Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of legislation introduced by Senator Collins and myself that would create a new Committee for Secure Commerce at the Department of Homeland Security to review the proposed sale of U.S. properties to foreign investers. This Committee would replace the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, whose hasty approval of the Dubai Ports World acquisition of terminals at several U.S. ports led to a public outcry, which eventually led to DPW's withdrawal from the deal. The entire affair has been poorly handled, from the original failure to conduct a thorough investigation to the failure to consult with and inform the Congress and the American public. Any proposed foreign investment in this country needs a thorough and fair review to ensure that our national security or homeland security is not jeopardized. I was not among those who called for the deal to be prohibited before a thorough investigation was conducted, because I felt that Dubai Ports World never got a chance to make a case that its ownership of port terminals in the U.S. would not jeopardize our homeland security. Because of the initial public outcry, they were condemned before they were allowed to stand trial, and I believed that violated this Nation's commitment to the rule of law. A required 45-day investigation of the deal should have been initiated. Congress should have been better informed of the proposed acquisition in the works. And the American people deserved a clear explanation from their President about why he thought the sale was in our interest. National security must be the first consideration in the sale of U.S. property to foreign investors, especially at this period in our history, when the threat of terrorist attack is always present. Our legislation would ensure that foreign investments are scrutinized by the agencies most directly responsible for protecting this Nation. That is the underlying purpose of our legislation. Our bill would create the Committee for Secure Commerce within the Department of Homeland Security to review and investigate any mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers of assets within the U.S. by foreign companies. Like CFIUS, the new Committee would have 30 days to conduct a review of transactions, but could also seek a longer, 45-day investigation as well. A 45-day investigation would be obligatory if a company controlled by a foreign government tries to purchase assets involved in U.S. interstate commerce. And if any member of the Committee objected to a proposed deal, the President would have the final say on whether it went forward, or whether a divestiture, or some other remedy, was necessary. The Committee would be chaired by the Department of Homeland Security. The Defense Department would serve as a vice chair. Our bill also strengthens Congressional oversight by requiring immediate congressional notification of all mandatory investigations, and quarterly reports on all other transactions. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs received an illuminating briefing on the Dubai Ports World deal late last month. At that briefing, we learned that the Coast Guard had expressed some intelligence concerns about the transaction but that not all CFIUS members were informed of these concerns. Our legislation addresses this shortcoming by adding the Director of National Intelligence as a full member of the committee and ensuring all intelligence assessments are consolidated and shared with all Committee members and the President. Our legislation is intended to directly address the concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office that CFIUS tended to focus more on investments issues rather than security issues--by placing DHS and DoD in charge, and by specifically including homeland security issues as factors to be considered by the new committee. The rush to judgment on the DPW deal did not allow the company to stand or fall on its own merits. And that is not how we do things in America. We do not judge people in our democracy by their race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or age. We judge people on their merits. I believe this legislation would establish a better process for judging the wisdom or folly of selling U.S. property to foreign owners by establishing that the Nation's security should be the pre-eminent consideration in foreign purchases of U.S. property and by ensuring that everyone's concerns about such sales get a fair hearing.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of legislation introduced by Senator Collins and myself that would create a new Committee for Secure Commerce at the Department of Homeland Security to review the proposed sale of U.S. properties to foreign investers. This Committee would replace the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, whose hasty approval of the Dubai Ports World acquisition of terminals at several U.S. ports led to a public outcry, which eventually led to DPW's withdrawal from the deal. The entire affair has been poorly handled, from the original failure to conduct a thorough investigation to the failure to consult with and inform the Congress and the American public. Any proposed foreign investment in this country needs a thorough and fair review to ensure that our national security or homeland security is not jeopardized. I was not among those who called for the deal to be prohibited before a thorough investigation was conducted, because I felt that Dubai Ports World never got a chance to make a case that its ownership of port terminals in the U.S. would not jeopardize our homeland security. Because of the initial public outcry, they were condemned before they were allowed to stand trial, and I believed that violated this Nation's commitment to the rule of law. A required 45-day investigation of the deal should have been initiated. Congress should have been better informed of the proposed acquisition in the works. And the American people deserved a clear explanation from their President about why he thought the sale was in our interest. National security must be the first consideration in the sale of U.S. property to foreign investors, especially at this period in our history, when the threat of terrorist attack is always present. Our legislation would ensure that foreign investments are scrutinized by the agencies most directly responsible for protecting this Nation. That is the underlying purpose of our legislation. Our bill would create the Committee for Secure Commerce within the Department of Homeland Security to review and investigate any mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers of assets within the U.S. by foreign companies. Like CFIUS, the new Committee would have 30 days to conduct a review of transactions, but could also seek a longer, 45-day investigation as well. A 45-day investigation would be obligatory if a company controlled by a foreign government tries to purchase assets involved in U.S. interstate commerce. And if any member of the Committee objected to a proposed deal, the President would have the final say on whether it went forward, or whether a divestiture, or some other remedy, was necessary. The Committee would be chaired by the Department of Homeland Security. The Defense Department would serve as a vice chair. Our bill also strengthens Congressional oversight by requiring immediate congressional notification of all mandatory investigations, and quarterly reports on all other transactions. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs received an illuminating briefing on the Dubai Ports World deal late last month. At that briefing, we learned that the Coast Guard had expressed some intelligence concerns about the transaction but that not all CFIUS members were informed of these concerns. Our legislation addresses this shortcoming by adding the Director of National Intelligence as a full member of the committee and ensuring all intelligence assessments are consolidated and shared with all Committee members and the President. Our legislation is intended to directly address the concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office that CFIUS tended to focus more on investments issues rather than security issues--by placing DHS and DoD in charge, and by specifically including homeland security issues as factors to be considered by the new committee. The rush to judgment on the DPW deal did not allow the company to stand or fall on its own merits. And that is not how we do things in America. We do not judge people in our democracy by their race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or age. We judge people on their merits. I believe this legislation would establish a better process for judging the wisdom or folly of selling U.S. property to foreign owners by establishing that the Nation's security should be the pre-eminent consideration in foreign purchases of U.S. property and by ensuring that everyone's concerns about such sales get a fair hearing.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise to speak about the motion to invoke cloture, which will be voted on in about an hour and 20 minutes. I must say that as the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, from which a significant part of the lobbying reform legislation before the Senate now came, I am deeply disappointed that we have reached this point in the debate on that critically important legislation. We have a once-in- a-generation opportunity to reform our lobbying laws and, in fact, touch other parts of the ethical standards by which we govern ourselves in the Senate. The Abramoff scandal and others have created this moment. The Rules Committee has come forward with a constructive package of reforms. Our committee, on a bipartisan basis, brought out a significant series of amendments. The Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act--this bill--is moving forward with a good, healthy debate. I actually believe we would have been coming close to passing it tonight if the amendment of my colleague from New York had not been offered yesterday and we are now in the gridlock we are in, requiring the cloture vote. I am going to vote against cloture. I want to explain why. I assume cloture, from what I have heard, will not necessarily be achieved, and then we are going to face a moment of decision, which will call on all of us, including particularly our leaders, to reason together so we can get back to the lobbying reform legislation and presumably find another opportunity for Senator Schumer and others who wish to have this Chamber vote on the Dubai Ports World acquisition of terminals in this country. I am going to vote against cloture for two reasons. First, this bill was on the floor and open to amendment for less than a day before the motion for cloture was filed. That simply is not enough time for the kind of debate and amendment for this bill, so critical to our institution's credibility with the American people, to be debated. Second, there were several amendments which had not been introduced yet, awaiting discussion and debate and eventual vote, including some I wanted to offer or cosponsor that were relevant. But virtually all of these, I believe, would be ruled nongermane if cloture is granted and, thus, could not be offered. There is one particular amendment I am focused on, joining with some colleagues to offer, that I have been informed by the Parliamentarian would not be germane if cloture were to be invoked. That is the amendment that Senators McCain, Collins, Obama, and I were going to offer to strengthen enforcement of the Senate ethics rules and oversight of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. We have some excellent provisions already in the legislation before us--disclosure, prohibitions--but there is a second step we have to take to make sure these new standards we are setting become real, and that is to provide for enforcement and oversight. These are critical elements of reform that require us to establish what we have called an independent Office of Public Integrity. This is a proposal that Senator Collins and I offered in committee markup. It did draw criticism from some of our colleagues and was defeated in the committee. We said then that we would reoffer it or offer something similar to it on the floor. Senators McCain and Obama, who have long been active in this particular area of enforcement of our lobbying disclosure and Senate ethics rules, have joined us. We are very proud they have joined us. Since the committee vote against the amendment, Senator Collins and I have worked with our colleagues to address some of the concerns that were expressed in the committee. We have altered the office's oversight and limited it to the Senate so it will not now serve both the House and the Senate. It will be limited to the Senate so there will be no question about whether the House might have some effect--we didn't think so--but some effect on the right of the Senate under the Constitution to set its own rules and discipline its Members. This proposal, we think, will increase the professionalism and credibility of the Senate's self-policing. It is in no way meant as criticism of the Senate Ethics Committee, which has served honorably and well. We also believe, in the current situation, there is not adequate review, monitoring, and enforcement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and not enough personnel, not enough independence in the oversight. Since we are increasing the requirements on lobbyists for disclosure, we think we also would benefit from an independent office to carry out those requirements. Again, if cloture is invoked, we won't get to offer these particular amendments which are critical to this once-in-a- generation moment of opportunity for lobbying reform, and that alone is reason why I will vote against cloture. There are other amendments. There is another amendment that may be ruled nongermane that would require Members of Congress to pay fair market value for travel on private planes. That is an important amendment. I intend to support it. It is quite possible that invoking cloture will make it not germane and, therefore, we will not able to offer it. I want to say a final word about the amendment offered by the Senator from New York on the Dubai Ports deal. Apparently, there is such a strong feeling among the American people about this, as reflected now in the overwhelming vote in the House Appropriations Committee and the offering of this amendment, that I fear we are rushing to respond to that feeling rather than being leaders. Here is the point I want to make. I would oppose this amendment as it has been put before us today. The most fundamental reason is this: This does something that we are not supposed to do in America, where we believe in the rule of law. We appeal to other nations around the world to follow the rule of law as a condition of a modern society. It is the underpinning of the kind of freedom and opportunity that we believe in our heart is right in this country. I fear the rush of emotion and the anxiety, understandably, of the American people as we are involved in this war against Islamic terrorism--not against Islam, not against the Arab world--that we are forgetting that in America, we don't convict people without a trial. We don't convict people in America without a trial. There has been a preliminary hearing in this case, if I may put it that way, using a judicial, criminal enforcement metaphor. The preliminary hearing was before the so-called CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It reached a judgment that there was no reason, based on security concerns, to stop this acquisition from going forward. In our Homeland Security Committee and Armed Services Committee on which I serve, I had an opportunity to question people who were involved in this review. I think the review was inadequate, and I know what was grossly inadequate is the way in which this decision to allow the acquisition of these terminals to go forward was explained to the American people. It was not explained to the American people, it was not explained to Members of Congress, and it apparently was not explained to the President of the United States. That was a terrible error. The Dubai Ports World company, after the initial furor, came back and submitted another application. There is an ongoing 45-day review. After the tremendous public uproar over this issue, this review will be thorough. I have spoken with people involved in the review. I said to the top people in the departments: Put your hands on this one, this is critical. To rush ahead and say, no way, before this Commission has an opportunity to reach a judgment and advise Members of Congress and the American people about what their judgment, it seems to me, to be unfair. It is not the way we handle issues of this kind in America. It raises an awful question, which I ask everybody to think about because we promised people in this country--this extraordinary, greatest country in the world--that here you can be sure you will be judged by your merits, not by your race, or nationality, or religion, or gender, or sexual orientation, or age. I worry that in the midst of the war against Islamist terrorism, we are reaching a hasty judgment based on factors that ought not to be considered in the United States of America. I don't know how I will vote ultimately on this proposal about the acquisition by Dubai Ports World, a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. I don't know enough to reach a judgment on that. I am waiting for that 45-day review. I do know that the United Arab Emirates has been, since September 11, an extremely important, constructive ally of ours in the war against terrorism. I know they have put their own people on the line in very dangerous places to assist us in the war on terrorism. I know that the Dubai Port, as I understand it, sees more visits by U.S. Navy ships than any other port in the world. So obviously, the U.S. Navy has enough confidence in the security of their port to have done that. That doesn't mean that the acquisition of these terminals by Dubai Ports World should receive a free pass, but it should mean, in addition to the basic qualities of fairness that generally characterize American life, that this proposed acquisition does deserve a fair hearing, not a rush to judgment before all the facts are in, which I say respectfully is what the committee of the other body did yesterday and what the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York would have us do in this Chamber. This is one of those moments where we are tested because the emotions are high, but we are leaders. We are elected leaders, and I hope we will rise to the occasion and at least let this company and this country have a fair trial before any of us reach a judgment about whether they are guilty or not guilty. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a truly extraordinary young student from Connecticut. Jack Applebaum of Greenwich has recently been selected as one of Connecticut's two honorees in the 2006 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards. This honor is given to only one high school student and one junior high school student from each state as well as the District of Columbia. A quick look at Jack's record of community service shows him to be truly deserving of such recognition. Jack, who is 13 and an eighth-grader at Central Middle School in Greenwich, is a founding member of his school's chapter of Building with Books, a national organization that raises money to build schools in developing countries. Jack learned about the organization and its mission in class and, in his own words, ``I was hooked right away.'' After learning that four-fifths of the world is illiterate, Jack decided ``I wanted to make this number smaller.'' Instead of just talking about the problem, Jack decided to do something about it. He played a leading role in forming the Building with Books chapter at Central Middle School, helping to attract members to the club, setting goals, and putting together fundraisers. During its first year, the club hosted school parties and ran an afterschool snack cart that helped to raise over $4,000 to help build a school in Mali. The club also performed other good works, such as making blankets for children in Africa and visiting nursing home residents during the holidays. It is really impressive, how much community service Jack has performed at such a young age. I attribute this to the remarkable attitude he has demonstrated with his work. When Jack learned about the problem of widespread illiteracy in the world, his immediate response was to do something about it. He rolled up his sleeves and went to work. His hard work and willingness to sacrifice his time and effort for others serves as an inspiration for people of all ages. It is young people such as Jack that give me such great hope in the future of our country. In recognition of his achievements, Jack will be invited to Washington in early May with 101 other 2006 Spirit of Community honorees from across the country who were selected from a pool of several thousand nominees. While in Washington, 10 of the honorees will be selected as America's top youth volunteers of the year by a distinguished national selection committee cochaired by 2 of my distinguished colleagues, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. I wish Jack the best of luck, both with this award and in all his future endeavors. I would like to end my remarks, Mr. President, by thanking Jack Applebaum for the all of his volunteer service and all of the volunteer service I am sure he will continue to perform in the future.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a truly extraordinary young student from Connecticut. Elizabeth Americo of Guilford has recently been selected as one of Connecticut's two honorees in the 2006 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards. This honor, is given to only one high school student and one junior high school student in each state as well as the District of Columbia. A quick look at Elizabeth's record of community service shows her to be truly deserving of such recognition. Elizabeth, who is 17 years old and a junior at Guilford High School, is the founder and president of Students for Health and Social Justice, a club at her school that is dedicated to raising awareness and funds to assist needy people both in the United States and abroad. Elizabeth was first inspired to become involved in volunteer work by her older brother's work with impoverished Haitians. Upon arriving at Guilford High School her freshman year, Elizabeth decided she wanted to share her passion for helping others with her fellow students. The result was Students for Health and Social Justice, which now boasts 21 members who meet regularly to discuss poverty and community health issues around the world and plan both awareness, and fundraising, events to address these issues. With hard work, creativity, and a deep commitment to helping others, the club has sponsored dances and other events to help raise money for health care programs in Haiti, relief aid for tsunami victims, UNICEF, and other causes. Elizabeth and her fellow club members have also not forgotten about the needy in their local community, organizing an impressive four-school-strong food drive for a local soup kitchen. Elizabeth's extensive record of volunteer service, done at such a young age, serves as an inspiring example to all of us about the difference we can make in our communities if we are willing to put in the time and energy. It is young people such as Elizabeth that give me great hope for the future of our country. In recognition of her achievements, Elizabeth will be invited to Washington in early May with the 101 other 2006 Spirit of Community honorees from across the country who were selected from a pool of several thousand nominees. While in Washington, 10 of the honorees will be selected as America's top youth volunteers of the year by a distinguished national selection committee cochaired by 2 of my distinguished colleagues, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. I wish Elizabeth the best of luck, both with this award and in all her future endeavors. I would like to end my remarks, Mr. President, by taking the time to thank Elizabeth Americo for the good work she has done and the work I am sure she will continue to do in the future.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Iowa, and the Senator from Oklahoma. I thank them very much for doing it. I must say, as I listened to the debate I thought back to the winter of 1988 after I was elected to the Senate. Incidentally, a distinguished member of that cast was the honorable Senator from Mississippi, and we attended the orientation session together that winter for new Senators. I remember then Senator Wendell Ford from Kentucky came before us to give us instructions about Senate procedure. He said: Look, I remember when I was just elected to the Senate. You are going to find a lot of things around here that don't make much sense to you, but they will over time. Then Senator Ford stopped for a moment, and said: Take the seniority rule. The longer I am here, the more sense it makes to me. I want to say the longer I am here, the less sense the secret hold procedure makes to me. Honestly, it has become increasingly outrageous when you think about it--that this body can be stopped by an action that is secret, and the source of the action is not known on a measure that is on the Senate floor because it came out of a committee. It is really outrageous. I congratulate Senators Wyden, Grassley, and Inhofe for seizing this moment of reform brought about by the reports from the Rules Committee and our own Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to take this opportunity to get rid of this outdated but really outrageous part of Senate procedure. If somebody cares enough to hold up a measure and hold up the rest of us from considering it on the floor, the least they can do is have the guts to reveal their identity. That is all this change would bring about. I thank my colleagues. I look forward to supporting this amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the bipartisan Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act which was reported out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last Thursday and which forms a significant part of the combined Homeland Security Rules Committee bill that we are starting to consider today. It is a pleasure to join in an unusual foursome, co-managing these two bills. It is always a pleasure to work with Senator Lott and Senator Dodd of the Rules Committee. And I am also delighted to work with the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Collins. With these two bills we now have the opportunity to vote on what I believe is the most significant lobbying and ethics reform in a generation. That means we in Congress now have a once in a generation opportunity to help restore our tattered reputation with the American public by moving swiftly and strongly to enact these proposals into law. By ensuring full transparency for the legislative process and those who work within it, this legislation will directly answer many of the questions that have been raised about the relationship between Members of Congress and lobbyists, about the role of money in public debate and deliberations, and about whether results in Washington go to the highest bidder or to the greatest public good. This bill draws back the curtain to let the sun shine directly and brightly on the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship for all to see, clearly and easily. I thank my good friends, colleagues, and partners, Senators McCain and Collins, for the work they have done to bring the legislation to the Senate. Senator McCain, along with his Committee on Indian Affairs, and its ranking member, Senator Byron Dorgan, conducted a hard-hitting investigation into the activities of the disgraced lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, helping to expose his criminal activities--in particular, his odious exploitation of Indian tribes. On the basis of that investigation, Senator McCain then introduced the Lobbyist Transparency and Accountability Act, which I proudly cosponsored. Then Chairman Collins took up the banner in our committee and, based on Senator McCain's bill, we drafted legislation and quickly brought it before the committee for markup. The bill we debate today is the product of those efforts. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois have played critical leadership roles in pushing reform forward by introducing very strong legislation, the Honest Leadership Act, which earned the support of 41 Members of the Senate and really helped lay the groundwork for us here today. The backing of virtually the entire Democratic caucus helped move this significant legislation to the floor, and I am proud of that. In fact, this proposal from our committee contains most of the proposals laid out in the Honest Leadership Act. I look forward to supporting amendments to restore other provisions of the Honest Leadership Act that were left out of the legislation before us today. Finally, thanks to Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who history will note was the first in this 2-year session to introduce lobbying reform legislation. He did it last year. Senator Feingold is always a reliable ally when it comes to raising the public interest above special interests. The abuses to which these bills respond, I want to stress, are the exception to the rule. Almost always lobbyists comply with the law and provide Congress with valuable knowledge and expertise. Whether they represent corporations, unions, trade associations or nonprofits, or the public interest groups that have actually lobbied us to pass this legislation, lobbyists are instrumental to the work that goes on here on Capitol Hill. The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of such work when they enshrined, in the very first amendment to our Constitution, the right of all people ``to petition the government for redress of grievances.'' We have to remember this when we legislate in this critically important and constitutionally elevated area. Lobbyists and the people they represent are exercising a constitutional right, and we have to, therefore, be careful, as we have been in this bill, to respect that right. Nothing in the bill that has come out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, or the Rules Committee, for that matter, improperly intrudes on the people's right to be represented in Washington. But there is an equivalent right of the public to a functioning form of government, and that must also be respected. That is precisely what our bill does, by building on previous efforts in this area. The Supreme Court, long ago, made clear that the first amendment's guarantee of the right to petition the Government did not confer a right to do so in secret. In the 1954 case of United States v. Harris, the Court upheld the constitutionality of lobbying disclosure requirements and said those requirements were consistent with the first amendment. Let me read a passage from that decision: Present day legislative complexities are such that individual members of Congress cannot be expected to explore the myriad pressures to which they are regularly subjected. Yet the full realization of the American ideal of government by elected representatives depends to no small extent on their ability to properly evaluate such pressures. Otherwise, the voice of the people may all too easily be drowned out by the voice of the special interest groups seeking favored treatment while masquerading as proponents of the public weal. This is the evil to which the Lobbying Act was designed to help prevent. Those words could not be truer today, when millions and millions of Americans, whether they realize it, are represented in our Nation's capital in some way by lobbyists, not just by those of us who are privileged to have been elected as Members of Congress. Whether they are teachers or steel workers, whether they are law enforcement officers or seniors, whether they are veterans or veterinarians, small business owners or big business executives--and the list of categories in this richly and extraordinarily pluralistic society could go on-- people from all walks of American life--millions and millions of them-- have paid representation in this city. That is lobbying. In fact, as I suggested before, some of the strongest proponents of lobbying reform are registered lobbyists themselves, lobbying Congress to enact reforms such as those we are discussing today for the honor of their profession and, I might say, for the honor of Congress. The number of lobbyists in Washington has exploded over the last decade. These are interesting numbers. The Congressional Research Service reported that over 30,000 people were registered as lobbyists in 2004, and that is an 86-percent increase over the number of registered lobbyists in 2000. The industry receives and spends enormous sums of money. According to the Center for Public Integrity, $3 billion--$3 billion--was spent on lobbying activities in 2004. That is the last full year for which records are available. And that is double the sum that was spent 6 years before. That is big money. Add to these numbers the recent scandals and the perception too many Americans have of business in Washington as cash exchanging hands under tables or in back room deals, and we have a public cynicism that weighs down on this institution of ours and lobbying as a profession. It is a reality we have to recognize. And in these two measures brought before this Chamber by these two committees, we have a way to lift that weight. So we find ourselves in a place where the current lobbying disclosure requirements are self-evidently inadequate, and ethics rules governing Members' interactions with lobbyists need to be tightened, especially with respect to gifts from lobbyists. The Washington Post last December said that more than 80 Members of Congress and their staff were listed as having appeared to have accepted entertainment from a particular company, BellSouth, which exceeded congressional gift limits. Public knowledge of gifts exceeding the limits is rare because no disclosure requirements exist at this point. We are on a kind of honor system. And these provisions would change that. So let me take a moment or two to talk about the measure that is before us to deal with these shortcomings, not just to respond to the cynicism brought on by the latest lobbying scandal--the Abramoff scandal--but to respond thoughtfully to shortcomings in the law and the rules as they exist, and to respond to deficiencies identified by the members of the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The first thing the legislation from our committee would do is bring the lawmaker-lobbyist relationship into the age of the Internet. We mandate that lobbyist disclosure statements be made publicly available on a searchable Internet database, linked to the Federal Election Commission database of campaign contributions. We also require that disclosures be made quarterly instead of semiannually, as is now the case. Both of those measures will add significantly to the public's ability to monitor lobbyist-lawmaker interactions. When combined with the Rules Committee's bill, we virtually see the elimination of gifts from lobbyists to Members of Congress and ensure that those small number that still are possible are fully disclosed. The Rules Committee bill bans all gifts, other than meals, from lobbyists to Members of Congress and their staff and requires Members to disclose on their Web sites any meals they do consume through the hospitality of a lobbyist. We, in turn, through our committee, have provided what might be called the ``belt'' to the Rules Committee's ``suspenders'' by ensuring that lobbyists must, for the first time, disclose all gifts over $20. So the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee can regulate by law the behavior of lobbyists. The Rules Committee obviously regulates the Members of the Senate. These two bills together will ensure a very significant curtailment of these gifts and clear knowledge for the public for those gifts that are still given-- remembering that the current rules prohibits any Member from accepting gifts worth more than $100 a year from a lobbyist. But disclosure has not been required up until this time for our gift rules. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee bill will increase transparency in a number of other ways. Lobbyists will, for the first time, have to disclose when they play any role in arranging travel for Members of Congress and executive branch officials. Lobbyists would have to disclose the purpose and itinerary of any trips, itemize expenses, and disclose all lobbyists and Members in the traveling party. Again, this is a reaction to the notorious trips sponsored by Mr. Abramoff. He did not necessarily pay for those trips, but he was clearly organizing them and using other entities to pay for them, while avoiding the kind of detailed disclosure that our proposal would require. We also require more disclosure about lobbyists' political campaign activities. Contribution of $200 or more to candidates, leadership PACs or parties--as well as fundraising events hosted or sponsored by lobbyists--would have to be reported on an annual basis under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. These disclosures are now available on FEC databases, but the data base is not easy to search. Chairman Collins and I believe this additional reporting requirement is a minimal requirement justified by the additional public disclosure. To those who had concerns that the initial formulation of this provision unfairly forced employees who are registered lobbyists to tell their employers who they gave campaign contributions to, thus perhaps chilling their constitutional rights, let me assure you that the committee heard your concerns and responded. We no longer require that disclosure through employers but, instead, mandate direct disclosure from each lobbyist. We also make clear that the contributions that must be disclosed are the same ones already provided by campaigns to the FEC. Our proposal takes another step forward to require lobbyists to disclose payments for events that honor Members of Congress or executive branch officials. We do not prohibit such contributions, but in the public interest we require that they be disclosed. This would include payments to organizations, such as charities, that are founded or controlled by Members of Congress. Our proposal would increase incentives to comply with the law by doubling the civil penalty for noncompliance under the Lobbying Disclosure Act from $50,000 to $100,000. Also, for the first time, we prohibit lobbyists, by statute, from providing gifts or travel that do not comply with congressional ethics rules. This is a critical reform because, until now, there has been nothing in the law to stop lobbyists from giving Members or staff gifts that skirt congressional limits, as long as the Members and staff were willing to accept them. That is, the rules govern the behavior of Members and staff, but there is currently no law regarding the behavior of lobbyists. With this reform, lobbyists would continue that kind of behavior at their own, very serious legal peril. Our proposal would also make greater demands on those who move back and forth between public service and lobbying. To avoid conflicts of interest, we would increase from 1 year to 2 the amount of time a former Member of Congress or a former high-level executive branch official must wait before lobbying his or her former colleagues. For congressional staff, we expand the 1-year cooling-off period to bar lobbying not just of the staffer's former office but of the entire House of Congress in which the staffer worked. Again, if the revolving door spins more slowly, so too will abuses. I wish to take a few moments to address what has become a controversial portion of our legislation but, as Senator Collins indicated--though she did not support this amendment in committee-- should not be seen as quite that controversial. One may agree or disagree, but I want people to understand clearly what we have done. Our committee, on a good, strong bipartisan vote accepted in markup an amendment offered by Senator Levin and myself in direct response to the Abramoff scandal that ignited the reform drive that brings us together today. Mr. Abramoff directed his clients to pay millions of dollars, the record shows, to grassroots lobbying firms controlled by himself and his associate Michael Scanlon, fees that were then in large part directed back to Mr. Abramoff in the form of payments, fees--one might say kickbacks. I believe if disclosure requirements had been in place, Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon would not have been able to pull off this scam. In the past decade, orchestrated, paid-for, so-called grassroots campaigns have been a staple and important part of many lobbying campaigns. There is nothing wrong with this. The question is whether we ask for some minimal disclosure equal to the disclosure requirements on lobbyists other than grassroots lobbyists. Last year, for example, it was hard to miss the ads paid for by lobbyists urging voters to contact their Members of Congress to vote either for or against Social Security privatization. In the first 2 months of this year alone, 2006, candidates and interest groups have already spent over $92 million on television advertising. The nomination of Justice Alito, asbestos litigation reform, implementation of the Medicare Part D, and proposals related to telecommunications regulation all have generated massive media campaigns aimed at inspiring constituent calls, letters, and e-mails to Members. Our proposal on this matter would, for the first time, require the disclosure of money received and spent by professional grassroots lobbying firms--that is, grassroots efforts paid for by lobbyists to generate major media campaigns, mass mailings, and large phone banks with the intent of influencing Members of Congress or the executive branch. Let me say that again because I want my colleagues particularly to be clear about what this provision does and does not do. It does not ban or restrict grassroots lobbying of any kind in any way. That would be wrong. Grassroots lobbying is another important way for people to get involved in the process and let us in Congress know how they feel. The provision merely requires--in order to inform the public and prevent the kinds of abuses that the record now shows Mr. Abramoff was involved in through grassroots lobbying firms--the disclosure of the amount of money spent on this type of lobbying when it is done in professional campaigns. The controversy over this provision is, in my opinion, unreasonable because our bill will not inhibit any grassroots lobbying in any way. In fact, Senator Levin and I took extra steps from the original proposal to ensure that our proposal applies only to the larger professional efforts involved in grassroots lobbying. For example, if the grassroots lobbying effort spends under $25,000 per quarter--in other words, less than $100,000 a year--it will not have to report at all. They are exempt. Money spent on communications directed at an organization's own members, employees, officers, or shareholders is also exempt from disclosure. So, an organization could retain a firm to communicate with its own members around the country and that would not have to be disclosed. And 501 (c)(3) organizations that already report grassroots expenses to the IRS will be allowed to report that same number under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, minimizing any alleged paperwork or accounting burden on these organizations. And while this may be self-evident, we have added words in the amendment to make clear that reporting is not required for voluntary efforts by the general public to communicate their own views to Federal officials or encourage other members of the general public to do the same. Ten years ago, when Congress passed the Lobbying Disclosure Act, Senator Levin unsuccessfully fought for a grassroots lobbying disclosure provision. At that time he said such campaigns spend about $700 million per year. I would be surprised if that number hasn't at least doubled since then, and Congress and the public have no accurate picture of who is spending what to influence others to lobby us. Disclosure of paid grassroots lobbying is a long time past due. Let me stress again, the reform we are debating here does nothing to abridge the right of all the people to petition their government. Its purpose is simply to bring the grassroots lobbying community out of the shadows and to ask it to make the same simple disclosure that all other lobbyists are required to do--basically, two numbers: the amount of money received and the amount of money spent, nothing more and nothing less than all other lobbyists are required to disclose. During the markup in our Homeland Security Committee, some Senators and members of the committee asked whether the so-called 527 groups would be covered by this provision. The 527s are already required by law to disclose far greater amounts of information to either the IRS or the Federal Election Commission. The 527 groups are required, for example, to disclose the names of anyone who contributes more than $200 a year, and they must state the purpose of any expenditure over $500. Let's put to rest the notion that we are doing something about 527 groups here, because we already require far more of them than we are asking of grassroots lobbyists. Another question raised in the committee was about whether a broadcaster, in particular a leader of a religious group, would be subject to grassroots disclosure requirements for urging his or her audience on radio or television to write or call Members of Congress about a particular issue. Of course not. This bill requires disclosure only by paid lobbyists acting on behalf of a client. I have described what I think are very powerful provisions in this legislation to increase disclosure, to increase the transparency of the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship, and to slow down the revolving door between government service and K Street. I have heard some people say this legislation is not strong enough because our committee did strike from the bill a proposal Chairman Collins and I made for an Office of Public Integrity that would have been a new, independent repository of disclosure statements, with the power to investigate complaints and issue subpoenas. I want to talk about that in a moment. The fact is, even without that provision, which I still support, this is a very strong, transformational lobbying reform proposal. The enforcement provision Senator Collins and I advocated in the committee would have helped restore the confidence of the American people. The ethics process, frankly, in the other body of Congress has been dysfunctional. I do believe we have a strong Ethics Committee in the Senate, and that is not the reason we put forth our proposal. We offered our proposal to increase the staff and professional support of our Ethics Committee and to create an independent place where investigations of complaints can be made so the public has no lingering suspicion that the ethics regulation of Members of Congress involves self-protection. That is the purpose of our proposal. In addition to restoring public trust in the ability of Congress to police itself, the Office of Public Integrity that we proposed was designed to act as a monitor, reviewer, and watchdog of filings under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Currently, lobbying disclosure forms are filed with the Secretary of the Senate. That office has fewer than 20 people to review filings--and they work hard; this is not to criticize them at all--compared to the 400 employees of the Federal Election Commission, which many people believe is also understaffed. Here is the point: It is very hard for 20 people to adequately supervise and review the filings of over 30,000 lobbyists. That was another reason why Senator Collins and I submitted the Office of Public Integrity proposal. I believe this proposal is an important part of lobbying reform at this once-in-a-generation moment. We have put forth strong measures, in the bills reported by the Senate from the Committee on Rules and our committee, to enact increased disclosure, greater transparency, the virtual prohibition on gifts to Members of Congress, and elimination of any gifts without full disclosure. But I believe a better enforcement mechanism is a critical last component of true lobbying reform legislation. That is why some of us in the Senate will be offering amendments here on the floor along the lines of the proposal to create an Office of Public Integrity, which Chairman Collins and I offered in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. We will put forth amendments to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms of our proposed reforms to make sure those reforms are enforced. I also intend to offer an amendment with Senator McCain and others to curb privately funded travel. Currently when a Member of Congress or a candidate for office uses a private plane instead of flying on a commercial flight, the ethics rules require a payment to the owner of the plane equivalent to a first-class commercial ticket price. Senator McCain and I and others believe that the current rule undervalues flights on noncommercial jets and provides an end-run on limitations on what corporations or individuals can contribute to Members or give us as gifts. We believe it is time to update our rules to close this loophole, to base payment on the fair market value of chartering a plane. I want to stress again, notwithstanding my intention to join with other colleagues on a few of these amendments that I believe will strengthen the measure, that the legislation before us from our committee and from the Rules Committee together present the Senate an opportunity to adopt a very strong bill, a bill with sharp teeth that I believe will reduce the influence of money in the legislative process and prevent the kinds of grotesque abuses to which Mr. Abramoff and Congressman Cunningham have now pleaded guilty. This legislation will not only shine sunlight on what we are doing here but will restore the balance of power where it belongs, in favor of the American people. I am confident that increased transparency, always described in this great democracy of ours as the disinfecting rays of sunshine, will discourage some of the abuses that have occurred. And when combined with the bill reported out of the Committee on Rules, we will be writing into law a near total ban on gifts. Thus, to the extent that lobbyists do confer gifts or arrange for travel for Members of Congress, our constituents will be able to follow the activities of those Members of Congress on the Internet and will, I am sure, be kept well informed of these movements by our free and industrious press. It has been said that information is power, not just knowledge. Information and, therefore, power is what we are providing the public in this legislation. These are dramatic and transformational steps that are included in both of these measures. I hope they will, together, give our constituents a renewed sense of faith in this institution. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank Senator McConnell for the excellent statement. I have not had a chance to look at the legislation, but I am sure I will want to be added as an original cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank Senator McConnell for the excellent statement. I have not had a chance to look at the legislation, but I am sure I will want to be added as an original cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield the hour I might claim to the Democratic leader, Senator Reid.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Snowe, Akaka, Kerry, Durbin, and DeWine, the College Pathway Act of 2006. The intent of this bill is to provide a means of addressing the critical issue of college access and postsecondary academic success. College access for all will continue to be a struggle until the predictors of successful college performance are assimilated into high school curricula. The degree to which high school students are successfully prepared for college continues to be at the forefront of educational concerns. Reports abound repeating the same message: our high school students, particularly students from low-income and minority populations, are not being adequately prepared for the challenges of postsecondary education. The College Pathway Act seeks to foster alliances among the interested and integral stakeholders in the educational arena to create consistency in content and assessment standards between P-12 and higher education. We do this by encouraging the establishment of P-16 Commissions. We must rise to the challenge and forge a pathway to enhance both college access and academic success. Postsecondary education is an important aspiration for most students and the future strength of our economy and workforce will largely depend on the postsecondary educational attainments of students across the country regardless of ethnicity or economic status. High school preparation is a major part of the problem. Published reports on the status of this topic stress the lack of preparedness of high school graduates for postsecondary education. Most will need remedial help in college. More than 70 percent of high school graduates enter two and four year colleges, but at least 28 percent immediately take remedial English or math courses. At some point during their college years, 53 percent of students will take one remedial English or math class if not more. For low-income and minority students, the percentage is higher. States require a certain number of English and math courses to be completed prior to graduation, however, the certainty of course content reflecting the knowledge and skills important for college success is not ensured. Students find themselves taking high school courses lacking in rigor and challenging content, particularly in the areas of math and science. If asked, 39 percent of students who have gone on to a postsecondary institution will admit they were not adequately prepared for college and there were gaps in their overall preparation. College instructors estimate that 42 percent of their students are not adequately prepared. The quality and intensity of the secondary school curriculum are the most significant predictors of college success; and are more significant than race, socioeconomic status, secondary school grade point average, or ACT and SAT scores. These findings are particularly significant for minority groups enrolling in college. Students who engage in challenging secondary coursework will attend and persist in pursuing higher education at a greater rate than those who follow programs of study that are not rigorous in content. All states have English and mathematics standards and assessments at the high school level, yet assessment standards and tests often do not reflect the demands put on students in postsecondary education and in the workplace. High school curricula must be aligned with college entry requirements. The American Diploma Project states that the challenge ahead is to create a system of assessments and graduation requirements that considered together signify readiness for college and work. We, as Federal policymakers, have an essential role to play in making this a reality and creating college access for all. In part, the misalignment between postsecondary institutions and high school stems from current governance systems in place for P-12 educational systems and higher education. Both systems are generally governed, financed and operated differently. This gap must be bridged between the two systems. Creating a pipeline of shared information between the two entities and the business community will promote an exchange of necessary and useful information. Working to align standards from the early grades through grade 12 recognizes that skill acquisition and content assimilation build one upon the other and acknowledges that high-school graduation and college success is a culmination of preparation originating in the beginning years of school. Aligning curricula across school levels creates a more seamless education and ensures that students are prepared for each subsequent grade with particular attention to math, science, and engineering. Aligning P-12 and postsecondary education would reduce the number of students who arrive at college needing remedial coursework. The need to develop high-quality data systems is also critical to improving high school student outcomes. Accountability for high school graduation numbers and drop-out rates is critical to addressing education reform in our high schools. Currently reports have indicated that the quality of high school graduation and drop-out data is often not reliable and does not reflect the actual numbers. Tracking student growth over time using longitudinal student-unit databases will provide the most accurate information for policy decisions and assessments. Furthermore, information provided about student achievement over time can be linked to teachers, programs and schools serving those students. The National Governor's Association (NGA) recently convened a Task Force on State High School Graduation Data--which included representatives from the American Federation of Teachers, the Business Roundtable, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Education Commission of the States, the Educational Testing Service, the Education Trust, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Education Association, Standard and Poor's and the State Higher Education Executive Officers--to make recommendations about how States can develop a high-quality, comparable high school graduation measure, as well as complementary indicators of student progress and outcomes and data systems capable of collecting, analyzing, and reporting the data States need. The task force members concurred as a group on their mission and devised a compact to implement efforts to guide States in developing high quality data-systems ideally using a longitudinal student unit record data system. This compact was signed by 51 governors in all States and Puerto Rico. The ultimate goal is better outcomes for students. Better information can lead to better policies and program implementation. Our bill therefore includes incentives for States to develop or enhance such data systems. The College Pathway Act 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, 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. The College Pathway Act of 2006 awards grants to States to establish P-16 Commissions in order to align P-12 outcomes with postsecondary institutions' expectations. The Commissions under the leadership of the governor or governor's designee, will convene stakeholders of the statewide P-12 education and higher education community, and may include parent groups, State legislative representatives, and particularly members of the business community. The commissions' goal to create a mission addressing college preparation will be the first and critical step of this process. 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. Our bill 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. The College Pathway Act of 2006 can offer States 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. 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 introduce, along with Senators Snowe, Akaka, Kerry, Durbin, and DeWine, the College Pathway Act of 2006. The intent of this bill is to provide a means of addressing the critical issue of college access and postsecondary academic success. College access for all will continue to be a struggle until the predictors of successful college performance are assimilated into high school curricula. The degree to which high school students are successfully prepared for college continues to be at the forefront of educational concerns. Reports abound repeating the same message: our high school students, particularly students from low-income and minority populations, are not being adequately prepared for the challenges of postsecondary education. The College Pathway Act seeks to foster alliances among the interested and integral stakeholders in the educational arena to create consistency in content and assessment standards between P-12 and higher education. We do this by encouraging the establishment of P-16 Commissions. We must rise to the challenge and forge a pathway to enhance both college access and academic success. Postsecondary education is an important aspiration for most students and the future strength of our economy and workforce will largely depend on the postsecondary educational attainments of students across the country regardless of ethnicity or economic status. High school preparation is a major part of the problem. Published reports on the status of this topic stress the lack of preparedness of high school graduates for postsecondary education. Most will need remedial help in college. More than 70 percent of high school graduates enter two and four year colleges, but at least 28 percent immediately take remedial English or math courses. At some point during their college years, 53 percent of students will take one remedial English or math class if not more. For low-income and minority students, the percentage is higher. States require a certain number of English and math courses to be completed prior to graduation, however, the certainty of course content reflecting the knowledge and skills important for college success is not ensured. Students find themselves taking high school courses lacking in rigor and challenging content, particularly in the areas of math and science. If asked, 39 percent of students who have gone on to a postsecondary institution will admit they were not adequately prepared for college and there were gaps in their overall preparation. College instructors estimate that 42 percent of their students are not adequately prepared. The quality and intensity of the secondary school curriculum are the most significant predictors of college success; and are more significant than race, socioeconomic status, secondary school grade point average, or ACT and SAT scores. These findings are particularly significant for minority groups enrolling in college. Students who engage in challenging secondary coursework will attend and persist in pursuing higher education at a greater rate than those who follow programs of study that are not rigorous in content. All states have English and mathematics standards and assessments at the high school level, yet assessment standards and tests often do not reflect the demands put on students in postsecondary education and in the workplace. High school curricula must be aligned with college entry requirements. The American Diploma Project states that the challenge ahead is to create a system of assessments and graduation requirements that considered together signify readiness for college and work. We, as Federal policymakers, have an essential role to play in making this a reality and creating college access for all. In part, the misalignment between postsecondary institutions and high school stems from current governance systems in place for P-12 educational systems and higher education. Both systems are generally governed, financed and operated differently. This gap must be bridged between the two systems. Creating a pipeline of shared information between the two entities and the business community will promote an exchange of necessary and useful information. Working to align standards from the early grades through grade 12 recognizes that skill acquisition and content assimilation build one upon the other and acknowledges that high-school graduation and college success is a culmination of preparation originating in the beginning years of school. Aligning curricula across school levels creates a more seamless education and ensures that students are prepared for each subsequent grade with particular attention to math, science, and engineering. Aligning P-12 and postsecondary education would reduce the number of students who arrive at college needing remedial coursework. The need to develop high-quality data systems is also critical to improving high school student outcomes. Accountability for high school graduation numbers and drop-out rates is critical to addressing education reform in our high schools. Currently reports have indicated that the quality of high school graduation and drop-out data is often not reliable and does not reflect the actual numbers. Tracking student growth over time using longitudinal student-unit databases will provide the most accurate information for policy decisions and assessments. Furthermore, information provided about student achievement over time can be linked to teachers, programs and schools serving those students. The National Governor's Association (NGA) recently convened a Task Force on State High School Graduation Data--which included representatives from the American Federation of Teachers, the Business Roundtable, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Education Commission of the States, the Educational Testing Service, the Education Trust, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Education Association, Standard and Poor's and the State Higher Education Executive Officers--to make recommendations about how States can develop a high-quality, comparable high school graduation measure, as well as complementary indicators of student progress and outcomes and data systems capable of collecting, analyzing, and reporting the data States need. The task force members concurred as a group on their mission and devised a compact to implement efforts to guide States in developing high quality data-systems ideally using a longitudinal student unit record data system. This compact was signed by 51 governors in all States and Puerto Rico. The ultimate goal is better outcomes for students. Better information can lead to better policies and program implementation. Our bill therefore includes incentives for States to develop or enhance such data systems. The College Pathway Act 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, 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. The College Pathway Act of 2006 awards grants to States to establish P-16 Commissions in order to align P-12 outcomes with postsecondary institutions' expectations. The Commissions under the leadership of the governor or governor's designee, will convene stakeholders of the statewide P-12 education and higher education community, and may include parent groups, State legislative representatives, and particularly members of the business community. The commissions' goal to create a mission addressing college preparation will be the first and critical step of this process. 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. Our bill 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. The College Pathway Act of 2006 can offer States 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. 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. I am pleased to lend my strong support to adding this provision to S. 622 in order to improve the procedures by which the Postal Service consolidates its mail processing operations. The problems local communities are encountering from the Postal Service's consolidations hit home for me in Waterbury, CT. Connecticut residents affected by the Postal Service's decision to close its Waterbury mail processing center have a right to participate in a process that is transparent and open. This new provision in S. 622 will help ensure that, when the Postal Service streamlines its mail processing or logistics network, it gives adequate public notice and takes other steps to be sure that those who are potentially affected--including postal customers, postal employees, and other businesses and individuals in the community--have an opportunity to understand and provide input into the Postal Service's decision before facilities are consolidated or closed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to the understanding between the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Massachusetts, I now ask unanimous consent that there be an extra 5 minutes added at the end of this hour for this side of the aisle.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Samuel Alito to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This is the sixth opportunity I have had as a Senator to consider a President's nominee to the High Court. It is surely one of the most awesome and important responsibilities of Members of this body because of the uniquely powerful and autonomous role the Supreme Court has in our governmental system and because, once confirmed, Supreme Court Justices serve for life, with accountability only to the Constitution, as they read it. Similar to most of my colleagues, I judge the nominees based on four factors: their intellect and ability, their experience, their character, and their judicial philosophy. On the first three factors--intellect, experience, and character--I conclude that Judge Alito more than passes the test. But on the fourth factor, judicial philosophy, I am left with too many doubts to vote to confirm this nominee for a lifetime of service on the U.S. Supreme Court. Let me now go over these four areas of consideration. First, intellect and ability. From the meeting I had with Judge Alito, the legal quality of his opinions, over 15 years as a judge, and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I believe Judge Alito has shown that he is a person of considerable intellect and ability. Second, experience. Judge Alito's curriculum vitae itself depicts his excellent and relevant experience as a law clerk, a Federal Government attorney, a U.S. attorney, and an appellate judge on the Third Circuit. Third, his character. Judge Alito, I know, was questioned aggressively at the Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings and elsewhere with regard to his character, but I thought he emerged with his integrity and honor intact. The ABA standing committee confirmed that judgment when it concluded that ``he is an individual of excellent integrity,'' and that was based on more than 300 interviews with professional colleagues. Fourth is judicial philosophy, and here is where, for me, the problems with this nomination begin and, in some sense, ends. Judge Alito brings to this nomination process a more lengthy record of judicial opinions than any of the previous five nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court whom I have had the privilege to consider. In his 15 years on the Third Circuit Court, Judge Alito has written more than 350 opinions. Together, these opinions leave me with profound doubts about whether Judge Alito would protect and advance the special role the Constitution gives the Supreme Court as the single institution in our Government that our Founders freed forever from popular political passions so that it could protect the rights our founding documents gave to every American. Personal freedom and equal opportunity are America's core ideals, and our courts have been and must be the great advancers and protectors of those ideals. To me, that work defines the vital mainstream of American jurisprudence. Based on his personal statements during the 1980s when he was a Government attorney, and particularly on his 15 years of judicial opinions, I am left with profound concerns that Judge Alito would diminish the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate guarantor of individual liberty in our country. This is not about a single issue but about an accumulation of his opinions that leads me to a preponderance of doubts. For example, in civil rights cases, Judge Alito has repeatedly established a very high bar, an unusually high bar for entrance to our courts for people who believe they have been denied equal opportunity and fair treatment based on race or gender. In one case, Bray v. Marriott Hotels, the majority of his colleagues on the court said: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act would be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where the dissent of Judge Alito suggests. Judge Alito's narrow reading of the commerce clause, as exemplified by his dissent in the case of United States v. Rybar, casts a shadow on Federal legislation passed to protect the rights of individual Americans which has been and will be based on the commerce clause. When asked at his confirmation hearings about the question of personal privacy, Judge Alito accepted the 1965 decision of Griswold v. Connecticut as settled law. But when asked over and over, he refused to say the same about the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. On that most divisive and difficult question of abortion, I personally believe that Roe achieved a just balance of rights and reflected a societal consensus that has continued and deepened in our country for more than three decades. I was left with serious concerns that Judge Alito would not uphold the basic tenets of Roe, and that is a very troubling conclusion. Every time I have voted to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, as I have with Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Roberts-- two appointed by Republican Presidents and two appointed by a Democratic President--I did so knowing, as we all do, that I was taking a risk because I could never know exactly how the particular Justice would rule on the many cases that would come before him or her in a lifetime on the bench. But I ultimately concluded, based on their records and their testimony, that those four Justices would more likely than not uphold the unique responsibility the Supreme Court has as the most important guardian of freedom, opportunity, and privacy for every single American. Unfortunately, I have not been able to reach the same conclusion about Judge Alito, and so I will respectfully vote ``no'' on his nomination. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound gratitude and heartfelt best wishes to a dear friend and dedicated American, William B. Bonvillian, who has served as my legislative director and chief counsel since I first took office in the U.S. Senate in January 1989. It is truly a bittersweet occasion to bid farewell this week to an outstanding and valued staff member with whom I have worked for 17 years in this hallowed institution that we both dearly cherish and respect. I can only say that, as Bill embarks on his new venture as director of federal relations for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, my loss is most surely MIT's gain. Bill came to my Senate office as an accomplished and respected attorney who had previously served in the executive branch from 1977- 1980 as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, where he was involved in major legislation relating to transportation deregulation and funding issues. However, our long association actually goes back much further than that, to the early 1970s. Bill was my first intern when I was elected to the State Senate; we rode from New Haven to the State Capitol in Hartford in my old copper-colored Pinto several times a week after his classes at Yale Divinity School. Later, I hired him for a summer position with our State Senate committee investigating State construction issues. After I was elected to my first term here in the U.S. Senate, I sought to rehire Bill, who was by then a partner at a national law firm working on corporate, real estate, transportation, and administrative law matters. I was beyond delighted when Bill agreed to leave his partnership to reenter public service. Bill's record of service in the U.S. Senate has been one of enormous distinction. When I look back with pride on the many legislative initiatives I undertook with Bill's advice and assistance, I recall with great admiration his determination, tenacity, and passionate involvement in crafting legislation. He built a stellar reputation on both sides of the aisle for his skill in nurturing innovative ideas and negotiating and advancing measures through an often complex legislative process. Bill's intuitive skills and strong leadership abilities have helped result in the successful passage of many crucial policy initiatives for which I have fought. Bill has played a key role in formulating and enacting vitally important legislative policy in the areas of science and technology; economic growth; innovation, research, and development in the fields of defense, manufacturing, health, and bioterrorism protection programs; and ensuring America's global competitiveness. In addition, Bill's extensive and tireless work has resulted in many other significant legislative victories in our years together, including those pertaining to environmental and wilderness protection; energy security; defense and foreign policy; health and social welfare; campaign finance reform; media safeguards for children; education; and transportation and our Nation's infrastructure. Bill also had a firm hand in the landmark law that led to the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and new intelligence reform initiatives to ensure the protection of our citizens. His ability to forge a consensus on these and countless other complex issues is unequaled. Bill's influence has been felt throughout the halls of Congress, and he has left a great legacy here. I would like to highlight key legislation, grouped by subject area, on which Bill and his legislative team have assisted me over the years. I note that many of these bills or parts of them have gone on to become laws: Economic Growth--National Innovation Act, S. 2109 (2005); National Nanotechnology R&D Act, P.L. 108-153 (2003); R&D Doubling Act, S. 2046 (2000) and predecessor bill, S. 1305 (1997); Individual Development Accounts, S. 2023 (2000); Enterprise Zone Act, S. 1032 (1991) Defense, Homeland Security, and Foreign Policy--Rebuild the Army (increasing Army end-strength), S. 1397 (2005); Intelligence Reform Act, P.L. 108-458 (2004); 9/11 Commission Act, P.L. 107-306; Homeland Security Department Authorization, S. 2452 (2002); Establishment of the Quadrennial Defense Review, S. Amdt. 4156 to S. 1745 (1996); Bosnia Intervention, S.J. Res. 44 (1995); Gulf War Resolution, H.R. 2100 (1991) Environment, Conservation, and Energy Security--Vehicle and Fuel Choices for America Act, S. 2025 (2005); Climate Change Act, S. 1151 (2005) and prior climate bills dating back to 1991; Clean Air Act of 1990, S. 1630 (1990); Conte Connecticut River National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act, S. 821 (1991); Weir Farm National Historic Site, S. 2059 (1990) Health and Social Programs--American Center for Cures, S. 2104 (2005); Bioshield II, S. 975 (2005) Education--Technology Talent, S. 1549 (2001); 3R Act (No Child Left Behind), S. 303 (2001); Federal Charter School Assistance, S. 1513 (1994) Media and Values--Parental Choice in Television Act (V-Chip), S. 632 (1995) Government Reform--e-Government Act, S. 803 (2001); Congressional Accountability Act, S. 2071 (1994) Transportation--Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), P.L. 102-240 (1992). We have been extremely fortunate to work with a person of Bill's character and caliber. He has graciously shared his wealth of knowledge and wise counsel with legislative aides, fellows, and other staff members. He helped us form our innovative Legislative Fellows Program, in particular, which has helped us build a strong, substantive, policy- and idea-oriented office. Under Bill's leadership as legislative director, I have consistently had a professional staff of which I am very proud. I think it is the equal of any on Capitol Hill. Somehow, despite the long hours his work has involved, Bill finds the time to nurture his abiding interest in an array of subjects, from art to history, and this is part of what makes Bill so very interesting to be around. On many occasions, Bill led our new staffers and fellows on unique, memorable tours of the Capitol, where he regaled us with his vast knowledge of the Capitol's architecture, art collections, and historical vignettes of Congress and our democracy. And now to add to these many accomplishments, Bill has an exciting opportunity to focus his efforts on science and technology innovation and policy, issues of deep concern to him and of critical importance to our Nation and the world. I have no doubt that Bill will distinguish himself in this endeavor just as he has throughout his Senate career. I sincerely thank Bill's wife, Janis Ann Sposato, for her understanding of the long hours and enormously demanding schedule so often posed by the Senate legislative calendar, even as they juggled the demands of parenting and their public service careers. It has been a pleasure to see Janis and Bill's sons, Raphael and Marcus, grow from childhood into the fine young men they are today. It has been a memorable journey. Through it all, Bill has maintained his clear vision of a better future for all, a sense of humor, and calm demeanor in the eye of any approaching storm. In all of his interactions with staff, visiting constituents, and other parties with whom he has come in contact, he has always given generously of his time and talent. I could not have made a better choice for my legislative director than I did in 1989 when I asked Bill to take on the challenges we have faced together. I am proud to call Bill a trusted adviser and lifelong friend. The office will be a different place without him. My staff and I will miss him a great deal, but we wish him success, health, and happiness always. I sincerely thank and congratulate Bill Bonvillian on his outstanding, loyal, and dedicated service to the U.S. Senate.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we are in a period of extended debate to resolve the remaining issues related to the Defense appropriations bill, so I wanted to take a minute to address the serious avian flu issue that is before us. While I am concerned that we will need the full funding request the administration sought, if we approve the avian flu proposal, we will at least be advancing some $3 billion. I want to stress the importance of global wild bird surveillance systems as part of my comprehensive flu plan. I am pleased that the avian flu provisions include authorizing language and funds to set up a wild bird surveillance network as well as other essential elements of avian flu public health preparedness. If passed by Congress and signed by the President, this will assure that we have a comprehensive approach to what may become a real world threat. We do not want to have piecemeal solutions or be simplistically reactive when it comes to the public's health. The avian flu provision we have been considering today states that part of $150 million is designated to carry out global and domestic disease surveillance, which includes international surveillance to track influenza strains as a way of focusing limited resources on at- risk populations. The conferees have pointed out specifically the importance of migratory bird tracking in predicting the spread of avian influenza and encourage the CDC to ensure that this important activity is part of its surveillance activities. I am pleased with this language that acknowledges a key part of the preparedness puzzle to which, frankly, few people have given attention--wild bird sentinels and the intimate connection between animal and human health. We cannot separate the two. As we all know, the potential for an influenza pandemic is increasing as the H5N1 virus has now moved swiftly across Asia, Russia, Turkey, and now the EU, killing millions of domestic poultry and over 60 humans to date. History and science tell us that wild birds and movements of poultry have the potential to spread deadly avian influenza viruses. The 1918 influenza epidemic that killed an estimated 40 million people worldwide was an avian-origin viral strain. We must act now to ensure that this does not happen again. We have the tools to track the movement of this virus. We just need to increase and strengthen them. In October, I introduced a bill, S. 1912, to do exactly this. This month, Representatives DeLauro and Lowey, with the cosponsorship of Representative Case, introduced an identical bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 4476, to provide funds supporting an early warning system and real-time data network for global avian influenza surveillance. Senator Brownback has also been supportive of these efforts to urge Congress to examine ways to boost our prevention and preparedness efforts via an international surveillance network. In fact, the Senate passed appropriations for such an effort in the Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. This was work from our colleagues Senators Specter and Harkin, who again realized the importance of fighting the threat of avian flu from multiple fronts including funds for vaccines and antivirals but also with the establishment of an international wild bird surveillance network. The surveillance network contemplated by the avian flu proposals we have been considering should be designed to be an early warning and tracking system to monitor avian viruses and their mutations and reassortments, as carried by wild birds. The provision would require expansion the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Influenza Branch's wild bird surveillance program, which currently is small. Specifically, it is our intent that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Influenza Branch, CDC, with expertise in analyzing ornithological and animal samples for infectious diseases, and other national partners, such as the US Agency for International Development, USAID, with expertise in working with international partners and coalitions, would partner with one or more nongovernmental organizations that meet the following criteria: have extensive global wildlife health experience in tracking disease in wild birds, including free-ranging, captive, and wild-bird species using an international and extensive field program and network with projects in 50 or more countries to allow for the collection and dissemination of data around the world; have proven ability in identifying avian influenza, specifically H5N1 and other infectious diseases, in wild birds; and have accredited zoological facilities in the United States, with the capacity to analyze, store, and interpret samples and compile data. Such tracking allows us to predict the spread of the virus and then to focus limited resources and prepare communities in the flight path of wild birds, as the conference report notes. Potential interventions include providing available antivirals or vaccines to those at-risk, enhancing biosecurity at poultry farms, and even keeping people indoors should surveillance information warrant it. By tracking wild birds, as these provisions require, we may even be able to produce an avian flu vaccine faster by understanding which variant of avian influenza virus is the killer. The current H5N1 virus is potentially not the one that could cause widespread devastation to humans. Again, the conference report recognizes the importance of tracking viral strains and has provided the CDC with funding to do so. Just as we track hurricanes as they begin as a tropical storm, we must track wild birds and the viral storms they carry over oceans and continents and share that data with the world. At least $10 million of the funds available in this proposal in 2006 should be available to the CDC to work with a national partner such as USAID and one or more eligible NGOs with the expertise and the criteria previously outlined and other supporting international partners to establish a strong global wild bird surveillance system. This proposal would help ensure we have an organized, near real-time, virtual library that would allow U.S. Government agencies, wildlife conservation organizations, and public health organizations to track both the spread of avian viruses and their reassortments and mutations, which are integral to understanding how a virus might change to permit human to human transfer. Ten million dollars is a small sum in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars required for vaccine research and antiviral stockpiling. Vaccines and stockpiling are our current focus and we should be thinking about them--but it is equally important to think about being prepared for outbreaks and preventing a pandemic from ever becoming a reality. As we speak, information is being collected and analyzed all over the United States and the world. But while we are collecting piles of data, it is not being stored in the kind of organized manner needed to make it available for easy study and response. The information we have, I fear, is scattered like books with no library to contain them and no librarian to locate them. Again, I would like to thank leaders in the Senate and the House, including Senators Specter, Harkin, and Brownback, and Representatives DeLauro, Lowey, and Case, for their work in preparing our Nation for a possible pandemic. We must address the treatment, surveillance, and prevention but, also, critically the global wildfowl surveillance; this addresses a big gap that is easy to forget about. It is the big bird in the room. Wild birds can spread this virus and could potentially carry it to the United States. I thank and urge my colleagues to continue supporting flu legislation with essential provisions such as this one, which surveys wild birds with NGOs who have the international networks and the capacity to connect all the dots, so when a flu pandemic does or does not happen, we are better prepared.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, when I first ran for the Senate in 1988, the question of whether to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge was an important choice before the voters of Connecticut. My opponent supported it. I opposed it. I opposed it because I wanted to protect this magnificent piece of America's land and life forever, pretty much as nature's God, as our Founders would have said, created it. Second, I thought drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge perpetuated a dangerous myth that we could drill our way out of energy dependence on foreign oil. When I came to the Senate, I found, of course, many people who supported drilling for oil in ANWR as strongly as I opposed it. Over the last 17 years, we have had, almost every year, good, fair fights on this issue according to the rules. In most of them, those of us who oppose oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge have prevailed because the proponents have not been able to achieve the 60 votes necessary under the Senate rules. What they have done in the last year or so is attempted to suspend and circumvent those rules, first on the budget matters, circumventing the Byrd rule. In the Senate, they prevailed. In the House, a very courageous band of Republicans and Democrats stood up and said no. At the eleventh hour, the proponents of oil drilling in ANWR have attached this provision where it does not belong--on the Department of Defense appropriations bill--in the hope that we will be intimidated into voting for something we don't believe is right because we don't want to be accused of threatening support for our troops. I have too much of a sense of responsibility, too much respect for the Senate, and too much respect for my constituents to be intimidated to support something I believe is wrong and clearly in contravention of our rules. Somebody said to me the other day: Senator Lieberman, you are such a strong supporter of the military. How can you intend to cast this vote which will threaten funding for our troops in the middle of a war? My answer is: I am not the one threatening support for our military in the middle of the war. It is those who have had the audacity and disrespect for our rules to attach this provision to funding for our troops who are endangering it. Second, if we yield to this tactic this time on ANWR, next year it will be someone else's pet policy attached to the Department of Defense appropriations bill, and the year after, yet another. In my opinion, if you support our military and you want security of funding, particularly in time of war, you will vote against cloture to protect the sanctity, if you will, the primacy of this funding for the military. Finally, if, as I hope and believe, the Senate rises up and denies cloture, our troops will not lose their funding. Members of Congress of both parties and the President will not allow that to happen. My dear friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, is too much of a patriot, no matter how disappointed he is if cloture is denied, to take that anger out on our troops. I appeal to my colleagues to vote against cloture. I am going to do it, not just because I am opposed to drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge but because I support the U.S. military, and I refuse to have the military and its funding held hostage to this move in violation of the Senate rules. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, breast cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers in women. More than 211,240 new cases of breast cancer in women will be diagnosed in the United States in 2005. In my own State of Connecticut, more than 2,600 women are expected to be diagnosed and 530 are expected to die from breast cancer this year. Overall, it is believed that 1 in every 10 women will develop breast cancer at least once in their lifetime. The best defense against breast cancer, is early detection. The sooner one can detect breast cancer, the better the chances that the disease can be successfully treated. It is because of this that the American Cancer Society suggests that all women age 40 and over have a mammogram annually. As important, women must learn to do regular self breast exams. Women generally will understand their bodies better than doctors. In Connecticut, early detection from mammograms and self breast exam has helped our State achieve a 5-year survival rate, for those women diagnosed with breast cancer, of 97 percent. That is one of the highest such survival rates in the country. As successful as my State has been, we have not been successful enough. We must strive to increase awareness and education of breast cancer so that all women are aware of the risk it poses and the indisputable benefits of early detection. We must increase research into the relationship between environmental exposures, genetic predisposition, and breast cancer risk and also seek new drugs and tools that will allow health care professionals to better treat breast cancer patients with the goal of cure. It is in this spirit on January 21, 2006, Eastern Mountain Sports Connecticut stores will sponsor the Winter Wonderland Walk for the Cure to benefit both breast cancer research and the Connecticut chapter of the Susan G. Women Breast Cancer Foundation, at Tarrywile Park in Danbury, CT. Therefore, it is my pleasure to join Connecticut's Governor, M. Jodi Rell, herself a breast cancer survivor, in celebrating, in recognition of the need to increase awareness about breast cancer and the need for early detection, January 21, 2006 as Winter Wonderland Walk for the Cure Day in Danbury, CT.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the National Homeland Security Academy Act of 2005. I am delighted that Chairman Collins has joined me in sponsoring this legislation. Shortly after the Homeland Security Department was formed in 2003, I laid out my vision for what the country needed to do to protect against another terrorist attack, or major natural disaster, in a speech at George Washington University. Among the areas I identified as in need of additional work was the training of those who agreed to commit themselves to the protection of Americans here at home. At the time, I said we needed to make sure homeland security professionals were given the full range of skills necessary to make this country as safe as it should be and I proposed a National Homeland Security Academy to educate and train the best and brightest of our future leaders. The bill Senator Collins and I are introducing today, the National Homeland Security Academy Act of 2005, is the fulfillment of that idea. It was clear to me as I was working to create a Department of Homeland Security that we would need to find a way to make sure Department professionals, as well as the State and local officials with whom they work, understand the full scope and range of responsibilities entrusted to the Department--not just the details of their own particular jobs. This academy would accomplish that. It would cultivate leaders, teach the full range of skills necessary for robust homeland security, and provide cross-disciplinary and joint education and training to government officials at the Federal, State and local levels so that they can develop the bonds and relationships that will make their work more efficient and effective. The National Homeland Security Academy Act of 2005 is the product of my work with the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Collins, as well as homeland security experts, scholars, and education and professional development experts. Together, we have refined the concept of homeland security education and training to meet the Department's needs today and into the future. The academy I envision would be a professional development institution, much like the War College created by the Department of Defense to provide its leaders with a deep and thorough understanding of military and defense matters. The National Homeland Security Academy would ensure that new and mid-level executive employees at the Department of Homeland Security--as well as other Federal, State, and local leaders with homeland security responsibilities--have a thorough understanding of the strategic missions of the Department, as well access to hands-on training exercises, and real-time simulation. Four months ago, Hurricane Katrina reminded us in no uncertain terms that our homeland security workers at all levels still have much to learn. How and when to share critical information? What does it mean to activate the National Response Plan? Who is responsible for which emergency response mission? These are the types of questions we on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have been hearing as we investigate why the preparedness for and response to the hurricane was so lacking. The National Homeland Security Academy would provide answers to these and many more questions and ensure homeland security officials are better equipped to respond to the next disaster. The centerpiece of the Academy would be the National Homeland Security Education and Strategy Center, where Federal homeland security officials would receive initial and continuing homeland security education. The Academy would also incorporate the Center for Homeland Defense and Security run by the Naval Postgraduate School at the Direction of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. In addition, the bill establishes a National Homeland Security Education Network comprised of the academies and training centers within the jurisdiction of DHS--like the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--as well as a communications network capable of providing distance learning opportunities. It also creates a new State and Local Education and Training Coordinator within the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to address one of the most frequent criticisms local first responders have with the Department of Homeland Security, and that is the fact that many people in the Department seem to be unaware of or unwilling to make use of excellent state and local education and training programs. A liaison officer would rectify that. This bill does not change the system for first responder training. Local first responders will continue to work with the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to ensure they have the necessary training to deal with the situations they face everyday. But we believe that bringing people together from all levels of government to study homeland security issues from different perspectives would be healthy. And we do think that homeland security will benefit overall from the relationships that would inevitably form between officials at every level and from every corner of the country. The National Homeland Security Act of 2005 addresses a deficiency in the education and training of our homeland security professionals by helping to foster connected, experienced, and knowledgeable homeland security leaders who will be able to provide the best possible protection for the American people. I look forward to working with Chairman Collins in the next session to mark up this bill and make it law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the National Homeland Security Academy Act of 2005. I am delighted that Chairman Collins has joined me in sponsoring this legislation. Shortly after the Homeland Security Department was formed in 2003, I laid out my vision for what the country needed to do to protect against another terrorist attack, or major natural disaster, in a speech at George Washington University. Among the areas I identified as in need of additional work was the training of those who agreed to commit themselves to the protection of Americans here at home. At the time, I said we needed to make sure homeland security professionals were given the full range of skills necessary to make this country as safe as it should be and I proposed a National Homeland Security Academy to educate and train the best and brightest of our future leaders. The bill Senator Collins and I are introducing today, the National Homeland Security Academy Act of 2005, is the fulfillment of that idea. It was clear to me as I was working to create a Department of Homeland Security that we would need to find a way to make sure Department professionals, as well as the State and local officials with whom they work, understand the full scope and range of responsibilities entrusted to the Department--not just the details of their own particular jobs. This academy would accomplish that. It would cultivate leaders, teach the full range of skills necessary for robust homeland security, and provide cross-disciplinary and joint education and training to government officials at the Federal, State and local levels so that they can develop the bonds and relationships that will make their work more efficient and effective. The National Homeland Security Academy Act of 2005 is the product of my work with the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Collins, as well as homeland security experts, scholars, and education and professional development experts. Together, we have refined the concept of homeland security education and training to meet the Department's needs today and into the future. The academy I envision would be a professional development institution, much like the War College created by the Department of Defense to provide its leaders with a deep and thorough understanding of military and defense matters. The National Homeland Security Academy would ensure that new and mid-level executive employees at the Department of Homeland Security--as well as other Federal, State, and local leaders with homeland security responsibilities--have a thorough understanding of the strategic missions of the Department, as well access to hands-on training exercises, and real-time simulation. Four months ago, Hurricane Katrina reminded us in no uncertain terms that our homeland security workers at all levels still have much to learn. How and when to share critical information? What does it mean to activate the National Response Plan? Who is responsible for which emergency response mission? These are the types of questions we on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have been hearing as we investigate why the preparedness for and response to the hurricane was so lacking. The National Homeland Security Academy would provide answers to these and many more questions and ensure homeland security officials are better equipped to respond to the next disaster. The centerpiece of the Academy would be the National Homeland Security Education and Strategy Center, where Federal homeland security officials would receive initial and continuing homeland security education. The Academy would also incorporate the Center for Homeland Defense and Security run by the Naval Postgraduate School at the Direction of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. In addition, the bill establishes a National Homeland Security Education Network comprised of the academies and training centers within the jurisdiction of DHS--like the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--as well as a communications network capable of providing distance learning opportunities. It also creates a new State and Local Education and Training Coordinator within the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to address one of the most frequent criticisms local first responders have with the Department of Homeland Security, and that is the fact that many people in the Department seem to be unaware of or unwilling to make use of excellent state and local education and training programs. A liaison officer would rectify that. This bill does not change the system for first responder training. Local first responders will continue to work with the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to ensure they have the necessary training to deal with the situations they face everyday. But we believe that bringing people together from all levels of government to study homeland security issues from different perspectives would be healthy. And we do think that homeland security will benefit overall from the relationships that would inevitably form between officials at every level and from every corner of the country. The National Homeland Security Act of 2005 addresses a deficiency in the education and training of our homeland security professionals by helping to foster connected, experienced, and knowledgeable homeland security leaders who will be able to provide the best possible protection for the American people. I look forward to working with Chairman Collins in the next session to mark up this bill and make it law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Collins, in introducing the ``Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005. I am also delighted that Senators Coleman, Levin, and Carper will be joining us on this bill. This bill is the product of extensive work in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to explore the risks of a possible terrorist attack on our chemical facilities, as well as the best means to guard against those risks. Since 9/11 opened our eyes to the threats we face on U.S. soil from Islamist terrorist groups, we have moved to improve security for many of the critical elements of our society and economy. But somehow we have not yet protected one of our greatest vulnerabilities the chemical sector. Chemicals are vital to many of the processes that feed us, heal us, and power our economy. Yet the very pervasiveness of the chemical sector makes it vulnerable to terrorism. Thousands of facilities throughout the country use or store lethal materials, often near large population centers. We know that terrorists are interested in targeting these facilities. The Congressional Research Service reports that during the 1990s, both international and domestic terrorists attempted to use explosives to release chemicals from manufacturing and storage facilities close to population centers. The Justice Department in 2002 described the threat posed by terrorists to chemical facilities as ``both real and credible,'' for the foreseeable future. Former White House Homeland Security Advisor Richard Falkenrath this spring told the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that although chemical facilities are a most serious homeland security vulnerability, the Federal Government has done almost nothing to secure them. Homeland Security expert Steve Flynn likened the Nation's 15,000 chemical facilities to ``15,000 weapons of mass destruction littered around the United States.'' Fortunately, the responsible players in the chemical industry have not waited for Federal legislation, and some of the leading trade groups have begun their own security programs or participated in some voluntary efforts led by DHS. Some chemical facilities are also subject to security regulation under the Maritime Transportation Security Act or the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. Yet these programs do not reach the full range of security matters addressed at the committee's hearings and in this legislation. More significant, far too many facilities that use extremely hazardous chemicals remain entirely outside the patchwork of laws, regulations, and self-protection now in place. For several years, legislation to require security enhancements at these chemical sites has foundered in Congress, bereft of true administration support or Congressional consensus. But I am hopeful that today marks a turning point that will culminate in successful passage of a robust chemical security bill. First, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to build a foundation for this effort: through four hearings that explored the issues and possible solutions regarding chemical site security and through collaboration on this legislation that has already won strong bipartisan support on our Committee. Second, DHS has now clearly stated--in testimony to our committee-- that the current voluntary efforts are not sufficient and that the Department needs new legislative authority to regulate chemical site security. Third, responsible segments of the chemical industry--such as the American Chemistry Council--have recognized the need for a comprehensive national program to ensure adequate security across the entire chemical sector and called for Federal legislation. I welcome this engagement by industry and believe we can work together with them, as well as the administration, and all who are concerned about security, to forge an effective national program. This legislation is a forceful but pragmatic response to the challenge of chemical site security. It directs its greatest force and focus to those facilities that pose the highest risk in terms of potential loss of human life or other catastrophic results. It authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to initiate a thoroughgoing security program for thousands of critical chemical sites around the country. The Secretary would identify which facilities pose a meaningful risk due to terrorism concerns, and then require these facilities to conduct a vulnerability assessment and prepare a security plan and emergency response plan to address the results of this vulnerability analysis. Facilities within the program would submit these assessments and plans to DHS for review and approval. DHS would then work with the facilities to ensure the plans, and implementation, are adequate. Under a tiered system of requirements, those facilities that pose the greatest risk would face the most stringent security requirements as well as a speedier and more rigorous DHS review. The bill includes civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance and, ultimately, facilities may be ordered to shut down if they do not comply with DHS orders. This legislation recognizes that facilities will need flexibility to achieve security in the most efficient and effective manner. The bill also recognizes the work of the responsible chemical companies within the chemical sector and does not force those facilities to reinvent the wheel. Instead, the bill ensures that so long as an alternative security program's assessments and plans meet the bill's core requirements for vulnerability assessments and site security plans, facilities operating under those alternative security programs can submit these assessments and plans under the DHS program. However, where the assessments and plans do not meet the bill's core requirements, the Secretary will require appropriate modifications. Finally, the Secretary will judge all assessments and plans against the regulations promulgated under this bill. This legislation also recognizes that sometimes the best security will come not from adding guards and gates but from reexamining the way chemical operations are carried out in order to reduce the amount of hazardous substances on site, improve the way they are stored or processed or find safer substitutes for the chemicals themselves. These changes serve to make a facility less inviting as a target for terrorists, as well as limiting the loss of life or other damage if an attack does take place. They also have the added benefit of limiting the harm from an accidental release. This bill clearly requires facilities to look at the risks and consequences related to the dangerous chemicals on site and address those specific vulnerabilities in their security plan. And it includes these process changes among the menu of security measures that chemical facilities should examine when designing their security plans. We know that many facilities, and many security experts, already look to these less dangerous technologies as a potent and cost-effective way to improve security against a possible terror attack. But we also know that, for some facilities, there can be reluctance or structural impediments to looking at these technological solutions. That is why I feel this bill should go further and include more explicit requirements for chemical facilities to consider less dangerous technologies when they make the security enhancements required under this bill. In particular, the riskier facilities--some of which could endanger tens or hundreds of thousands of lives if attacked--should have to demonstrate that they have looked closely at options that would reduce the catastrophic consequences of a possible terrorist attack. We had a powerful example of such an adjustment close by: after 9/11 focused our attention on potential targets in our midst, Washington DC's water treatment facility ended the use of its potentially deadly liquid chlorine. This is not a question of forcing industry to conduct its operations off a Government-issued playbook. Companies would analyze for themselves whether there are less dangerous ways to conduct their business and would not be forced to implement any changes that were not feasible. But given the extraordinary risks involved, it makes little sense not to require companies to at least take a long hard look at some of the commonsense solutions that have been advocated or already adopted by others within the industry. Therefore, as this bill advances, I will seek to strengthen the requirements for facilities to carefully consider these safer technologies as a means to greater security. The bill creates structure within DHS to oversee this regulatory program and a regional network to help implement its provisions, particularly to help ensure adequate emergency response capabilities in the event of an attack on a chemical facility. There are also provisions to safeguard sensitive information that DHS receives from the chemical facilities, while at the same time requiring DHS to share and disclose information necessary for public safety and public accountability. The bill does not affect chemical facilities' obligations to make information available to the public under right-to- know laws or other regulatory programs, and it establishes a secure channel by which members of the public can submit information about potential problems regarding the security of chemical facilities. This bill also recognizes that Congress is not the only body that can and should help ensure the safety and security of the Nation's chemical facilities. States and localities have long regulated such facilities for various safety and environmental concerns. Since 9/11, some States have also moved to require security improvements at these facilities. These State and local protections are critical adjuncts to our effort at the Federal level, and I am pleased that this bill states clearly that it does not preempt State and local laws or regulations regarding the safety and security of chemical facilities. States and localities are free to enact more stringent chemical security legislation. Only if there is an absolute conflict, such that it is impossible for a facility to comply with both the Federal law and a State or local law or regulation on chemical security, would the Federal provision take precedence. The bill would not disrupt State and local safety and environmental law regarding chemical facilities, nor does it dislodge or alter the operation of State common law with respect to such facilities.