Joseph Lieberman

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.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Pastor Brian Keith Sinclair of Hartford, CT. Pastor Sinclair is the founder and visionary of Triumphant World Outreach Ministries, which will be celebrating its fourth anniversary on June 10. Triumphant is an outreach organization that seeks to give inner-city youth, teens, and young adults a sense of hope for the future. The organization declares in its mission statement an intention to ``reach the lost at any cost.'' Triumphant offers a number of programs and services for those youth and their parents who choose to participate, intended to keep young people off the streets, away from the destructive forces of drug use and violence that ensnare far too many young people. Since the ministry opened in 2002, countless youths have taken advantage of its homework clubs and job placement services and enjoyed its various artistic and dance programs. The ministry also arranges many recreational activities and outings for the youth, including trips to amusement parks, fishing lessons, and minor league baseball games. In 2002, Pastor Sinclair delivered a sermon to the South Congregational Church in Hartford entitled ``Now Perform the Doing of It.'' In the sermon Pastor Sinclair stressed to his audience that the time to reach out to young people is now, that those who are at risk can't wait to be helped. Anyone who has taken a look at what Pastor Sinclair has done over the past few years will tell you that Pastor Sinclair has applied this sense of urgency to all the work he has done. In recent years, Pastor Sinclair has expanded his community service efforts at a breathtaking pace. He has launched various initiatives in major cities and towns throughout Connecticut. He serves as the director of the Hands for Change program in New Jersey, which also has satellite programs in Massachusetts and New York. Recently, Triumphant announced plans to expand its program in Hartford to the city's Park Street Frog Hollow neighborhood. Pastor Sinclair and the rest of the staff at Triumphant are shining examples of how through hard work and selflessness, a small group of people can pull together to strengthen their community. When I think about how Triumphant will be celebrating its fourth anniversary, all I can really do is hope that it will be around for many more years to come. When I look back at what Pastor Brian Keith Sinclair has done for communities throughout the great State of Connecticut, I can't help but be filled with a deep sense of gratitude and hope for the future. It is truly an honor to say thank you, Pastor Sinclair, Connecticut is a better place because of you.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Senate's historic accomplishment, our imminent passage of bipartisan immigration reform legislation. The immigration reform legislation we are about to pass enhances our national security, promotes our economic well being and creates a fair and compassionate path to citizenship for those who came here to work hard, pay taxes, respect the law and learn English. The legislation addresses serious problems that have festered for years. Our immigration system has been broken far too long. Some thought it was broken beyond repair, but it is not. This Senate reform bill stands for the principle that we in government can work together, on a bipartisan basis, to craft detailed and pragmatic solutions, and that we can avoid strident rhetoric that ultimately gets us nowhere. There are difficult realities we must face. Despite huge increases in spending on border security since 1993, the numbers of undocumented immigrants living in the United States has more than doubled, and now stands at an estimated 11 million. That number increases significantly every year as more people come here looking for work. We must continue to improve border security. That will require more Border Patrol officers, better technologies, more effective border security strategies, and greater expenditures. The bill we are passing ensures that all of those things will happen. But the flow of illegal migration into the country would continue indefinitely, if our only solution was to continue to increase border security spending. Immigration enforcement is also an essential component of a reform package. Unscrupulous employers who continue to hire and exploit undocumented workers must be punished. Once adequate verification systems are in place, employers will have no excuse for hiring undocumented workers. The Senate legislation will implement an effective verification system, and it will result in the hiring of additional immigration enforcement officers and funding for thousands of additional detention beds. But enforcement alone will not solve the major challenges we face. Last December the House of Representatives passed a punitive and unworkable bill. Their legislation would criminalize the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., pushing deeper into the darkness those who already live in the shadows and turning Samaritans who offer humanitarian aid into outlaws. Such draconian measures would create a class of people within our own borders who would live and work without the protection of law and would be open to exploitation and crime. They would be forced to suffer in silence or risk being imprisoned if they came forward. How would that solve the problem? We could never imprison or deport more than a tiny fraction of these millions of people--people who have laid down roots in our communities. If we were to even try, the cost would be prohibitive and would turn our society into something approaching a police state. Virtually all of the undocumented immigrants living in this country came here to work hard and support their families. They pay taxes and they respect our laws. They would like nothing better than to become members of our society, on an equal footing, and pursue the American dream like so many immigrants before them. The alternative is keeping millions of families in the shadows, where they can be preyed upon and exploited. And by welcoming those hard working and law abiding people, we free up resources we need to seal our borders and pursue the real dangers of terrorists, drug traffickers, and other criminals. Undocumented immigrants will not get a free pass to legal residency and citizenship. They must earn it. Under the bill, undocumented immigrants who have been present in the U.S. for at least 5 years will be able to apply for a work visa lasting 6 years. They would have to pay thousands of dollars in fines, clear background checks and then must remain gainfully employed and law abiding. After 6 years of working in the U.S. on a temporary visa, an immigrant could apply for permanent residency a process that takes 5 years provided he or she paid an additional fee, proved payment of taxes and could show a knowledge of English and United States civics. Only after a combined period of 11 years could the immigrant apply for U.S. citizenship. Those who have been here between 2 to 5 years would have to apply through a stricter guest worker program, and would have to wait even longer before they could win legal residency. None of these undocumented immigrants would earn legal residency before we cleared the backlog of people waiting to receive visas to enter the U.S. Immigrants living in the U.S. legally have been waiting far too long to be reunited with their spouses and young children. This bill will clear those family reunification backlogs, and undocumented immigrants will have to get in the back of the line. Each component of the plan depends on the others for any of them to be effective, and the new guestworker program that the bill creates is an essential component. Even with the provisions I have already outlined, we would still face the prospect of future illegal immigration. Currently hundreds of thousands enter the country illegally. This illegal migration has fueled a lucrative and extremely dangerous market for human smugglers. These smuggling rings war violently against each other, on both sides of the border, and they indulge in other illicit traffic. They prey on their human cargo. This has to stop. We are accomplishing nothing if our legislation does not contain provisions addressing future migration flows. The guestworker program will channel future flows through legal avenues. People who want to come here to work will first be screened to ensure that they have committed no crimes. They can only come if they have legitimate jobs waiting for them. If we don't include a guestworker program, we will continue to see high rates of illegal immigration in the future. We will have temporarily addressed the large numbers of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., only to see that problem resurface again over time. But with the verification and enforcement provisions I have already described, opportunities for undocumented workers will dry up. People will have no incentive to illegally enter the U.S. if they know that working here will not be a viable option. Let me address concerns about American workers. I would not support any bill that undercuts American workers, and the Senate legislation contains safeguards to protect American workers. Temporary workers will not replace U.S. workers. Employers may only hire temporary workers after they spend 60 days attempting to recruit U.S. workers at the prevailing wage being offered. Temporary workers must be paid at prevailing wages, as defined by the Davis-Bacon Act, the Service Contract Act, or collective bargaining agreements. The bill contains strong protections to make sure that guestworkers are not exploited by labor contractors. These provisions, as well as the wage and working condition protections, are backed up by strong complaint procedures and whistle- blower protections. Temporary workers will not be hired in the midst of a labor dispute and will not be recruited in areas where unemployment rates are high. Finally, these protections will be backed up by the authorization of 2,000 new Department of Labor inspectors charged with enforcing them. This legislation is far from perfect. The underlying legislation already contained unnecessarily punitive provisions, provisions that have been retained. During Senate consideration of the bill our bipartisan majority successfully beat back many measures that would have gutted the bill or unfairly punished immigrants, although I was disappointed by several of the votes on the Senate floor. One example was the adoption of an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe which would undermine efforts to provide services for non-English speakers in a wide variety of essential governmental functions. I was also disappointed by a setback Senator Brownback and I suffered in our attempt to improve our nation's treatment of asylum seekers. In February of 2005, the congressionally established U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a report that raised serious concerns about insufficient protections for asylum seekers arriving in this country. The problems raised by the Commission's report should shock us, given our nation's historic mission as a bastion for those fleeing persecution in their home country. The Commission found an unacceptable risk that genuine asylum seekers were being returned to their home countries where they faced repression and worse. This was occurring because aliens stopped at our airports and borders were not properly questioned about the dangers they would face if they were sent back. This failure to follow procedures required by law resulted in the inability of asylum seekers to plead their case. The Commission also found that while asylum seekers are having their applications considered, they were often detained for months in maximum-security prisons and jails, without ever having a chance to appear before an immigration judge to request bail. While being held, some were subjected to mistreatment or arbitrary punishments, including solitary confinement and the denial of basic medical needs. This kind of treatment of people trying to escape war, oppression-- even torture--is unacceptable in America. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has repeatedly criticized our detention of asylum seekers as inconsistent with U.S. treaty obligations. Since the Commission's report was issued more than a year ago, I have routinely asked officials from the Department of Homeland Security what is being done about the problems the Commission identified. For more than a year, I have been assured that the Department was reviewing the report's findings. But in that time the Department did not act to address these shortcomings, nor did it respond to the recommendations as I had requested on so many occasions. Because of that long period of inaction, Senator Brownback and I introduced an amendment that would have implemented the Commission's most important recommendations. It called for sensible reforms that would have safeguarded the nation's security while ensuring that people fleeing persecution are treated in accordance with this nation's most basic values. Unfortunately, moments before we were to begin debate on our amendment, the Department of Homeland Security disseminated a position paper objecting to our amendment. The Department claimed that implementing the Commission's recommendations would have adverse repercussions on its operational capabilities. These were claims that I had never heard previously, despite my repeated inquiries to the highest Department officials, and they were claims that I believe are not supported by the facts. Nevertheless, we entered into days of negotiations, in which we attempted to address all of the Department's concerns. The negotiations were unavailing. Although unsuccessful on this occasion, Senator Brownback and I intend to introduce our amendment as freestanding legislation, so that we can continue to fight to ensure that people who flee oppression and seek freedom in America are treated in accordance with our cherished values. After all, we often say that we are a nation built by immigrants, and that is true, but in many ways we are also a nation founded by refugees. As we pass this historic legislation it is essential that we remember that we are a nation of immigrants and refugees. Throughout the decades new waves of immigrants have arrived. They came from many cultures and countries, they came speaking many different languages, and as they settled here they enriched the nation. All four of my grandparents came to this country to pursue a better a life, as did the family of my wife Hadassah, who was born in Czechoslovakia and arrived here as an infant. The recent immigrants about whom we have been debating these last two weeks have come to our country for the same reason that my grandparents came for freedom, opportunity, and a better life for their children. This legislation we pass today will enhance our border security, improve our ability to enforce our immigration laws, and fuel economic growth. But beyond these reasons, it is also fully in keeping with our history as a nation of immigrants.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Kennedy. Mr. President, I rise respectfully to oppose this amendment. Under it, workers who are in this country legally, as a result of the underlying reform bill before us, would be prohibited from receiving the Federal earned income tax credit. Yet these same workers would be required to pay both income and payroll taxes. That seems unfair. In other words, we are going to bring them out of the shadows. We are going to get them to pay taxes. But we will not allow them access to the EITC. Once they have earned legal status, these workers would be no different from citizens or other legal residents who pay the same taxes and, if they have low incomes, qualify for the EITC. Some have expressed concern that the underlying bill would increase Federal spending for programs such as EITC. It would. But you have to consider the pluses and minuses. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office recently completed a cost estimate of S. 2611, the underlying bill, and found that the legislation as a whole would raise Federal tax revenues. New tax filers, people who come out of the shadows and become tax-paying citizens, are required by this proposal, as part of their path to citizenship--I call it probation, not amnesty--are projected to pay more than $60 billion in payroll and income taxes over the next 10 years. Once you factor in the cost of refundable credits provided to these workers, such as the child tax credit and the EITC, the net increase in revenues is still a significant $33 billion over the next 10 years. It would be unreasonable for us to force these new workers, who are legal and many of whom will be in the process of becoming American citizens, to pay all these taxes and not be allowed to claim the earned-income tax credit. As has been acknowledged, undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for the EITC. If you are here illegally, you can't qualify for the EITC. We should not deny this tax credit to low-income taxpayers who are working in this country legally. One particularly troublesome effect of this amendment, I fear, were it to be enacted into law, is that it would further impoverish some of our Nation's poorest children. Because the fact is, 98 percent of earned income tax credit payments go to working families with children. Let me briefly recite the history of this remarkable program. The earned-income tax credit was first proposed by President Richard M. Nixon. It was signed into law by President Ford. Since then, it has been expanded, because it has worked, by Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. These Presidents saw the program as a way to help promote work and offset regressive payroll tax burdens on low-wage workers. That is the point. We know that on so many average, lower-income, middle-income workers, the great increase in Federal taxes has not been the income tax. It has been the payroll tax deductions. The EITC was created to help even that out. It also has an effect on wages or effective wages. The Federal minimum wage has not been raised in more than 8 years. By one standard, the minimum wage is valued at its lowest level since the Truman administration. Many of the immigrants who earn legal residency under the Senate bill will have earnings around the minimum wage. I hope we will act to raise the minimum wage this year. But in the interim, particularly if we don't, we certainly should not adopt legislation that will condemn large numbers of low-wage legal workers to work effectively below the poverty level, even though they are getting the minimum wage. This Senate bill does not create an immediate path to citizenship. Because of that, the amendment before us would subject millions of low- income workers to a regressive tax burden for as much as 11 years before they become eligible to receive the EITC. It is probably a minimum of 11 years. I urge my colleagues to consider the administrative burden this amendment would impose on the IRS which would have to determine the immigrant status of many tax filers. The IRS is not currently equipped to make such determinations; that is, to determine the immigrant status of tax filers. It would be costly to implement new procedures. The amendment would probably add to the heavy paperwork burden already faced by those who file for the EITC. The point of this comprehensive immigration reform is to bring people out of the shadows, to end the exploitation that some of them have lived under, to make them part of the American economy and give them the ability to compete fairly at prevailing wage rates with American workers, to offer them the equal protection of the law--I stress that, the equal protection of the law--requiring them to live by the law, requiring them to pay taxes, but also promising them that they will receive the equal protection of the law. That must include our tax laws, including the EITC. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this tax reconciliation conference report. It is a financially bizarre hodgepodge of misplaced priorities, missed opportunities and misguided economics. Not only is there nothing in this package that helps average American families, whose incomes are stagnant, the Republican majority let programs expire that helped ease the financial burdens of working families. Instead, this Republican bill showers tax breaks on the Nation's wealthiest, who don't need the help, the oil industry, which is enjoying record profits, and explodes the debt, placing a hidden tax on our children and grandchildren. This bill is so bad you look at it and wonder: What were they thinking? For instance, under this tax package the oil industry gets tax breaks worth $5.1 billion, while eliminating tax incentives on hybrid cars, solar energy panels and other energy conservation measures that would help lessen our dependence on foreign oil. What were they thinking? The capital gains and dividend tax cut extensions overwhelmingly favor households taking in more than $1 million a year. Middle income households get a tax savings of about $20 a year, while millionaires get a break of somewhere between $42,000 and $82,000. What were they thinking? I have supported capital gains relief as a way to stimulate investment, innovation and job creation. But this bill offers that relief at a time when we're running a massive Federal deficit and does next to nothing for anybody other than the wealthiest taxpayers. Look at what's missing from this bill: The State and local sales tax deduction, the college tuition deduction, the welfare to work tax credit that encouraged employers to lower welfare roles by creating jobs; and the research and development tax credit that helped spur the innovation we need to compete in the global economy. What were they thinking? This bill does provide a one-year fix to keep middle-income Americans from falling into the alternative minimum tax trap. But even that is not enough. We need to fix the AMT Problem once and for all. A famed economic thinker named Marx--Groucho not Karl--once said: ``Money frees you from doing things you dislike. Since I dislike doing nearly everything, money is handy.'' Groucho may have summed up the Republican approach to fiscal policy: They avoid doing the things they dislike--like facing hard financial truths and making tough fiscal decisions--and just keep showering money we don't have on wealthy people and oil companies who don't need it and then pass the bill off to our children who can't afford it. At least Groucho was joking about how he spent his own money. We're stealing our children's. And that's no joke. Mr. President, we must come to grips with the exploding deficits. We can't keep cutting taxes, increasing spending and pretend there are no consequences. There are. And it will be our children who will face the reckoning. And on that day they will look back at us in anger and cry: What were they thinking! I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to LCpl Stephen R. Bixler of Suffield, CT. Corporal Bixler, a member of the 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, NC, was killed in action on May 4 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Anbar Province, Iraq. He was struck while on foot patrol by an improvised explosive device on his second tour of duty in Iraq. Corporal Bixler is fondly remembered as a quiet but strong leader with strength of character and self-assurance unusual for someone of his age. As an Eagle Scout and former senior patrol leader in his Boy Scout troop, Corporal Bixler enjoyed helping others. He joined the Marines shortly after graduating from Suffield High School in 2003 and served in Haiti prior to his tour in Iraq. He was well received and respected when he proudly visited his high school, where he had been admired as he excelled at academics and athletics, to talk to students about his experiences. He was a true patriot and defender of our great Nation's principles of freedom of justice. Corporal Bixler served as an example of the potent American spirit, which permeates this Nation's history. I am both proud and grateful that we have the kind of defender exemplified by Corporal Bixler serving in the Persian Gulf. Our Nation extends its heartfelt condolences to his family. To his father, Richard, his mother, Linda, and sister, Sandra, we extend our profound gratitude for sharing this outstanding Marine with us, and we offer our prayers and support. Staff Sergeant Mark Wall

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to wish a happy birthday to Nancy Irish of Stafford Springs, CT. Nancy will be celebrating her 100th birthday on May 9. While the birthday itself is, of course, worthy of much celebration, those who know Nancy well--her friends, relatives, coworkers and neighbors--would all tell you that Nancy deserves the most congratulations for the life she has led over the past 100 years. Born May 9, 1906, to Italian immigrant parents, Nancy lived in New York until she and her family moved to Massachusetts when she was a teenager. On July 12, 1924, she married Daniel Woods Irish, and together they moved to Connecticut. They had three children, Daniel, Darian, and Dolores. When her husband Daniel tragically passed away early, Nancy worked very hard to provide for her family. Throughout her life, she held a variety of jobs, including working in the Tobacco Valley cigar industry and, at one time, running a taxi business and a rooming house. After years of hard work, Nancy retired to Florida for over 20 years before moving back to Connecticut. She is currently enjoying a well-deserved retirement and loves spending time with her family, including two surviving children, five grandchildren, nine great-grandchildren and a great-great-grandson. Nancy Irish has lived a long, remarkable life and has touched many people's lives. If you consider the strength, determination, and hard work she has demonstrated throughout her life, can it really be any shock that she has lived such a long, fulfilling life? Happy birthday, Nancy Irish. May your 100th year be your best yet.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues from North Carolina and Kansas, Senators Burr and Brownback, for their commitment to avian flu preparedness and to putting in place an effective system for the surveillance of wild birds, which is instrumental to our capacity to prepare for the outbreak of an avian flu pandemic. I am happy to support the amendment of my distinguished colleague from North Carolina.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. It is. USAID and CDC have partnered with the Wildlife Conservation Society to establish the Wild Bird Global Avian Influenza Network for Surveillance or GAINS. GAINS is a smart and targeted investment in the U.S. Government's fight against avian flu. CDC and USAID are investing $6 million from fiscal year 2006 avian flu supplemental appropriations to establish GAINS. GAINS comprises 5 million conservation, wild bird, poultry, health, and vaccine experts and builds upon the robust international network of the Wildlife Conservation Society, or WCS, which through partnerships has presence in virtually every key country related to Avian Influenza--56 in all. The Wildlife Conservation Society, founded in 1895 and headquartered at the Bronx Zoo has a long history in the wild bird surveillance field around the world. They were the organization that first diagnosed West Nile virus when it arrived on U.S. shores, and the human avian flu vaccine we are currently working on is partially derived from wild migratory bird samples, WCS wild bird samples collected in Mongolia. Of course, the GAINS relates to robust sampling of wild birds--alive and dead--in the wild and in captivity, and even in markets, but most importantly GAINS will display the results of sampling on a user- friendly real time computerized data mapping system so that wherever you are in the world, public officials will be able to warn populations at risk and scientists will have a powerful tool to fight this virus. I am confident that the Smithsonian's domestic efforts will be fully compatible with GAINS.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes I do. The current GAINS program is underfunded by $4,000,000 in year one and year two will require an additional $10,000,000 to be fully functional. Our amendment specifies GAINS as a particular program for CDC to fund in its domestic and global surveillance efforts, which in general is receiving robust funding thanks to your foresight and that of your health subcommittee. Such an effort as we have discussed must include animal surveillance because of its relation to human health.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Senator Brownback and I thank the Senator from North Carolina for this. I personally thank you Senator Burr for working with us on this important issue, which I always say is the big bird in the room that few people are looking at. It always feels better to wrap our arms around problems on a bipartisan basis. The leadership of the Senator from North Carolina on this issue and in general is noticed and laudable.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleagues for their commitment to these activities. customs and border protection

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Senator Brownback and I wanted to tell you about our amendment 3741 and the progress we are making on one key aspect of the avian flu preparedness front. As we speak, the HHS and USAID are collaborating to administer the global avian influenza network for surveillance--GAINS program. GAINS is a smart and targeted investment in the USG's fight against avian flu since wild birds can carry the deadly disease and thus have the potential to spread it. HHS and USAID have invested $6 million from fiscal year 2006 arvian flu supplemental appropriations to establish GAINS. GAINS will require another $4 million to complete and $10 million for fiscal year 2007. Senator Brownback and I are pleased to see that the health appropriations committee, led by Senators Specter and Harkin, is helping to allocate $200 million in part to carry out global and domestic surveilliance to undertake activities of this sort. Our amendment doesn't add more money to the avian flu supplemental, but it makes clear HHS's commitment to GAINS, which we applaud. GAINS will systematically test and monitor wild birds, captive wild birds, and birds in the wildlife/pet trade to identify which viral strains they carry, to share the virus samples in order to continually update vaccine production options, and to disseminate lab results on a public electronic database utilizing a user-friendly mapping system. Major flyways will be monitored including those running north-south through the Americas. GAINS is a global surveillance program supported by an international network including conservation organizations, bird groups, the poultry industry, vaccine developers, and academic institutions representing more than 5 million members. With HHS and USAID's leadership, the Wildlife Conservation Society's, WCS presence in 56 countries around the world, and the presence of its global partners, GAINS has a presence in virtually every key country related to avian influenza. Data shared among these partners in the GAINS network will deliver real-time data on viral strains carried by wild birds. Additional funds for international Western Hemisphere work are welcome but must be integrated with the existing GAINS system. Parallel efforts waste limited resources. Like intelligence data, disease surveillance data must be shared to be effective in preventing the enemy--avian influenza in this case--from progressing. The USG should not fund the creation of separate international wild bird surveillance programs. Instead, these programs must work together. GAINS is a sensible approach to gather scientific data for the public domain in as close to real time as possible to combat a looming public health emergency. Amendment 3775

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to convey my deep gratitude and everlasting appreciation to my Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee staff director, Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, who is leaving the Senate after 10 years of service in my personal office and 7 on the committee to head Princeton University's governmental affairs office here in Washington. Benjamin Franklin once said: ``Energy and persistence conquer all things.'' That six-word sentence sums up a career of accomplishments that could fill volumes. Joyce was on the front lines of many of the challenges of the century just past and the century just begun. And through her energy and persistence she accomplished great things for the American people. I hired Joyce in 1989, shortly after I was sworn in as a freshman Senator, and the two of us learned the ropes of this institution together. She worked for me on the Environment and Public Works Committee, later moving to my personal office as my environmental legislative assistant and counsel. Joyce, a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, developed a reputation as a tiger early on, contributing significantly to the Clean Air amendments of 1990, working passionately to preserve the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and proposing innovative solutions to stemming harmful greenhouse gases. It is a reputation she not only never lived down but made a point of earning time and time again on issue after issue. In 1999, I became ranking member of the former Government Affairs Committee, and I appointed Joyce as minority staff director. In 2001, I became chairman when Democrats regained control of the Senate, and Joyce became majority staff director through the following year. Whether in the majority or minority, Joyce never let up. With her brilliant mind, near photographic memory, and absolute dedication to the job, Joyce has seen this committee through 6 years of profound accomplishment. She brought her knowledge of environmental issues to bear by launching principled and studied investigations into the Bush administration's regulatory actions and energy policies. Joyce helped this committee run its investigation of the demise of the Enron Corporation, establish the 9/11 Commission, and write legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security and the reorganization of our intelligence systems--among the most significant reorganizations of Government in half a century. And in her final mission for the committee and the American people, Joyce helped shepherd our bipartisan investigation and report on the Government's failed response to Hurricane Katrina. Leading by example, Joyce helped assemble and retain a loyal staff whose work ethic and dedication have been tested time and time again with late nights on tight deadlines handling mighty challenges for the American people. They are the envy of the Senate. But this is all in Joyce's nature. Shaking things up was just part of Joyce's nature. To Joyce, the status quo was often a barrier to progress that must fall as the constant casualty of time as we advance the cause of making our Nation safer, fairer, and more just for each and every American. I am sorry to lose Joyce's vast knowledge and expertise, and I will miss her sound advice, strict attention to every aspect of an issue, and most of all her faithful service to me through 17 years. But Joyce, you can walk away knowing that it was a job well done. Robert F. Kennedy said: ``Few will have the greatness to bend history itself. But each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.'' Joyce, through her energy, persistence, and selflessness, has written herself silently into the history of the great challenges of this generation and left a legacy of achievement that will be both the envy and inspiration for all those who follow. Unfortunately, our committee has not had a markup since Joyce announced her retirement; our next one will be next week, after Joyce has left us. But because we owe her so much, I will be asking the committee at next week's markup to report an original resolution thanking her. Chairman Collins has said she will join me in this resolution, the text of which follows these remarks. But let me close by saying thank you Joyce. I owe you more than I can say, and I wish you all the best. I ask unanimous consent that the text of a proposed resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Judiciary Committee's superb product, the immigration reform, border security bill. I also wish to speak on an amendment Senator Brownback and I intend to offer. I gather we are not offering amendments now, but this is an opportunity to speak on this amendment. This would address America's treatment of people who come here seeking asylum. I am pleased to be working with Senator Brownback. Over the years, my colleague from Kansas has done so much good work to protect the rights of refugees overseas and those who seek asylum on our shores for a host of reasons--that they might escape persecution for reasons of faith or politics. Senator Brownback is a partner I am truly proud to be working with on this matter. This amendment rises out of a report that was issued in February of last year by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. It is a Commission established by law, by act of Congress. One of its duties is to issue annual and often more frequent reports. This report last February raised very serious concerns, objections about insufficient protections for asylum seekers arriving in this country. The Commission reported an unacceptable risk that genuine asylum seekers were being turned away because their fears and the real dangers of being returned to their home countries were not fully considered. The Commission also found that while asylum seekers are having their applications considered, they are often detained for months in maximum- security prisons without ever having had a chance before an immigration judge to request release on bond. The Commission described conditions of detention that are completely unacceptable for a just nation to impose on people who are trying to escape war, oppression, religious persecution, even torture. The amendment I am honored to be offering with Senator Brownback will implement the Commission's most important recommendations. It calls for sensible reforms that will safeguard the Nation's security, improve the efficiency of our immigration detention system, and ensure that people fleeing persecution are treated in accordance with this Nation's most basic values. Remember, our purpose was stated in the original American document, the Declaration of Independence, which said that the Government was being formed to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which were the endowment of our Creator, not just to every American but to every child of God. this Nation has been, over the decades, a land of refuge where people seek freedom and sanctuary from the deprivations they endured in the countries they were in. It is our attempt in this amendment to revitalize and make more credible and honest and true the asylum process that our country has to implement those ideals. The amendment we are introducing would implement quality assurance procedures to ensure that Government employees carefully and accurately record the statements of people who say they have a fear of returning to their countries. Aliens not subject to mandatory detention would be entitled to a hearing--basic American due process--to determine whether they could be released. Providing bond hearings for low-risk aliens will also free up space for the cases that really ought to be incarcerated. The amendment also promotes secure alternatives to detention of the type that the Department of Homeland Security, I am pleased to say, has already begun to implement. These new programs and procedures would also make our use of detention space more effective and efficient at an average cost of $90 per person per day. But, of course, that is the average. Often it is much higher. Detention beds have always been scarce. Provisions in the legislation before us--the Judiciary Committee proposal--would vastly increase the number of aliens being held in detention. The underlying bill, which I strongly support, is a tough bill. It is so tough that it will inevitably increase the number of people who are not in legal status who will be held in detention. Our immigration system will need to prioritize available space because it is limited for aliens who pose a risk of flight, a threat to public safety, or are otherwise subject by law to mandatory detention. For those who may remain detained, we are obliged as a just society to provide humane conditions at immigration facilities and jails used by the Department of Homeland Security. The amendment we are introducing includes modest requirements to ensure decent conditions, consistent with our best American values, especially for asylum seekers, families with children, and other vulnerable populations. It requires improvements in areas such as access to medical care and limitations on the use of solitary confinement. It creates a more effective system within the Department of Homeland Security for seeing and inspecting these facilities. The United States has been, is, and hopefully always will be a land of refuge for those seeking liberty. Many of our Nation's Founders, of course, fled here themselves to escape persecution for their political opinions, their religious beliefs, or even their ethnicity. Since that time, the United States has honored its history and its founding values by standing against persecution around the world, offering refuge to those who flee from oppression and welcoming them as contributors to American society. That brings me now briefly to the larger immigration debate before us this week. I want to start with a bit of history. It was in March of 1790 that the first Congress of the United States began debating an immigration and naturalization act that would spell out how new arrivals could become citizens of our new Nation. The main requirement of the law finally approved was that an immigrant needed to live in the United States for 2 years and in the State in which he settled for 1 year to attain legal status. The Senator from Pennsylvania at the time, Mr. William Maclay, thought immigration would be such a benefit to the new Nation that he wanted those residency requirements removed. Senator Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, who I believe occupied the seat in the Senate that I am honored to occupy now in the succession, wanted the residency requirement kept in. Senator Maclay of Pennsylvania lost the debate and, frustrated, wrote in his diary afterward: We Pennsylvanians act as if we believe that God made of one blood all families of the earth. But the Eastern people---- Parenthetically, he must have been referring to us nutmakers from Connecticut---- seem to think that he made none but New England folks. I am sure Senator Ellsworth would have objected to that diary entry on behalf of himself and the people of Connecticut. Today, this Senator from Connecticut is proud to stand with one of the two Senators from Pennsylvania today, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, and my fellow New Englander, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, in supporting the balanced, strong, practical, progressive immigration reforms that they have reported out of the Judiciary Committee. I thank them and congratulate them on this balanced and bipartisan bill. I also give special tribute to Senators Kennedy and McCain for all of the work they did in introducing their initial legislation, which I was proud to be an original cosponsor of, much of which has now been embraced in the Judiciary Committee bill. The proposed legislation before us, the underlying bill, would enhance our national security, promote our economic well-being, and create a fair and just path to citizenship for those who come here to work hard, pay their taxes, respect the law, and learn the English language. We all agree we have to do more to secure our borders and control illegal immigration. What we are doing now simply doesn't work. This debate has to be about practical solutions, about fixing that problem. That means we will never fix our broken borders without fixing our broken immigration system, in my opinion. People talk about this as a choice between better border security and immigration reform. That is a false choice. Not only do we need both, unless we have both we will not achieve either better border security or the practical immigration reform we need. The bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee contains all of the essential security and enforcement provisions in the bill introduced by the majority leader. Both bills substantially increase Border Patrol and immigration enforcement personnel, detention beds, border fences, resources for border security systems and technologies. Both bills create new criminal penalties or make existing penalties more severe. Both bills establish new mandates and authorities for detaining and deporting aliens. However, the Judiciary Committee bill omits a couple of parts of the majority leader's bill which ought to be omitted--those that criminalize the so-called Good Samaritan behavior toward undocumented immigrants and those who would criminalize the undocumented immigrants that we have. To me, that is foolish; it will not work. In fact, it will push the undocumented immigrants further into the shadows because now their status is not only a violation of immigration law but it would be a crime. It would subject them to much greater exploitation by employers in this country and, in that sense, constitute increasingly difficult competition for Americans who want to work. But overall, this bill on border security contains all of the provisions, except those two, in the majority leader's proposal to toughen border security. I think history should have told us something--that as important as tough border security measures are, they are not going to solve the problem of illegal immigration because people want so desperately to come here. I have said before, and I will say it again: With very few exceptions, the 11 million undocumented immigrants that we have in the country today came to America for the same reasons my grandparents did. But my grandparents arrived at Ellis Island and they were let in. Why did the undocumented come then and today? For freedom, for opportunity, for a better life for their children--to be Americans. Think about it: freedom, opportunity, and a better life for our children, which are American values and the American dream. I think history has shown us that border security ought to be toughened, but it is not going to stop this flow. Let me cite this statistic for you to prove it. In recent times, from 1993 to 2004, the number of Border Patrol agents was tripled because of concerns about illegal immigration. Spending on border enforcement quadrupled. We have 10,835 Border Patrol agents and almost $4 billion a year is spent-- quadrupled on border enforcement. What happened to the number of undocumented immigrants in that time? It has doubled, from 4.5 million to 9.3 million. The reason, obviously, is that as long as we fail to provide legal channels to these people who desperately want to come to this country, they are going to find some way to come here illegally. They are going to come here to work. You have all seen the Pew Charitable Trust studies that show that 95 percent of the working-age men who are undocumented immigrants have full-time, year-round jobs. In fact, they make up 5 percent of the American workforce overall. So the reforms this bill adopts, creating a path to earn citizenship, not only is the right thing to do for our economy, but it is consistent with our values. It is also the most practical thing to do to deal with the problem of illegal immigration and border security and, as others have said, would free up resources at the border to stop the few coming over who come in for bad reasons. Particularly, I focus on potential terrorists and those who want to deal in controlled substances, drugs, in this country. I will wrap up now because I see my friend and colleague and supporter of this legislation, the Senator from Colorado, on the floor. I support it strongly. I think we have an extraordinary opportunity in this Senate to do something right this week, and to do something practical to fix the immigration crisis in our country. The immigration system is not working now and this bill gives you an opportunity to make it work. I know there has been discussion of possible compromises. I think the Judiciary Committee bill itself is a compromise, and a good strong one. Although the particular compromises that have been floated in the last 24 hours I don't accept, I am encouraged by them because they speak to momentum in favor of coming together across party lines, regional lines--every line you could imagine--as Americans, to do what is right and practical, and to assist our security and our economy. I close with a wonderful quote I found from Thomas Jefferson going back to the initial days of immigration when he said: Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should, your right to join us in society. It is that spirit Jefferson articulated right at the beginning of the American experience that I think challenges us, informs, and elevates the proposal before us. We have a real opportunity to act on that ideal this week. I can't help but go back to what that wise Senator from Pennsylvania once said: God, in fact, made all the families of Earth of one blood. I yield the floor and thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the bill. Let me first thank my chairman, Senator Collins, for her extraordinary leadership in a good cause and in a characteristically, for her, not partisan way. I thank her for her kind words. I appreciate that she said them when I wasn't in the room. Somebody told me after I had been in Washington for a while, if somebody compliments you when you are not in the room, then you know they really mean it. I appreciate that from Senator Collins. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Lott and Senator Dodd, my dear friend, my senior Senator from Connecticut. This has been a strong foursome. Probably there should be an alliterative ``F,'' like the faithful or ferocious foursome. But this has been an important precedent and one that has served the Senate well. We had two committees, each with jurisdiction over part of lobbying reform. The leadership worked together to meld the products of both committees so we could consider this matter. It is actually quite a valuable precedent for other large subject matter interests Members of the Senate have which often get divided into pieces based on committee jurisdiction. I am very grateful to my three colleagues, and with some real sense of pride, I rise to express strong support for the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act on which we will vote shortly. This legislation contains very significant reforms in a number of critical areas. It ends all gifts to Members from lobbyists. It requires significantly increased disclosure from those who are paid to influence Members of Congress. For the first time ever, it would shine sunlight on the activities of those who are paid to generate advocacy-- phone calls, letters to congressional offices, so-called grassroots lobbying. It significantly slows the so-called revolving door by doubling the ban on lobbying by Members once they leave Congress and significantly expanding the rules covering who staff can and cannot lobby. This is not popular stuff inside here, but it is the right thing to do, and we are about to do it. In short, this legislation upends the status quo with regard to oversight of lobbying and the relationship between lobbyists and Members of Congress. This upending of the status quo is justified by the recent scandals that have afflicted us here in Washington, most prominently the crimes of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Trust between the people and their elected leaders is essential to our democracy. The behavior of Mr. Abramoff and his associates and some Members of Congress has undercut that trust and sent the message to too many people across our great country that in Washington, results go too often to the highest bidder, not to the greatest public good. That is not the truth. But this legislation upends that perception, I believe, and the status quo. There are many people to thank. I begin as I have with Senator Collins for her usual outstanding leadership. After a hearing in late January, she was ready to mark up legislation a month later, despite a large workload our committee had in conducting the ongoing Katrina investigation. The legislation we passed out of our committee contained significant reforms that will not only change the way lobbyists and Members of Congress interact but again, I believe, provide the American people with additional information that they have not had before, and that the media has not had access to before, about where billions of dollars for lobbying are being spent and for what purpose. The measure approved by our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee requires lobbyists to report more details, significantly more details, and to report more frequently about their activities, including lobbyists' campaign contributions to Members of Congress, lobbyists' contributions to political action committees, and lobbyists' fundraising events hosted or sponsored by lobbyists or for their benefit for Members of Congress. They would also be required to disclose travel they arrange for Members of Congress or executive branch officials. All lobbyists' disclosures would have to be made quarterly rather than semiannually, and they would have to be made online so that anyone who wished to monitor lobbyists' activities would be able to do so online and do so, obviously, on a public, searchable database. For the first time ever, a relatively new but significant aspect of lobbying Congress would be subject to disclosure of the money they spend. These are the so-called grassroots lobbying campaigns, familiarly known around here as Astroturf campaigns because they are manufactured. They are not just grass that naturally grows or letters or e-mails and calls that naturally come to Members of Congress on an issue, but they are organized. That is OK. No matter how it happens, when we hear from members of the public, it is important for us. But a lot of money is spent on these campaigns. It is a significant part of lobbying in Washington today. Those lobbyists ought to disclose how much money they earn or spend. I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin, for working with me on this effort. He has fought for this for a long time--more than a decade. I believe this is a significant victory, and it directly responds to the activities of Mr. Abramoff and his associate, Michael Scanlon, who sought and received multimillion-dollar contributions from Native-American tribes to a grassroots lobbying effort. In fact, Mr. Abramoff received enormous kickbacks from that grassroots organization. The major impact on grassroots lobbying firms is simply that they will, for the first time, have to disclose. There is nothing in here that inhibits grassroots lobbying. There is nothing in here that inhibits in any way the freedom of the American people to petition their Government, the freedom of companies to hire out--make money--to organize the public to petition Members of the Government. It is simply a requirement that they reveal how much money they have charged and how much money they have spent. That requirement to disclose clearly would have stopped this scheme, this scam which Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon were carrying out because the disclosure of the grassroots lobbying firm would have shown enormous amounts of money coming in, much more than was being spent. The result, obviously, the answer to that puzzle, was that too much was going to Mr. Abramoff in kickbacks. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, as I mentioned, slows the revolving door between Congress and K Street by doubling, to 2 years, the amount of time a former Member of Congress must wait before lobbying his or her former colleagues. This is a significant change; not one that I would say is inherently popular here, but it is the right thing to do, and this legislation does it. The leadership of the Rules Committee, as I said earlier, Chairman Lott and Senator Dodd, ranking member, has done a great job in producing a strong bill from their committee which, combined with ours, is now on the Senate floor. Their bill prohibited most gifts from lobbyists to Members of Congress and required preapproval and greater disclosure of all congressional travel. It also addressed an issue of deep significance to an increasing number of citizens by requiring that earmarks attached to legislation be listed, explained, and the Member behind the earmark be identified. Those are significant changes. These reforms were further strengthened on the Senate floor in this debate with an amendment by Senator Dodd to make sure that all gifts from lobbyists are banned. All gifts from lobbyists to Members of the Senate are banned--including meals. This is a real victory for those who believe the relationship between Members of Congress and lobbyists has grown too cozy. The bill was additionally strengthened with an amendment from Senators Grassley and Wyden that would abolish the practice of secret holds on legislation. I also thank Senators McCain, Obama, and Feingold all stalwarts of reform and indispensable allies in this endeavor. Senator McCain led the hearings of the Indian Affairs Committee which--I was going to say revealed--really blew open the Abramoff scandal and, when those were finished, drafted legislation to reform our lobbying laws, building on what he had learned in the Abramoff investigation. I was proud to join him as original cosponsor of this legislation. Senator Feingold actually submitted a lobbying reform package a year ago, even before we understood the Abramoff scandal. Senate Minority Leader Reid provided essential impetus and I would say muscle to the reform cause when he introduced his own reform package supported by almost the entire Democratic Senate caucus earlier this year. Of course, Senator Collins and I are disappointed that the Senate yesterday rejected our amendment, introduced with Senators McCain and Obama, that would have established an independent Office of Public Integrity. I believe this office would have given further assurances to the American people that we in Congress are not only dead serious about reform, we are dead serious about the enforcement of that reform. I regret that a group of us were unable to offer an amendment to increase the reimbursement costs of airplane travel provided to Members by private entities. But even without those two additional reforms, this legislation we are about to adopt sends a clear and powerful message that in Washington we ourselves, in pursuit of greater legitimacy and credibility and trust of the American people, are taking significant steps to make sure that here in this Congress, results go to the greatest public good and not ever to the highest bidder. I have said many times throughout this debate that we have a once-in- a-generation opportunity now to reach bipartisan agreement on a broad set of reforms that will reduce cynicism, prevent abuse, and restore trust of the American people in their Government here in Washington. I believe this bill does exactly that. On a final note, I wish to thank several staff members of all four Senators for their long hours and exceptional hard work on this legislation. On my staff, I particularly thank Troy Cribb, who led our efforts on this bill, as well as my staff director Joyce Rechtschaffen and chief counsel Laurie Rubenstein. They labored to make this bill as good as it could possibly be. I also thank Michael Bopp, Jennifer Hemmingway, Ann Fisher, and Kurt Schmautz on Senator Collins' staff and Kennie Gill and Veronica Gillespie on Senator Dodd's staff, and Senator Lott's able staff as well. I thank them all, I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Maine, for her leadership generally on this bill and to say and it may be repetitious, what a pleasure it is to work with her and how proud I am of what our committee has accomplished in a thoroughly nonpartisan way under her leadership. In that spirit, I am proud to join with Senator Collins as a cosponsor of this amendment and also pleased that Senators McCain and Obama have joined us as cosponsors of this amendment. Senator McCain deserves credit for having led, along with Senator Dorgan, the tough, independent investigation of the Abramoff scandal that led to the action that I hope Congress will now take to reform our lobbying laws. Senator McCain introduced a very strong lobbying reform bill of which I am pleased to be the cosponsor. Senator Obama has played a very important role in this debate on ethics reform, introduced a very strong enforcement proposal of his own, and his support of this amendment is very important to Senator Collins and me. The bottom line is the proposals that are in the Senate now that came out of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Rules Committee do represent significant reform of our existing lobbying regulations and laws. But there is a missing piece. The missing piece is enforcement, taking steps to make sure that strong rules will be accompanied by strong enforcement. That is exactly what this amendment does. When our committee considered this subject; that is, the Committee on Homeland Security, Senator Collins and I put down a bipartisan mark that would have created an Office of Public Integrity, a bipartisan, bicameral Office of Public Integrity, empowered to receive and oversee reports filed under the ethics rules in the Lobbyist Disclosure Act. The Office of Public Integrity also would have had the authority to give advice on compliance with ethics rules, the Lobby Disclosure Act, and the investigative violations of the ethics rules. We were very anxious to respond to concerns that somehow this independent Office of Public Integrity would become, as someone said, a rogue entity or violate the Constitution's mandate that each House of Congress determine its own rules and sanction its own Members when the facts justify that, so we included a number of protections to ensure that the office would be under the control of the Ethics Committee and that the Ethics Committee would have final say on interpretation of the rules and on the question of whether the rules had been violated. Some felt our proposal was meant to imply dissatisfaction with the Senate Ethics Committee and the job it has done. That was decidedly not the case. The opposite is true. Rather, it reflected our decision that if we are aspiring to genuinely elevate, improve, and strengthen not just our lobbying regulations but the credibility and legitimacy they have with the American people, whose faith has been undercut by so many recent events in the processes here in Washington, including the Abramoff scandal and the conviction of a Member of the other body, rather, it reflects that belief that we have to act in a way to restore that confidence. One way to do that is to say not only are we adopting tough new lobbying laws, but we are prepared to create an independent office to enforce them. That provision that was in the mark Senator Collins and I put before our committee was, in fact, removed by a majority vote of the committee. We have taken to heart the comments offered by our colleagues. Today we offer this amendment in a form that we think addresses the most serious and frankly realistic and accurate concerns of our colleagues--not the speculative fears or truly rank misunderstandings of what our intentions of the provision's unfortunate amendment were, and it still provides the element of independence that we need for ethics enforcement. First, here are some of the questions. A number of people raised questions about whether a bicameral Office of Public Integrity would be constitutional. I believe strongly that our original proposal was consistent with the Constitution's mandate that each House set and enforce its own rules. Nevertheless, in the spirit of accommodation, we have changed our original amendment to make the Office of Public Integrity a Senate-only office. That is what this amendment before the Senate today provides. Second, we have responded to concerns expressed about the authority of the Office of Public Integrity as Senator Collins and I initially proposed it, to give advice and opinions on the ethics rules. Some of our colleagues in committee worried that the Office of Public Integrity and the Ethics Committee might give conflicting advice. Although we always intended the Ethics Committee to retain ultimate interpretive authority, the amendment we offer today eliminates the advice-giving function of the Office of Public Integrity, leaving it with the Senate Ethics Committee. Third, our original committee proposal assigned to the Office of Public Integrity the responsibility for receiving, monitoring, and auditing filings under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Improved compliance with that act should be one of the goals of the reform package that is before the Senate. However, I know there has been objection to that, and at some point we may offer that as an independent amendment--in fact, one I think for which there will be less objection. Fourth, we have left the responsibility of receiving and reviewing Member and staff financial disclosure statements with the Ethics Committee. Under the proposal we offer today, the duties of the Office of Public Integrity will center on the initial review of ethics complaints. These are good changes that respond to concerns expressed and still preserve the integrity and strength and independence of the Office of Public Integrity. It would remain a nonpartisan, independent, and professional office headed by a full-time executive Director who would serve for a 5-year term. The Director would be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, upon the joint recommendation of the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. The selection and appointment of the Director would be made without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of the office. I have every confidence that, as called for by our proposal--this amendment--the Director will be a person of integrity, independence, and public credibility who will have experience in law enforcement, the judiciary, civil or criminal litigation, or has served as a member of a Federal, State, or local ethics enforcement agency. Our proposal will provide an important element of independence to the initial stages of an ethics complaint, while still retaining the full authority of the Ethics Committee. Let me walk through the process that we propose. Under our proposal, an ethics complaint may be filed with the office by a Member or an outside complainant, or may be initiated by the office on its own initiative. Within 30 days of the filing of the complaint, the Director of the Office will make an initial determination as to whether the complaint should be dismissed or whether there are sufficient grounds to conduct an investigation. The subject of the complaint is provided the opportunity during that period to respond to the complaint. The Director may dismiss a complaint if he or she determines that the complaint fails to state a violation, lacks credible evidence of a violation, or is inadvertent, technical, or otherwise de minimis in nature. In any case where the Director decides to dismiss the complaint, the Director may refer the case to the Senate Ethics Committee so that the Ethics Committee may decide if the complaint is frivolous. On the subject of frivolous complaints, let me assure my colleagues that we have provided strong safeguards. If the Ethics Committee determines that a complaint is frivolous, it may notify the Director of the Office of Public Integrity not to accept any future complaint filed by that same person, and the person who filed the frivolous complaint may be required to pay the costs of processing the complaint. Also, the Director will not be allowed to accept any complaint concerning a Member within 60 days of an election. This so-called cooling-off period before an election will ensure that we do not attract politically motivated complaints in the midst of competitive campaigns. Also, let me note that any member of the public can already file an ethics complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee, so in that respect our proposal continues current practice. If during the 30 days the Director determines that there are sufficient grounds to conduct an investigation, the Director must notify the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee may then overrule the decision by a two-thirds, public rollcall vote of the committee, and the committee must issue a public report. Thus, we preserve the ultimate authority of the Ethics Committee even at this early stage while providing a greater measure of both independence and transparency. If the Ethics Committee does not overrule the decision of the Director, the Director then conducts an investigation to determine if probable cause exists that a violation occurred. If the Director determines that probable cause exists that an ethics violation has occurred, the Director must then inform the Ethics Committee, and, again, the Ethics Committee may overrule the decision with a two- thirds, public rollcall vote of the committee which must be accompanied by a public report. If the committee does not overturn the Director's decision, the Director then presents the case to the Ethics Committee, and the Ethics Committee makes the final decision as to whether a violation has occurred by a rollcall vote and a report that includes the vote of each member. If the Ethics Committee decides that a violation has occurred, the Director will recommend appropriate sanctions to the committee. The Ethics Committee, though, retains the final decision on whether sanctions will be imposed, what those sanctions will be, and whether to take action itself or recommend sanctions to the full Senate for consideration. Our proposal does preserve the ultimate authority of the Ethics Committee at every stage of the process while providing a much greater measure of both independence and transparency along the way. This is a way to give the American people confidence that we will have an independent entity, watchdog, assisting Senators preparing the case before the Ethics Committee. Finally, I note that, at the suggestion of Senator McCain, we are assigning to the Office of Public Integrity the role of recommending approval or disapproval of privately funded travel by Members and staff. The reform legislation that is before the Senate, reported out of the Rules Committee, contains a new preapproval process for privately funded travel. Giving this responsibility to the Office of Public Integrity will, here again, assure the American public that travel requests by Members of the Senate will be scrutinized by an independent office. This proposal, in sum, will add staff and support to the Ethics Committee process and will add greater independence and greater transparency. It is a sensible, sound, strong effort to assure the American people we are not only adopting reforms in our lobbying regulations and laws, we are taking action to make sure those reforms are enforced. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in a tradition that is associated with my family, I would ask the Senator from North Dakota, how much time does he have to offer?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, indeed.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 3034 Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3034, which is at the desk.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from North Dakota. I thank him for his leadership on these matters of budget and really for his steadfastness. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment to the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution to strengthen our homeland security efforts in the face of the administration's budget, which in this regard-- considering the fact we are in the post-9/11 world, in a long war against Islamist terrorism--I consider the administration's budget to be shortsighted and short funded, to be ill-considered and inadequate. In my capacity as the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, I have worked very closely with our chair, Senator Collins of Maine. This year, for the third year, I have worked with my staff, with experts from outside of the Government, to construct what I believed would be a wartime budget for homeland security. A budget that would do what really needs to be done to secure the American people against an enemy that has shown it will strike us not on the battlefields of conventional war but in our neighborhoods, where we live and where we work here in the United States of America. The total I would add to the President's budget for homeland security is $8 billion. That, of course, is a significant sum, but in the overall context of the Federal budget submitted, it is less than one- third of 1 percent of the Federal budget--and it would be used to secure our homeland against an enemy of unprecedented inhumanity and against the forces of nature, which struck us badly in Hurricane Katrina, and, unfortunately, will again. I propose to pay for this additional funding by tightening a number of tax loopholes. Therefore, the amendment would not add to the deficit. Of the $8 billion in additional spending I am proposing, $6.2 billion would go directly to the Department of Homeland Security. The remainder is divided between the Department of Justice for law enforcement grants and the Department of Health and Human Services for public health preparedness in the face of a potential biological attack or a pandemic. The money would restore what I consider to be unjustified cuts for first responders who, in the war against terrorism, are also our first preventers--hundreds of thousands of eyes and ears, of equipment, to detect and stop terrorists. It would restore cuts for emergency managers and public health officials and make needed new investments in first responder programs. It would strengthen rail, transit, port, aviation, and chemical plant security, as well as Coast Guard readiness and bioterrorism preparedness. Let me just look at a few of the details. We know our first responders do not have the training, equipment, and frequently even the manpower they need to do their jobs properly whenever danger strikes. Here, shown on this chart, is first responder funding. It is unbelievable when you see it charted in this way, in the midst of the long war against terrorism, in which our homeland has been struck. And we must assume the enemy will try to strike us again. First responder funding in fiscal year 2004 was $3.95 billion. On this chart, you see a steady line going down, to the proposal here: $1.97 billion for the firefighters, the police officers, the emergency responders we depend on to protect us. The President's budget in this regard would cut preparedness funding by 16 percent overall. It would cut $802 million from the first responder programs--a 23-percent cut from last year and a 50-percent reduction, as shown on the graph, from fiscal year 2004. The administration's budget would entirely eliminate the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program and the Justice Assistance Grant Program--totally eliminate them--in a time of war against terrorism, and slash by 78 percent the highly successful, much depended upon COPS Program, Community Oriented Policing Services Program, which has put police officers on the beat throughout America and by and large reduced the incidence of crime. For the second year in a row, the administration is also proposing to eliminate all funding for the Metropolitan Medical Response System, which supports planning and preparedness for potential mass casualties in a catastrophe. The administration is also proposing to eliminate funding for the SAFER Program, which helps recruit, hire, and train local firefighters. The budget given to us cuts grants that State and local emergency planners rely on to help them prepare for catastrophe. The fact is, without more support, our local communities will remain unprepared. That is dangerous in this age. My amendment would begin to rebuild that support. It would restore $1.6 billion in proposed cuts to first responder programs and add an additional $1.2 billion to help improve State and local capabilities, especially in the area of interoperable communications. That would bring the total funding for first responders to $4.1 billion. Can we afford it? Honestly, we cannot afford not to afford it. We would also restore funding for the programs I have talked about that will be cut in the Justice Department. What about port security, because this is a comprehensive homeland security budget proposal? Moving on to port security, perhaps the silver lining of the Dubai Ports World disagreement is greater public recognition of the urgent need for port security. Ninety-five percent of all of the goods coming into America flow through our ports. A terrorism attack at a port would cause economic havoc, let alone human loss. And experts, of course, worry that weapons of mass destruction could be smuggled into this country in a shipping container. We, therefore, must invest strategically in our defense, which is why this amendment would add an additional $1.7 billion for port security and for the Coast Guard, which performed so admirably in response to Hurricane Katrina but still does not have the capitalized, updated equipment it needs to do the job--enormous job--we are asking it to do. On chemical security, we know too many facilities remain vulnerable and that an attack on one near a high-population center could have the same effect as a weapon of mass destruction. The administration's proposal is only $10 million. It is inadequate when compared with the $102 million the Coast Guard spent in 2005 and the $131 million it will spend in 2006 to protect chemical facilities at ports. We face, as Senator Conrad has said, the threat and danger of bioterrorism and bioterrorist attacks and pandemics, and yet inadequate funding is provided. Thus, my amendment would increase the money given to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, funding for State and local bioterrorism programs by $500 million and add another $500 million to the Health Resources and Services Administration bioterrorism program. We have to absorb the painful dual lessons of September 11, 2001, and of August 29, 2005, the day Katrina struck. Our enemies are ruthless and choose to fight us at points of vulnerability. That is why we have to close those vulnerabilities. Nature will strike in unpredictable ways year after year. Yet so much of our national homeland security structure continues to have gaps. There is no cheap way to provide for the common defense, our constitutional responsibility. We have the best military in the world, and we have it because we have invested in it. We have the best personnel to carry out the protection of our homeland. We will never have the homeland defense we need unless we are prepared to spend for it. There is no more urgent need the American people have. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of an amendment offered by Senator Collins and myself to the Fiscal Year 2007 budget resolution to strengthen our homeland security efforts-- particularly the ability of first responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters. I have also filed an amendment that would increase the President's Government-wide homeland security budget by $8 billion--an amount still far below what the experts tell us we need to be as safe as we should be. I think the Nation would be best served by a healthier investment in homeland security, but I am happy to join with Senator Collins to offer this smaller $986 million proposal as a way to ensure support for first responders; rail, transit, port and cargo security, Coast Guard research and development, and assorted other programs. 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 Federa1 response to Hurricane Katrina proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are still a Nation unprepared for catastrophe. 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. And this budget resolution, which largely reflects the President's budget proposal, does nothing to indicate otherwise. 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 President's fiscal year 2007 budget 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 due with less. Our amendment would add $860 million to restore and expand first responder programs. We would restore $400 million for the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program, which the administration would totally eliminate; $251 million for the FIRE grants, which provide training and equipment to firefighters; $110 million to restore the SAFER Act, which helps recruit, hire and train local firefighters and which the administration would eliminate; $30 million for the Metropolitan Medical Response System which helps prepare local health officials for mass casualties; and $15 million for emergency preparedness grants. We would also add $67 million to the primary homeland security grants for States. After first responders, port security would get the second highest amount of funding under our amendment--for a total of $427 million for port security. Perhaps one of the unintended consequences of the Dubai Ports World fracas was that it underscored the need for better port security. Ninety-five percent of all our trade flows through our ports, and a terrorist event at one could cause economic havoc. Security experts have also warned that WMD would most likely be smuggled into the country in a shipping container. Our amendment would commit to strengthening port security by reallocating funding for the Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program to ensure a dedicated $300 million for port security grants. Another $2 million would be set aside to audit the grants to ensure the money is being used properly and efficiently. Furthermore, we would provide $20 million for additional staff for the C-TPAT program--which permits expedited shipping for known companies that increase their shipping security. Currently, there are just 80 people responsible for overseeing 10,000 applications to the program. We would include $105 million for cutting-edge imaging inspection equipment for better cargo security and $4 million the administration cut from the Coast Guard's R&D program. Because we know our rail and transit system is wide open, vulnerable, and appealing to terrorists, and because the President's budget eliminates rail and transit grants, we would dedicate $200 million specifically for rail and transit security grants, just as we did for port security grants. Fourteen million Americans ride mass transit each weekday, more than 16 times the number of daily trips taken by Americans on domestic airlines. Let's not fail to learn the lessons of attacks on the London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo, and Israeli rail and transit systems. 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 the majority's budget resolution we're debating this week offers. I urge my colleagues to support these modest proposals 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 ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have said that the budget before us, when it comes to our homeland security, is shortsighted and short- funded. But I wish to go beyond that, so working with my staff we reached out to experts in the various areas that constitute our homeland security in a time of terrorism. This is the result: a comprehensive proposal that would add $8 billion to our homeland security. It is, in fact, what is necessary to protect the American people at a time of terrorism and from natural disasters like Katrina. The money will go to first responders, port security, rail transit security, FEMA, bioterrorism, chemical security, and aviation security, and the Coast Guard. For real homeland security, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.