have been pressing for some time for the inclusion of stronger labor protections in our trade agreements. While the agreement would bind Oman to enforce its own laws regarding slave labor, I am disturbed by the administration's decision to ignore the bipartisan views of the Finance Committee by not including a unanimously approved stronger provision against slave labor. Serious labor violations now occurring in Jordan, despite the stronger labor provisions contained in the Jordan FTA, demand that this administration insist on stronger labor protections in our trade agreements and stronger enforcement of the labor protections that do exist. I will vote for this FTA because Oman is a strategically important nation in the Middle East, with which we enjoy excellent relations. The failure of Congress to pass this agreement would threaten our future relations with Oman and our allies in the Middle East generally. I will also support this FTA because trade helps to open the economies of countries in the Arab world and provides a better path up for its people than the fanaticism and violence al-Qaida offers. In that sense, these trade agreements represent progress in the war for the hearts and minds of the people in the Arab world which is a critical part of our larger war against Islamist terrorism. But today I want to lay down a marker. I will not continue to support future free-trade agreements unless the administration becomes serious about negotiating labor and other improvement that build on our experience rather than continue to produce a series of FTAs that in the end penalize too many of our workers here at home and do not adequately protect workers overseas.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Lieberman and Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 3595 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'' (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 3588 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Collins who has been good enough to allow me to speak for a few moments first because I have an engagement I am supposed to be at around noon. I am pleased to join with Chairman Collins today to both introduce and speak in favor of this legislation to reinvent and rebuild FEMA into an agency capable of responding efficiently and effectively to a catastrophe the size and scope of Hurricane Katrina, but also to the natural disasters that in the normal course of events have affected and will affect the American people. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee spent 7 months last year and into this year investigating the failed Government response to Hurricane Katrina. Our report recounts a double tragedy of epic proportions, a tragedy caused, in the first instance, by nature, and then a tragedy compounded by human folly and the failure of leadership, including the failure of preparation. We found that government at all levels--from the Federal Government to the local government, from the White House to FEMA to the Governor's office in Louisiana to the mayor's office in New Orleans--were unprepared, even though the hurricane and its effect on the New Orleans levee system had long been predicted. Likewise, all levels of government were unequipped to deal with the human suffering that followed the storm's landfall and galvanized the attention that ultimately produced the enormous embarrassment and anger of the American people as we watched our fellow Americans suffering in New Orleans and throughout the gulf coast without the support and help they have a right to expect from their government at all levels in a time of disaster. These failings were caused by negligence, lack of resources, lack of capability, and a lack of leadership. Though we can legislate requirements for those in positions of leadership--and we do in the legislation we are introducing--we cannot legislate leadership. That is a personal quality. But we can legislate bold changes at the Federal level that are critical for our Nation to develop the capacity necessary to protect our people in times of disaster, whether natural or terrorist. So in the aftermath of our report, we made a number of recommendations about what we believed on a bipartisan basis was needed to improve our preparations, response, and recovery the next time disaster strikes, as it surely will. One of our recommendations--perhaps the key recommendation--is to rebuild FEMA into a more powerful, better managed, better integrated, better supported organization. Our recommendation was to give the reinvented FEMA, probably for the first time in its history, the authority and muscle to respond to natural disasters and to catastrophes--which is what Katrina was--in the way the American people have a right to expect their Government to respond--with speed, with efficiency, and with effect. Today we introduce legislation that will do that. We call this new organization the U.S. Emergency Management Authority, U.S.-EMA. But no matter what we call it, this organization, we have concluded, must be in the Department of Homeland Security; in fact, must be at the core of that Department, just as FEMA was originally intended to do when we proposed the new Department in 2002 based on the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission which said that the new Department must be centered around FEMA. The legislation we are introducing today is the first step in this process. Chairman Collins and I expect soon to introduce a broader bill that will encompass all of our report's key recommendations. But we begin today by reaffirming how important it is to keep this critical national emergency management function in the Department of Homeland Security and how critical it is to strengthen it and rejoin the functions of disaster response with disaster preparedness. Our investigation of Hurricane Katrina made it clear to us that preparedness and response are two sides of the same coin. In the years before Katrina, FEMA, the agency charged with coordinating our Nation's response to terrorist attacks or natural disasters, too often was out of the loop when critical decisions about how to prepare--such as how to spend billions of dollars in grants--were made. Exercises were designed and held without serious input by FEMA. FEMA's ability to respond was crippled because it was not central to preparedness, and thus did not have the close relationships needed with state and local officials on the front lines. The preparers and the responders need to be working hand in hand with State and local officials, other Federal agencies, and the private and non-profit sectors if both functions are to work as well as we expect them to. Our legislation first and foremost will ensure that our preparedness efforts are closely linked, inseparable from the capabilities we need to respond. Our investigation also made clear that part of FEMA's problem during Hurricane Katrina was that it was an agency weakened by years of budget and staff cuts. At the time the hurricane made landfall, FEMA had been operating with a 15-percent vacancy rate for over a year. And it had a senior political management largely without emergency management experience. We address these problems by giving the new authority a special status within the Department of Homeland Security--the same special status the Coast Guard and Secret Service now have. With this status, changes to the agency's functions and assets can only be made through statute. Furthermore, we would require that the Administrator and other key officials have the necessary experience and qualifications to get the job done. U.S.-EMA will not be plagued by unqualified appointees like FEMA has been. The chairman and I also believe FEMA is too Washington-oriented and too disconnected from the real work of preparing for disasters where they actually occur, so we envision a rebuilt agency with robust regional offices to focus on preparedness and response coordination with local and State agencies. Each regional office would house a permanent ``strike team'' that would include representatives from other Federal agencies involved in emergency response to ensure the feds are familiar with regional threats and with state and local emergency personnel. I know some of my colleagues believe FEMA should be removed from DHS and given the full independent status it once had. But Senator Collins and I know this is not the solution. Removing the agency from the Department will only create additional problems. It would be like removing the Army from the Department of Defense. The U.S.-EMA, the Government's chief response agency, must have access to the vast resources of the Department of Homeland Security and it needs to work seamlessly with the other agencies that have critical roles to play during catastrophes. The Coast Guard, which performed so admirably during Katrina, might need to be activated. The Department's communications capabilities, law enforcement, intelligence offices, and infrastructure protection will all be needed in response to a catastrophe. In other words, the Federal response must be integrated and that will occur if all agencies have a history of working together within the same Department, if the officials know one another, and if they ultimately serve the same Secretary of Homeland Security. Furthermore, taking FEMA out of DHS would create more and duplicative bureaucracy. DHS would have to develop its own response capabilities. FEMA would have to develop its own preparedness capabilities. And both would need to have tools for obtaining situational awareness. We do not have the resources to waste on that kind of duplication. Returning FEMA to an independent agency is not a guarantee that it will be competent. Even when it was independent, FEMA never did develop the capabilities needed to respond to a catastrophe like Katrina. In fact, its response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992--a much smaller storm, killing about 50 people compared to Katrina's 1,500--was a disaster in itself, leading the Government Accounting Office to conclude that it had ``serious doubts about whether FEMA is capable of responding to catastrophic disasters.'' The agency did improve subsequent to Hurricane Andrew but never had the ability to respond to a storm such as Katrina. The desperate conditions of gulf coast communities in the week after Katrina's landfall shocked the country. There are many other American communities that are similarly vulnerable--whether to a natural disaster or to terrorist attack. The next catastrophe is coming. We know that. We also know there are significant flaws in the Nation's readiness. We can't afford another response like the one to Katrina. Our proposal is not about fiddling with bureaucratic flow charts or re-branding, or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is about plugging the gash in the hull and building a better deck. It is about saving people's lives by bringing together the skills, resources, missions, and authority for effective preparedness and response to catastrophes when local and State agencies are overwhelmed by a terror attack or a natural disaster. I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation. Mr. President, I yield to Chairman Collins for the rest of the introduction of this legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Collins who has been good enough to allow me to speak for a few moments first because I have an engagement I am supposed to be at around noon. I am pleased to join with Chairman Collins today to both introduce and speak in favor of this legislation to reinvent and rebuild FEMA into an agency capable of responding efficiently and effectively to a catastrophe the size and scope of Hurricane Katrina, but also to the natural disasters that in the normal course of events have affected and will affect the American people. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee spent 7 months last year and into this year investigating the failed Government response to Hurricane Katrina. Our report recounts a double tragedy of epic proportions, a tragedy caused, in the first instance, by nature, and then a tragedy compounded by human folly and the failure of leadership, including the failure of preparation. We found that government at all levels--from the Federal Government to the local government, from the White House to FEMA to the Governor's office in Louisiana to the mayor's office in New Orleans--were unprepared, even though the hurricane and its effect on the New Orleans levee system had long been predicted. Likewise, all levels of government were unequipped to deal with the human suffering that followed the storm's landfall and galvanized the attention that ultimately produced the enormous embarrassment and anger of the American people as we watched our fellow Americans suffering in New Orleans and throughout the gulf coast without the support and help they have a right to expect from their government at all levels in a time of disaster. These failings were caused by negligence, lack of resources, lack of capability, and a lack of leadership. Though we can legislate requirements for those in positions of leadership--and we do in the legislation we are introducing--we cannot legislate leadership. That is a personal quality. But we can legislate bold changes at the Federal level that are critical for our Nation to develop the capacity necessary to protect our people in times of disaster, whether natural or terrorist. So in the aftermath of our report, we made a number of recommendations about what we believed on a bipartisan basis was needed to improve our preparations, response, and recovery the next time disaster strikes, as it surely will. One of our recommendations--perhaps the key recommendation--is to rebuild FEMA into a more powerful, better managed, better integrated, better supported organization. Our recommendation was to give the reinvented FEMA, probably for the first time in its history, the authority and muscle to respond to natural disasters and to catastrophes--which is what Katrina was--in the way the American people have a right to expect their Government to respond--with speed, with efficiency, and with effect. Today we introduce legislation that will do that. We call this new organization the U.S. Emergency Management Authority, U.S.-EMA. But no matter what we call it, this organization, we have concluded, must be in the Department of Homeland Security; in fact, must be at the core of that Department, just as FEMA was originally intended to do when we proposed the new Department in 2002 based on the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission which said that the new Department must be centered around FEMA. The legislation we are introducing today is the first step in this process. Chairman Collins and I expect soon to introduce a broader bill that will encompass all of our report's key recommendations. But we begin today by reaffirming how important it is to keep this critical national emergency management function in the Department of Homeland Security and how critical it is to strengthen it and rejoin the functions of disaster response with disaster preparedness. Our investigation of Hurricane Katrina made it clear to us that preparedness and response are two sides of the same coin. In the years before Katrina, FEMA, the agency charged with coordinating our Nation's response to terrorist attacks or natural disasters, too often was out of the loop when critical decisions about how to prepare--such as how to spend billions of dollars in grants--were made. Exercises were designed and held without serious input by FEMA. FEMA's ability to respond was crippled because it was not central to preparedness, and thus did not have the close relationships needed with state and local officials on the front lines. The preparers and the responders need to be working hand in hand with State and local officials, other Federal agencies, and the private and non-profit sectors if both functions are to work as well as we expect them to. Our legislation first and foremost will ensure that our preparedness efforts are closely linked, inseparable from the capabilities we need to respond. Our investigation also made clear that part of FEMA's problem during Hurricane Katrina was that it was an agency weakened by years of budget and staff cuts. At the time the hurricane made landfall, FEMA had been operating with a 15-percent vacancy rate for over a year. And it had a senior political management largely without emergency management experience. We address these problems by giving the new authority a special status within the Department of Homeland Security--the same special status the Coast Guard and Secret Service now have. With this status, changes to the agency's functions and assets can only be made through statute. Furthermore, we would require that the Administrator and other key officials have the necessary experience and qualifications to get the job done. U.S.-EMA will not be plagued by unqualified appointees like FEMA has been. The chairman and I also believe FEMA is too Washington-oriented and too disconnected from the real work of preparing for disasters where they actually occur, so we envision a rebuilt agency with robust regional offices to focus on preparedness and response coordination with local and State agencies. Each regional office would house a permanent ``strike team'' that would include representatives from other Federal agencies involved in emergency response to ensure the feds are familiar with regional threats and with state and local emergency personnel. I know some of my colleagues believe FEMA should be removed from DHS and given the full independent status it once had. But Senator Collins and I know this is not the solution. Removing the agency from the Department will only create additional problems. It would be like removing the Army from the Department of Defense. The U.S.-EMA, the Government's chief response agency, must have access to the vast resources of the Department of Homeland Security and it needs to work seamlessly with the other agencies that have critical roles to play during catastrophes. The Coast Guard, which performed so admirably during Katrina, might need to be activated. The Department's communications capabilities, law enforcement, intelligence offices, and infrastructure protection will all be needed in response to a catastrophe. In other words, the Federal response must be integrated and that will occur if all agencies have a history of working together within the same Department, if the officials know one another, and if they ultimately serve the same Secretary of Homeland Security. Furthermore, taking FEMA out of DHS would create more and duplicative bureaucracy. DHS would have to develop its own response capabilities. FEMA would have to develop its own preparedness capabilities. And both would need to have tools for obtaining situational awareness. We do not have the resources to waste on that kind of duplication. Returning FEMA to an independent agency is not a guarantee that it will be competent. Even when it was independent, FEMA never did develop the capabilities needed to respond to a catastrophe like Katrina. In fact, its response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992--a much smaller storm, killing about 50 people compared to Katrina's 1,500--was a disaster in itself, leading the Government Accounting Office to conclude that it had ``serious doubts about whether FEMA is capable of responding to catastrophic disasters.'' The agency did improve subsequent to Hurricane Andrew but never had the ability to respond to a storm such as Katrina. The desperate conditions of gulf coast communities in the week after Katrina's landfall shocked the country. There are many other American communities that are similarly vulnerable--whether to a natural disaster or to terrorist attack. The next catastrophe is coming. We know that. We also know there are significant flaws in the Nation's readiness. We can't afford another response like the one to Katrina. Our proposal is not about fiddling with bureaucratic flow charts or re-branding, or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is about plugging the gash in the hull and building a better deck. It is about saving people's lives by bringing together the skills, resources, missions, and authority for effective preparedness and response to catastrophes when local and State agencies are overwhelmed by a terror attack or a natural disaster. I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation. Mr. President, I yield to Chairman Collins for the rest of the introduction of this legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to laud the Senate's unanimous approval of a $517.6 billion blueprint for the Nation's Armed Forces that expresses Congress's support for the necessary tools for our military fighting throughout the world. It is critical that our military invest more resources for training, weapons, and technology to meet the new demands placed on it by the war on terror. We need to keep investing in our defense programs that have worked well in the past. We must also make sure that we provide enough resources for research and development, which will ensure that our servicemen and servicewomen are equipped with the best weapons possible. I wish to express my pride in the many Connecticut defense companies and skilled workers that meet both of these critical demands. Last year, I successfully fought efforts to close Submarine Base New London, because closing the base would have been a threat to our national security and would have put the most skilled defense workers in the world out of work. These irreplaceable workers are key to promoting our national security and developing important innovations that will help protect the lives of our military personnel. I would like to highlight several provisions of the bill that I believe merit emphasis. Particularly important are additions to submarine design programs and construction at U.S. Submarine Base New London. They provide $75 million in additional funding for submarine design, $65 million for improvements to the Virginia class submarine and $10 million to begin design for the replacement of the nation's Ohio class ballistic missile submarine. This addition will help submarine designers at Electric Boat in my home State of Connecticut. The inclusion of $9.6 million for a small craft maintenance facility is also a critical step in upgrading the submarine base. I am particularly heartened by the adoption of an amendment I worked on with Senators Boxer, Kennedy, and Clinton to ensure that our soldiers receive the mental health care they need and deserve. The amendment creates a detailed and comprehensive screening process to assess the mental health status of individual soldiers before they are deployed to combat zones and ensures that a soldier who is determined to have symptoms of a mental health condition will be referred to an appropriate qualified mental health care professional for further evaluation. It also mandates timely access to mental health services if requested by a member of the armed forces before, during, or after deployment to a combat zone--within 72 hours after making the request or as soon as possible and requires consent from a qualified mental health care professional before a soldier deemed to have a duty- limiting mental health condition is sent to a combat zone. We introduced this amendment to protect the health and safety of servicemembers and their units--similar to the ones The Hartford Courant has written about. The military mental health amendment has two purposes. First, it is meant to keep these courageous young men and women out of the way of any further harm. Second, we must make certain that our units have the strongest and healthiest soldiers and this amendment moves us in the right direction. I also cosponsored an amendment that enables the Air Force to enter into a multiyear contract beginning in fiscal year 2007 for 60 F-22 aircraft over 3 years. Moving to multiyear contract will save American taxpayers more than $250 million. To ensure military families do not have to face the burdens of rising pharmaceutical copays for TRICARE next year, I cosponsored an amendment with Senators Lautenberg and Stabenow that prohibits increasing retail pharmacy copays for TRICARE beneficiaries through fiscal year 2007. The President's budget submission proposed raising generic and brand name copays from $3 and $9 to $5 and $15, respectively. That type of increase is simply not an acceptable solution. Our amendment ensures that we keep prescriptions affordable for those individuals who selflessly serve in our Nation's military. Finally, I cosponsored an amendment introduced by Senator Cantwell that will help elucidate the link between troop exposure to depleted uranium during combat and gulf war syndrome. This amendment requires a joint comprehensive study of troop depleted uranium exposure by the Defense Department, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services. We need to better understand the relationship between depleted uranium exposure and adverse health effects, and I believe this amendment will help us achieve this goal. I thank both Senators Levin and Warner for incorporating these amendments and funding priorities into the Defense authorization bill for 2007. I encourage the conferees in both the House and Senate to keep these provisions in the final version of the legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment to authorize a multiyear procurement for the F-22 fighter-- amendment No. 4261 I am proud to cosponsor. I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, for his leadership in offering this amendment. I believe he has very ably and comprehensively argued the case for this multiyear and has persuasively rebutted the personal arguments against taking this action. But I want to add some thoughts about why I think this is a prudent act by this body. The F-22 has had developmental problems and it has had cost increases. But all this is old news. There are few, if any, programs that have had more oversight by the Senate Armed Services Committee than this program. We have examined it in great detail in hearings each year from concept to procurement. We have examined the technology, the acquisition plan, the development process, and the production issue. And we have examined the costs in substantial detail. In some years we have put on cost caps to force spending discipline, and in other years we have slowed down production to align the request with the reality of the backlog. But despite the challenges of building the world's most capable fighter, we have decided, and the full Senate has decided, that this is a critical program that should and must continue. And the U.S. Air Force has argued it needs the F-22 to continue. There is a very compelling reason for this decision. Air dominance is absolutely essential to American military dominance and American security in the 21st century. Our military has had that dominance since World War II. If we were ever to lose it, or even allow it to be seriously challenged, the global strategic environment would fundamentally change for the United States. The F-22 is the way we prevent that from happening for the next generation maybe more. Much has been said about the cutting-edge technologies that are included in this airplane that will ensure we maintain that air dominance. I need not repeat that now. But it is the reason that we have voted to continue procuring the F-22 and it is reason that we will continue to do so. I believe the problems with the F-22 that some of my colleagues have reminded us about have been substantially solved. The F-22 business case was validated by DOD during the QDR and the Air Dominance Study. The long debate over the number we will procure is about over. I am convinced that it will not be lower than the 183 validated by the QDR. In fact if there are now to be changes in that number, it will be increased, not decreased. So I believe that we will build the additional 60 contemplated in this amendment. The decision to procure these 60 over 3 years instead of 2 years is sound. We should not have a break in the production line before we begin building the F-35 the JSF. Those 60 aircraft can be built for about $250 million less with the multiyear buy provided for by this amendment. The Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Airland Subcommittee, has spent much time focusing on our acquisition system because we are concerned that the weapons we are buying are taking too long to field and are costing too much. We believe the American people should not pay more than they have to. But we also believe our Armed Forces should get the weapons they need to defend our security. SACS have concluded we need this fighter. We recommended full funding this year for 20. I believe we will do that next year and the year after that until we have procured 183 F-22 fighters. Authorizing a multiyear will cost the American people $250 million less than if we authorize these fighters year by year. That is good acquisition policy. Our Armed Force needs this fighter, and we should not pay $250 million more to get it than we have to. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment offered during the debate on the 2007 Defense authorization bill by Senators Boxer, Kennedy, Clinton, and myself. In May of this year, the Hartford Courant published a series of articles describing inadequacies in the military's mental health screening procedures for servicemembers deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Courant's investigation revealed that servicemembers displaying clear signs of distress and mental health problems are being deployed into combat situations and in some cases have taken their life. These cases compromise not only the lives of our servicemembers but the strength and cohesion of our military units. The Hartford Courant wrote about Jeffrey Henthorn, a young servicemember who took his life. Jeffrey was from Oklahoma and shipped out of Fort Riley, KS, the day after Christmas in 2004. While home, Jeffrey was depressed, was having nightmares, and was plagued by memories of a young boy who had died in Iraq. Less than 2 months after his redeployment to Iraq, Jeffrey took his own life at the age of 25 years. Since then, it has become known that Jeffrey had made suicidal statements that were known to his Army superiors. Despite the clear psychological problems Jeffrey was having before his deployment, he was still sent back to a combat zone where he took his own life. To prevent acts such as this that ruin individual lives and have deleterious effects on a unit, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. At that time, the statute required the military to conduct an ``assessment of mental health'' for all deploying troops to prevent young men like Jeffrey Henthorn from being placed in further harm. However, the military's current screening process for deployment consists of a single mental health question on a predeployment questionnaire. The law is not being followed as it was intended. Alarmingly, the Hartford Courant's investigation found that only 6.5 percent of those indicating mental health problems were referred for mental health evaluations from March 2003 to October 2005. This is unacceptable. Senator Boxer and I are also concerned about the increase in the numbers of servicemembers being prescribed medication for depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorderly, PTSD. These individuals are being sent into combat with psychotropic medications but are not systematically receiving any followup or monitoring. We cannot send our servicemembers into combat zones without the medical and mental health support they deserve and need. There is nothing controversial about that. Another case reported by the Hartford Courant illustrates the dangers of providing medications without followup or monitoring in the field. Michael Deem, father of two, saw a psychiatrist before deploying to help him cope with serious symptoms of depression. He was given a year's supply of Prozac, among other medications. Less than a month after deploying to Iraq, Michael Deem was found dead in his bunk. The Army determined that he died of an enlarged heart ``complicated by elevated levels'' of Prozac. We cannot have servicemembers on medications for serious conditions out in the field with inadequate monitoring, and nonexistent followup. We must do better for those willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for us. We have also learned that troops with preexisting mental health conditions and serious mental health disorders are being sent into combat zones. This amendment would make sure young men and women who are unable to serve are not sent into combat zones that make their conditions worse or place them and their units in danger. The Courant series also told the story of a young man from Pennsylvania. Eddie Brabazon had a history of bipolar disorder and spent time in group homes and psychiatric hospitals during his adolescent years. In March of 2004, less than 3 months into his second deployment to the Middle East, Eddie shot himself and took his own life at the age of 20. There were signs before this act that something was terribly wrong. In the days leading up to his suicide, Eddie had locked himself in a portable toilet with his rifle for 45 minutes, causing his sergeant concern. But no one sent Eddie to receive intensive treatment to prevent his suicide or send him away from the combat zone where his condition was worsening. Young men with Eddie's history of mental health problems and exhibiting such clearly communicated signs of distress should not continue to serve in a combat zone. To protect servicemembers similar to the ones the Courant has written about and their units, Senators Boxer, Kennedy, Clinton, and I are introducing this amendment. The military mental health amendment has two purposes. First, it is meant to keep these courageous young men and women out of the way of any further harm. Second, we must make sure that our units have the strongest and healthiest soldiers, and this amendment moves us in the right direction. By deploying servicemembers with serious mental health problems, we are compromising the strength of our military units. Our amendment will ensure that the military would conduct a thorough screening for determining whether a servicemember has a significant mental health problem before deploying; servicemembers with a significant mental health problem are seen by someone with experience in mental health assessment; access to mental health professionals in a more timely manner; the military identifies preexisting mental health conditions to determine appropriateness for deployment; and the military develops a plan for how to continue to provide mental health services during deployment for any servicemembers receiving mental health services before their deployment. Senator Boxer and I, along with Senators Clinton and Kennedy, introduced this amendment to ensure that servicemembers like Jeffrey Henthorn, Michael Deem, and Eddie Brabazon receive the care they deserve before it is too late. I thank both Senators Levin and Warner for adopting this amendment into the Defense authorization bill for 2007, and I encourage the conferees in both Houses to maintain the provisions of this amendment to ensure we keep our troops strong and healthy. amendment no.4507

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to an article published in the New York Times earlier this spring titled ``Bombs Away,'' authored by my dear friend, Ambassador Max Kampelman, and to offer it into the Senate record. Ambassador Kampelman exemplifies the American tradition of bipartisan service in foreign affairs. After coming to Washington as an aide to Senator Hubert Humphrey, he was appointed by President Carter to serve as Ambassador and head of the U.S. Delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. President Reagan reappointed him to that position. For his long and distinguished service, Ambassador Kampelman was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Clinton and the Presidential Citizens Medal from President Reagan. Now Ambassador Kampelman has penned this insightful essay on the goal of globally eliminating all weapons of mass destruction. He believes that this goal is even important in an age of nuclear proliferation. He speaks from the heart and head and from his long experience as a hardnosed negotiator. Ambassador Kampelman argues that we can reach this objective by distinguishing between what ``is'' and what ``ought'' to be, utilizing both realism and idealism. He recalls President Regan's successful deployment of the MX missile in Europe to deter Soviet aggression and his ability to recognize new openings, such as the willingness of Mikhail Gorbachev to negotiate steep reductions in nuclear arsenals-- with the ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. We all recognize that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is an extraordinarily difficult journey in a world where nuclear technology continues to spread and distinction between civilian and military nuclear development can be opaque. Nonetheless, it is important that we envision this worthy goal, however idealistic it may seem today. Ambassador Kampelman stared down the very real prospect of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War. With this article, he offers us hope that with wisdom and constancy, we have a chance to make this world safer for our children and grandchildren. I therefore request unanimous consent that the attached article by Ambassador Max Kampelman be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from Virginia for previously responding graciously to the request from the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, that I be granted time to speak on both of these amendments, and an extra thank-you for his allowing me to do so a bit earlier than the initial order. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendments introduced by the Senator from Michigan and others, and the other amendment introduced by the Senators from Massachusetts and Wisconsin and others because they both would direct, in different ways, the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground. Let me begin with a harsh and familiar lesson history has taught us and that we are experiencing again in Iraq: War is hell. Precious lives are lost, blood is spilled, treasure is spent. Countries, communities, and families are deeply pained and disrupted. But history also teaches us that there are times when wars must be waged and won to prevent even more awful hell: to overthrow an evil leader or protect the noble causes of human freedom, opportunity, and peace. At the outset of the war in Iraq, coalition forces, led by our own American men and women in uniform, brave and brilliant, succeeded with remarkable speed to achieve a most worthy goal, the overthrow of an evil leader, Saddam Hussein, and the opening of the opportunity for freedom, the opportunity for the people of Iraq and broader peace in the region. After that, I would say, and I think all who support that war must admit, that mistakes were made on our side--some of them big--and the difficulties in Iraq increased. As others have said before me, the war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein may have been a war of choice. It is now a war of necessity. We must win it. Why? Because the consequences of an American retreat and defeat there would be terrible for the safety and security of the American people at home whom we have a constitutional responsibility to protect. I must say I also approach these two amendments with a sense of legislative history. They evoke debates that have occurred many times in the Senate. We had one just a decade ago on this floor, about how long our Armed Forces should stay in Bosnia. Some wanted to set a deadline for withdrawal, a date. Others, including myself, argued successfully that setting a day for automatic withdrawal was dangerous and wrong because it would discourage our allies and encourage our enemies. Our withdrawal should be consistent with the achievement of the goals we have set for the mission. I remember in that debate quoting Biblical wisdom and warning, ``If the sound of the trumpet is uncertain, who will follow into battle?'' I suppose in our time we might amend that to say, ``If the sound of the trumpet is uncertain, who will stay in battle?'' I also remember arguing in that debate that a nation, I thought, should only set an unconditional date, a deadline for withdrawing troops from battle, if all hope of victory was lost, which it was not then in Bosnia and is not now in Iraq, unless the consequences of a too early American withdrawal by calendar instead of condition were acceptable to our country, which it was not. They were not then in Bosnia and are not now in Iraq. The Kerry-Feingold amendment directs that all American troops be withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year, regardless of the intervening events. The Levin amendment is more complicated. I have spent some time studying it since it was made public on Monday. The Levin amendment directs that a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq begin by the end of this year, 2006, without regard to the conditions on the ground. So, for that reason, consistent with what I have just said about legislative history and my own previously stated strong position, I cannot support either of these amendments. I personally hope, as I am sure all Members of the Senate do, and I believe, that we will be able to withdraw a significant number of Americans in uniform from Iraq by the end of this year and even more by next year. I express that optimism based on the election and formulation of the new Iraqi unity Government, the increasing capacity of the Iraqi security forces to protect their own people, and the commitment of the new Government to disarm the sectarian militias. General Abizaid and General Casey have said that it is their hope to begin withdrawing more troops by the end of 2006 and even more next year. But I want them to decide based on the realities on the ground in Iraq, not on their hopes or my hopes or the shared hopes of the American people that we will soon be able to bring our Armed Forces home from Iraq. I do not want those distinguished American generals and the brave and steadfast American men and women serving under them to be directed by this Congress to exit before they conclude and recommend to us and the President that withdrawal is justified. My own opinion is that the sooner the Iraqis take control of their own defense and destiny, the better it will be for them and for us. But if we leave too soon, it will be disastrous for them and for us. Sponsors of the Kerry-Feingold amendment have stated a very clear and direct purpose. I disagree with it. The sponsors of the Levin amendment have argued on behalf of their amendment that they believe we must direct the beginning of a withdrawal of American troops without condition by December 31 of this year to make clear to the Iraqis that our commitment to them is not open-ended. I believe the Iraqis know very well that our commitment is not open-ended and is not a blank check. I will tell you that I personally have said that to their leaders directly, every time I have met them here or there. I know many of my Senate colleagues of both parties and leaders of the administration have said the same, openly and directly to the Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people. And the Iraqis themselves have said over and over again that they know our commitment is not unconditional. Just yesterday, in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post by the National Security Adviser of Iraq, he made clear that his Government wants the American military out of Iraq as much as we want our men and women to come home to America. He and the rest of the Iraqi leadership doesn't need a congressional directive to convince them of the desirability of American forces leaving Iraq. What will be lost by it? I will answer that in a moment. I will say that in the interest of Iraq's security and ours, it should only happen--that is, our withdrawal--as the Iraqis step by step are more and more ready to stand on their own. The amendment introduced by Senator Levin itself states that the Iraqis are making good progress in exactly that direction. The amendment itself reports more than two-thirds of the operational Iraqi Army combat battalions ``are now either in the lead or operating independently.'' That is significant progress. A national unity government has been formed. It took too long, but that also is an enormous achievement. But, of course, there is much more work yet to be done--as the Levin amendment itself states, to amend the Iraqi constitution to get more help from international donors and to ``promptly and decisively disarm the militias and remove those members of the Iraqi security forces whose loyalty to the Iraq government is in doubt.'' But then the amendment goes on to direct the beginning of withdrawal of American forces by the end of this year regardless of whether that work is done or those militias are disarmed. That is where I respectfully believe it errs. In doing so, I feel that this amendment would just underline the message the Iraqi leadership has clearly already received, accepted, and shares; that America's military commitment to Iraq is not open- ended and unconditional. I fear that it would also send another message to our terrorist enemies and to the sectarian militias in Iraq that America is not prepared to see this fight through until the Iraqis themselves can take over. That will actually encourage the terrorists to accelerate their cruel and inhumane attacks, and it will unsettle the sectarian groups to hunker down and rearm their militias to strengthen themselves for the civil war that they feel will follow a premature American retreat. And that might well create conditions that none of us want, which is to say chaos and civil war in Iraq, regional war in the Middle East, and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 being able to claim victory in Iraq and going on, emboldened, to attack us again here at home and to bring their terrorism to more Arab countries in the Middle East. That is why I said the war in Iraq, however one thinks we got there, is now a war of necessity, a war we must help the people of Iraq to win or the security of we, the people of America, our children and grandchildren will be gravely endangered. Section 2 on page 4 of the amendment which the Senator from Michigan introduced says: The current open-ended commitment of United States forces in Iraq is unsustainable. As I have said, our commitment is not and should not be open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis working hard to move themselves forward together on the path to self-government and self-defense and, in fact, as the amendment states, they are doing. And this conditional commitment of ours to them is surely militarily sustainable and must be honored. The failure to do so I believe would have terrible consequences for our credibility in the world and our success in the long conflict ahead against the radical Islamist terrorists who declared war against us and much of the rest of the world during the 1990s and carried out a brutal act of war against our people on September 11, 2001. We cannot and must not concede any battlefield to our enemies in this most unconventional but deadly serious war. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that our freedom and security and that of most of the rest of the world, Muslim and non- Muslim, depends now, as it has at critical moments in the past, on American persistence and fortitude in this painful, awful, essential worldwide war. For these reasons, I will respectfully oppose the Levin amendment and the amendment introduced by Senators Kerry and Feingold. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge a tangible result of our Federal Government's investment in preparing for a possible flu pandemic. This week, the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, in partnership with the Wildlife Conservation Society launched the Global Avian Influenza Network for the Surveillance of wild birds, or the GAINS program. GAINS systematically tests and monitors wild and dead birds to identify the viral strains they carry, to share the virus samples in order to continually update vaccine production options, and to disseminate lab results on a map-based publicly accessible database. Major flyways around the world will be monitored including those running north-south through the Americas. I wish to recognize Chairman Cochran from Mississippi and Senator Byrd from West Virginia, along with my colleagues, Senator Harkin from Iowa, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, and Senator Brownback from Kansas, for their commitment to avian flu preparedness and for putting in place an effective system for the surveillance of wild birds. GAINS is instrumental to our capacity to prepare communities in the wake of wild birds moving with the virus for a potential outbreak. At the same time we work to develop a vaccine and procure antivirals, we can also track the movement of the virus in wild birds. GAINS can track wild birds in the same way the National Hurricane Center tracks hurricanes. By analyzing, storing, and reporting using a real-time computerized data mapping system and interface, we can see the viral strains wild birds carry, where they are carrying the virus along migratory routes, and how the virus is genetically evolving. This will make it possible for us to develop vaccines more quickly using the most recent strain available and will help us warn vulnerable populations in wild bird flightpaths should the avian flu strain turn deadly. I am happy to report that the GAINS program and Dr. William Karesh at the Wildlife Conservation Society have already contributed vital disease samples of the highly pathogenic H5Nl virus from Mongolian swans to the efforts currently under way to develop a human vaccine for avian influenza. The Wildlife Conservation Society has partnered with USAID and the CDC to spearhead this effort. They are an international conservation organization headquartered at the Bronx Zoo in New York and have offices across the world, including my home State of Connecticut. With more than 3,000 full-time staff working in 60 countries around the world on more than 400 field conservation projects, the Wildlife Conservation Society is well positioned to lead the global efforts to monitor the disease in birds and provide key information to local communities to mitigate the effects of future outbreaks. Our Government's capacity to build partnerships such as this one and continue to fund them with nongovernmental organizations with tremendous expertise and others in the private sector is key to effectively fighting a potential pandemic.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd, who today, on his 17,327th day in office, becomes longest serving Member of the Senate. As I thought about Senator Byrd's remarkable career, I wondered: What can I say that would properly honor his long labors in service to this Senate and this Nation? I decided to look back in history, the history that Senator Byrd has quoted time and again, and seek the advice of other Senators known for their oratory. And while many great speakers have blessed the United States Senate over its history, including Senator Byrd, I found wisdom in the advice of the great Roman Senator and orator, Cato the Elder. He said: ``Rem tene; verba sequentur.'' (rem TEN-ay WHEREba seKENtoor)--``Grasp the subject, the words will follow.'' So I sat back and thought about Senator Byrd, both over his long career that I have read about, and the 18 years I have been privileged to work with him as a colleague. A lot of thoughts came to mind. Warm. Courteous. Kind. Hardworking. Humble. Humorous. Both well read and an accomplished author well worth reading. But none of these were quite right. I still hadn't grasped the subject. Then an image hit me, the image of Senator Byrd reaching into his coat pocket for that copy of the Constitution he always keeps by his heart. That was it. I knew I had grasped my subject. Time after time, Senator Byrd has taken this floor to remind us we have duties beyond our parties, beyond our passions, beyond our personal philosophies. Our overwhelming duty is to our Nation's Constitution and the unique responsibilities it assigns each House of the legislative branch. In particular, Senator Byrd constantly reminds us that our duty as Senators is to be the more deliberative of the two legislative bodies as the Framers envisioned this Chamber to be. Federalist No. 62 says the Senate should be a body that does not ``yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions'' or be ``seduced into pernicious resolutions.'' So I thought about the history of this Senate. And I would like to reflect on the very first Senator, William Maclay of Pennsylvania, because his spirit is alive today in Senator Byrd. Senator Maclay became known among his colleagues as a stickler for following the Constitution, which sometimes put him at odds with those same colleagues. He also kept a meticulous diary of the proceedings of that first Senate. One of the earliest debates in the first Senate was over what to call George Washington. It is hard to imagine now, but there were many back then who thought that ``President of the United States'' was not a fitting title, that something grander was needed. A Title Committee was appointed in the Senate to consider titles such as, Your Elective Highness, and His Highness, the President of the United States and Protector of the Rights of the Same. And those were some of the more modest proposals. The Senate also thought about giving special, nobility-style titles to members of the executive branch. Senator Maclay found this absurd and in violation of the Constitution. He waited for someone else to speak out. But when no one else did, the very first Senator of the very first Senate rose and said: ``Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States has designated our chief magistrate by the appellation of President of the United States of America. This is his title of office. We cannot alter, add to, or diminish it without infringing on the Constitution. As to grades of order or nobility, nothing of the kind can be established by Congress.'' In his diary, Maclay was even more biting about attempts to establish lofty titles because he thought they violated both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. He wrote: ``Never will I consent to straining the Constitution, nor will I consent to the exercise of doubtful power. We come here the servants, not the lords, of our constituents.'' Now does that sound like anybody we know? Looking toward the future, Senator Maclay went on to write: ``The new government, instead of being a powerful machine whose authority would support any measure, needs help . . . and must be supported by the ablest names and most shining characters which we can select.'' I believe everyone here agrees that Senator Byrd embodies the ``shining character'' and dedication to the Constitution that the first Senator of the first Senate thought would be crucial to the new Nation's success. I also believe Senator Byrd has done so by following the advice of that ancient Roman Senator who he has quoted so often, Cato the Elder. Senator Byrd has truly grasped his subject--the Constitution--and the words have followed for nearly half a century. I hope his words will continue to enlighten this Senate and this Nation for years to come. Senator Byrd, thank you.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign, the ``National Innovation Education Act''. The intent of this bill is to enhance our science and technology talent base and improve national competitiveness through strengthened education initiatives. Enhancing academic success, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math--often called the STEM disciplines--through innovative educational programs will stimulate change and growth within elementary, secondary and postsecondary institutions, improve current educational opportunities for all students, allow graduates greater opportunity for economic success and greater ability to successfully compete in the global market. This bill proposes initiatives spanning the education spectrum that seek to improve quality instruction and access to STEM learning for all students. Recent recommendations from the Council on Competitiveness and The Augustine Commission at the National Academy of Sciences, among others, target national concerns around the content and quality of K-16 in STEM disciplines, particularly with regard to minority and low- income students, the need to stimulate innovation, and the need to enhance teacher preparation and professional development in the STEM fields. An increasing number of researchers express alarm at the nearly one out of three public high school students who won't graduate and the failure of our systems to adequately prepare high school graduates, and particularly minorities, for success in college and the work place. Addressing the challenge of successfully thriving in a world of change, the Council on Competitiveness examined the pressing issue of attracting more young Americans to science and engineering fields. Currently, less than 15 percent of U.S. students have the prerequisite skills to pursue scientific or technical degrees in college. Only 5.5 percent of the 1.1 million high school seniors who took the college entrance exam in 2002 planned to pursue an engineering degree. And there continues to be poor representation of women and minorities in these fields. The National Academies report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' notes that amongst the U.S. science and technology workforce 38 percent of PhDs were foreign born. Changes need to be enacted to not only increase the number of students pursuing math and science degrees but to prepare them to pursue these degrees. Indeed, numerous national reports in recent years have called for efforts to improve K-12 education, teacher preparation and professional development in the STEM areas. Recommendations include increasing the numbers of postsecondary students pursuing careers in the areas of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology and increasing the numbers of postsecondary students in the STEM fields who will then pursue concurrent degrees in education. Increasing funding for not only STEM education but STEM research has received strong recommendations as an important and timely approach to addressing improvements in education and innovation. Finally, a critical factor to ensuring program success is the ability to engage and then hold students' interests in the various STEM fields enough to encourage them to pursue STEM careers. Our bill seeks to craft a comprehensive response to many of these issues, and includes the following provisions. Title I--Improving Pre-kindergarten Through Grade 16, supplies a remedy to the critical issue of the disconnect existing between high school outcomes and college expectations. Through the formation of partnerships between P-12 and higher education systems in the states-- P-16 Commissions--academic success in postsecondary education becomes the priority agenda item for reform. We anticipate that P-16 Commissions will bring about an increase in the percentage of academically prepared students, particularly low-income and minority students, and a decrease in the percentage of college students requiring remedial coursework, particularly with respect to math, science, and engineering. Many States across our country have already seen the wisdom of a P-16 Commission and have been working on goals and implementation. The results, although preliminary for many States, are vastly encouraging. Title I will provide support both to States with existing P-16 bodies, or States seeking to establish such commissions. It will give priority to the States also seeking to establish or enhance data systems. We hope that States will have an opportunity to craft a vision that will reach all students over time so that their educational pathway of access to and success in college will be ensured. Magnet schools have the capacity to create learning environments tailored to the interests and needs of its community and can offer a focused curriculum capable of attracting substantial numbers of students of different racial backgrounds. Title II of our bill authorizes the National Science Foundation to award grants to assist in the promotion of innovation and competitiveness through the development and implementation of magnet school programs. These programs would encourage students to meet state academic content standards through the development and design of innovative educational methods, practices and curricula that promote student achievement in STEM courses and encourage student enrollment in postsecondary institutions. In addition, Title II authorizes NSF grants to elementary and middle schools creating pilot programs implementing innovation-based experiential learning environments. Innovation-based experiential learning is a teaching model that seeks to seed traditional technical studies with new exposure to methods for creative thinking and translating ideas into practical applications. Such programs would likely involve immersing students in hands-on experimentation that helps students discover new concepts and use those concepts to solve real-world problems. The interrelated demands that mathematics and science education places upon schools to prepare both teachers and students must be addressed consecutively. Teachers need to be better prepared to teach STEM topics across the board and students need to have access to teachers who are well versed in their content subjects. Title III of our bill authorizes funding to increase the number of graduates from postsecondary institutions with concurrent degrees in education and STEM fields. This program is based on the successful UTeach model at the University of Texas at Austin. Encouraging science and math majors to concurrently pursue certification in the field of education will help increase the number and quality of teachers in these fields. The model program at the University of Texas has experienced impressive success in attracting and keeping promising young STEM teachers. Our bill also calls for the establishment of Teacher Professional Development Institutes to promote innovative and effective approaches to improving teacher quality by providing professional development support for educators already in the classroom. The Teacher Institute Model encourages collaboration between urban teachers and university faculty to improve student learning by enhancing teacher mastery of subject matter. It is based upon the model which has been in operation at Yale University in New Haven, CT for over 25 years. Our Nation recognizes the pressing need to increase funding for STEM research and boost the number of students in undergraduate and graduate programs pursuing mathematics and science degrees for our country's continued development, prosperity and security. Within the final title of our bill, Title IV, NSF basic research funding is doubled. NSF is authorized to expand funding for STEM education through increased fellowships and trainee programs at the undergraduate and graduate level. A clearinghouse at the National Science Foundation of successful professional science master's degree program elements will be made available to postsecondary institutions as well as grants for developing pilot programs or improving current programs. In addition the NSF Tech Talent program is reauthorized with increased funding. This program provides competitive grants to undergraduate universities to develop new methods of increasing the number of students receiving degrees in science, math, and engineering. Finally, it is in our interest to examine and understand the emerging field of services sciences, a multidisciplinary curriculum partnering science, technology, engineering, and math with management and business disciplines. To this end, the National Science Foundation will conduct a collaborative study with leaders from institutions of higher education to come to an understanding of how best to support this new field. Our National Innovation Education Act takes a broad and comprehensive approach to addressing national prosperity, security and our ability to compete internationally with recommendations for enhanced education initiatives in order to improve our national competitiveness. Improving current education for all students will allow graduates greater opportunity for economic success and greater ability to successfully compete in the global market. Our very Nation's future prosperity and security depends upon our willingness as leaders to infuse education with the requisite innovative vision that will inspire our youth to reach for goals that are achievable only beyond the ordinary bounds. I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.