Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman for their efforts in securing an energy bill that retains many features important to the Senate. Had I been present for the final vote on the Senate bill 1 month ago, a vote I missed because of the passing of my mother, I would have voted ``yes'' because I believed that the Senate bill took positive early steps toward development of a comprehensive energy policy, including an important initiative for renewable energy development. I consulted urgently with Senator Bingaman during the House-Senate Conference on an issue that was put before the conferees by the House that would have undermined the Clean Air Act and worsened air pollution in Connecticut and a number of other States. Senator Bingaman was able to keep that proposal out of the conference report and I thank him for that. I learned, through that bit of first-hand experience, how hard both Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman worked to keep faith with the Senate in producing a conference report that reflected some of the Senate's chief concerns. For that I believe we owe them both a debt of gratitude. Senators Bingaman and Domenici are to be commended for recognizing the deep concerns that public officials across New England have about the LICAP proposal and for including a sense-of-the-Congress resolution in the bill directing FERC to reevaluate this proposal in light of their concerns. I note that the sense-of-the-Congress resolution specifically draws to FERC's attention the objections of all six of New England's governors--both Democrats and Republicans. (See Exhibit 1.) Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters, from those governors to the Chairman of FERC expressing their objections to LICAP, be inserted in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I cannot emphasize enough the need for FERC to reconsider this deeply flawed proposal--a proposal that would cost New England ratepayers more than $12 billion over the next 5 years. The governors rightly argue that there are much more cost-effective alternatives to achieving the goal of ensuring our region of the country has adequate electricity that FERC should consider. And I am pleased that conference report directs FERC to address the governors' objections and recommendations. While I am disappointed with many of the changes made in the final version of the bill emerging from conference, and feel that we are still far from developing the bold national energy policy we so urgently need, I am voting ``yes'' today because this bill at least starts the process of changing the status quo. Still, it is my strong hope that having addressed issues of conventional energy supply through this legislation, we will turn, in the very near future, our urgent attention to the most pressing issues--the clear and inextricable linkage between energy supply and national security, the resulting urgent need for aggressive development of a portfolio of alternative and renewable fuels and conservation strategies, and the need to take comprehensive steps to set mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Solving these problems--and soon--is a responsibility that we have to today's public as well as our children and grandchildren, an obligation that we will not have fulfilled when this legislation passes. When this bill becomes law, new energy efficiency standards for appliances will be put into place and businesses, homeowners and consumers will see a range of new incentives to invest in and adopt in their homes, factories and automobiles, clean technologies, such as fuel cells, solar energy, alternative fuel vehicles and hybrids. All this will be done without forcing the Senate and the States to accept a number of provisions that would have done damage to the environment and to the treasuries of State and local governments contending with groundwater contamination, from MTBE. Finally, the bill offers some hope that we will get at least a little bit further in developing some of the technologies that can help combat climate change. Again, it includes a sense-of-the-Congress resolution regarding LICAP, an issue now important to the State of Connecticut but potentially important to us all. There is also good news to be found in what this bill does not do. It does not include provisions for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It avoids rollbacks to the Clean Air Act, rollbacks harmful to not just the Northeast, but to all who live and work in areas downwind of pollution sources. Despite these positives, I am disappointed by the missed opportunities for setting a bold, forward-looking 21st century energy policy. Opportunities to establish a renewable portfolio standard. Opportunities to protect the Outer Continental Shelf fully from potential exploration and drilling. Opportunities to develop clear steps to reduce our dependence on oil. Opportunities to protect our drinking water from possible contamination by toxic hydraulic fracturing fluids. Opportunities to take our first real steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I urge my colleagues to consider this a beginning, and to continue in earnest our work to reduce the dependence on oil that is so undermining of our national and economic security, to develop alternative and renewable energy sources as well as conservation techniques, and to address the problem of climate change with mandatory steps that are so clearly required, as clearly expressed in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution passed by this body last month. Exhibit 1 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, June 24, 2005. Re ISO-New England LICAP Proposal, Docket No. ER 03-563, NESCOE Petition, Docket No. EL04-112. Hon. Patrick Wood, III, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington,

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would like to yield the hour allotted to me to the floor manager, the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia. Five minutes is the maximum I require.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Let me first thank the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, for the extraordinary work they have done in bringing this bill forward. I am honored to be a member of the committee and proudly support its work. Amendment No. 1389 Mr. President, I rise today to speak specifically about amendment No. 1389 offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune. I am one of many cosponsors of this amendment. Its intention is to delay the implementation of the current round of base realignment and closures, the so-called BRAC, until we are better able to assess our defense needs. The news from London in the last few days reminds us in the most stark and stunning ways of the fact that we are at war. It may not feel like that to most of us. It is a different kind of war. But there is an enemy out there worldwide who is committed to achieving some kind of victory over us and our allies and establishing a regime in a significant part of the world that would be fanatical, hateful, and, to say the least, undermine our national security and our national principles. In the midst of such a war, it seems to me the reduction of our base structure has to be done with real care. The point of Senator Thune's amendment, to delay this process, is this: One, we are in a war. As Senator Salazar said with great effect and poignancy, we have tens of thousands of American soldiers coming and going from Iraq, using bases in a way we may not have foreseen when this particular base realignment and closure process began. We also are being asked and the Commission is being asked to make final judgments about some very important military installations in our country but before our final facts are before the Commission, the Congress, and the Pentagon. That is the intention of the Thune legislation, which, as I say, I am a cosponsor of--to put the brakes on, to say, let's not rush to judgment. Because in some cases of bases the Pentagon has recommended be closed, we may look back and say: This rush to judgment has really been a dash to disaster, that we have closed some military facilities we will urgently need in the years ahead. Of course, I support cutting excess and unneeded defense spending and support saving money where we can. That is why I earlier voted for the BRAC round. But I think Senator Thune and I, and so many others, when we saw the recommendations come out--now, in the middle of a war, based on information that is incomplete--we said to ourselves: Let's just step back a bit and get the facts we need before we make these final judgments. Let me state it clearly. I have a local interest in this. The Pentagon has recommended, as all my colleagues know, the closing of Submarine Base New London, an extraordinary, in my opinion, national asset. But the point I want to make is if you close, God forbid, Submarine Base New London or some of these other bases that are recommended for closure, that is it. This is not like turning off the water in your house when you go away for a summer vacation, and when you come back and turn it back on, there is the water. If you close a base like Submarine Base New London, it is never going to be opened again. Therefore, you have to be able to reach a conclusion that not only is it not of military value today and in the near future, but it never will be; that is, in decades ahead, in an uncertain world. In this case of this submarine base--and I fear in some of the others--the facts that were used as a basis for the judgment do not stand up. Too often, monetary savings have been confused with military value, and military value has been based on judgments that are incomplete. And here I come to one of our larger points: The Pentagon is now in the midst of its Quadrennial Defense Review, the most significant overarching review of America's military needs and goals for the future. That review is due next year. But we are being asked through BRAC and eventually in Congress to make final judgments on these bases before the final information is in, in the midst of a war. I can tell you about Submarine Base New London, which I know best. The recommendation to close seems to be based on an estimate of the size of our submarine force, our attack submarine force, in the years ahead, which is the lowest anyone has ever seen and lower than every other study that has been done. I suppose if the base is closed, it will prejudge the fact. But I fear we will look back and say in the years ahead, as we face rising pure competitors: Why did we ever do that? I have enough confidence in this particular Base Realignment and Closure Commission and the independence and strength with which they are going at their responsibilities, at every turn making it clear they are not just going to be a rubberstamp for the Pentagon, that they are not going to allow Submarine Base New London to be closed. But I worry there are bases across this Nation that are recommended for closing on insubstantial, incomplete information that we will regret having closed. This amendment No. 1389 says: Let's just step back for a while. Let's wait until the Quadrennial Defense Review is in. Let's wait until we see the return of some more of our troops from Iraq so we know what our base needs are here at home. Let us not rush to judgment. We are talking about our national security in a time of war, in an uncertain world, with rising new superpowers, but much more menacing than that: rogue states and nonstate actors gaining access to weapons of mass destruction. We have to get this right. I believe Senator Thune's amendment would help us do that. Mr. President, I will just say one final word about the news from London. I am sure the distinguished occupant of the chair, like myself, has been following these developments closely. They remind us that there is an insidious group out there, a fanatical group that will strike at civilians and try to strike panic in the hearts of average citizens to gain their political goals. What has been as stirring as the attacks in London have been revolting has been the reaction of the British people. It really does remind us of their strength and determination during the Second World War. It is an inspiration. Most of all, I hope it will send a message to these terrorists that they may strike, but we are stronger than they are. Our principles are superior to theirs. They will never defeat us. I thank our friends from Britain, the average citizens, whose actions and words speak so loudly to us of their faith in the future, for giving us that model and that inspiration. We stand with them today as they have stood with us on so many previous days. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 1343, 1430 through 1432, En Bloc

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Maine that the Committee report pertains to the amendment as well as to S. 21, on which the amendment is almost wholly based. The report provides a useful explanation of, and a broader context to, the amendment, and I recommend that those participating in the conference of the Homeland Security Appropriations bill look to it to elucidate the amendment. Also, to the extent that the language of Amendment #1142 will be enacted, I urge the Department of Homeland Security and others who may be called upon to implement or interpret these provisions to look to the text of the committee report for guidance in that implementation or interpretation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about an amendment to the pending matter, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. But the focal statements of my friend from Texas lead me to say a word about the apparently imminent nomination by the President of a Justice to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor. I want to particularly identify myself with Senator Cornyn's call that to the extent possible, we dispatch our very important responsibilities to advise and consent to the President's nomination to the Court in a nonpolitical manner. I have been in politics all my adult life, so I am not naive. I know when you have a political environment such as today, which is intensely partisan, when you have a Supreme Court, such as we have today, which is quite closely divided on some of the major issues facing our country, that it is going to be hard for this to be a totally nonpolitical process. But I do think, to the extent possible, that is what the Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of our country wanted us to do, and that is what our responsibility as Senators in this Chamber calls on us to do. The fact is, in the magnificent framework that the Founders created for the American Government, which has stood this great democracy, this great Republic so well for now more than two centuries, the Supreme Court was intended to occupy a unique place. It is the least political of the branches of Government. It is the branch of Government that is not occupied by elected officials. Supreme Court Justices, appointed by the President, serve life terms, going well beyond, in most cases, the term of the President who appointed them. The Supreme Court, in the contemplation of the Founders of this country, was meant to be that branch of Government that is most separated from the political passions of the moment that might lead the legislative or executive branch to take a particular action. The Supreme Court is there to apply, if you will allow me to say so, the eternal values incorporated in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the matters of the moment that come before them. They are human, so they obviously are sensitive to what is happening around them. The high calling of the Court is to look beyond the moment, including the political controversies of the moment, and do what they think the Constitution requires them to do and what the future of this constitutional Republic of ours requires them to do. This is a big moment which, to the best of our ability, we should try to keep as nonpolitical as possible, nonpartisan as possible, to focus on the nominee in a thoughtful way. I agree, it would be an unusual circumstance if people started to jump to conclusions immediately as to whether they were for or against the person the President will apparently announce tonight. It is going to require some consideration of the person's record, some thoughtful consideration. The Judiciary Committee will hold hearings. There will be public questioning. So we are going to have ample time to find out more about the nominee. There may be partisans on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, both ideological sides--left and right--who will want to immediately and, in some sense already have, make this nomination a matter of controversy, confrontation, division. That is their right in our democracy. But ultimately this comes down to 101 people: the President of the United States who, in the first instance, the most significant by virtue of having been elected, has earned the right to make this nomination, and then the other 100, of course, are the Members of this Senate. For the President and for the 100 of us privileged to serve in the Senate today, this is one of the big moments in our service because Supreme Court Justices have so much to say over the course of a generation or two about the quality of American freedom, about the quality of our Government, about the balance of rights, about the adjudication of controversies in our country. We are all going to be tested. I look forward to a nominee being named tonight who, I hope, will fill the President's pledge that he will nominate somebody who is mainstream, but he will not apply litmus tests. I thank the White House, including the President, for the consultation that has gone on with Members of the Senate of both parties leading up to this nomination tonight. Most of all, I hope we in this Chamber, because this is our responsibility, will conduct ourselves in a way that will be thoughtful; that not only will lead to an appropriate result in regard to the confirmation or failure to do so of the nominee, but will also bring some honor to this Chamber, and at a moment, as I said a moment ago, when there is too much polarization in our politics, that we will together do what is right for our country, at home and abroad. Amendment No. 1248 Mr. President, I came to the floor today to thank the floor managers, Senators McConnell and Leahy, for their stewardship of this very important bill, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. I also specifically came to thank them for accepting an amendment on refugees that I offered to this bill with Senators Brownback and Kennedy, a bipartisan measure. Senators McConnell and Leahy have a longstanding commitment to the well-being of refugees, and this priority is reflected in the legislation they have reported out of the committee which devotes $900 million to refugee assistance. This is a worthy expenditure of America's money. That figure is more than the administration had requested. And I hope that in future years, the many supporters of refugees in both the Senate and the House--on both sides of the aisle-- can work together to increase our support for refugee assistance. This Nation of ours has been the home to so many who have come here seeking freedom and a better life. It is the essence of what America is about, and that includes addressing the systemic problems that have kept so many refugees in exile, confined in camps without a real home. Senator Kennedy and Senator Brownback have been leaders in calling attention to the longstanding plight of refugees in the world. Earlier this year, I was privileged to cosponsor a resolution they submitted condemning the so-called warehousing of refugees. The amendment we offered, which was accepted yesterday by the floor managers, builds on that antiwarehousing resolution by directing the expenditure of funds on programs that can help move refugees out of these camps and ease their assimilation into normal communities. The amendment addresses the heartrending conditions of millions of refugees who have been confined in these camps for many years. Here is a number that may stun people who are listening. Worldwide, there are 8 million refugees who have been confined to camps or other restricted settlements for longer than 5 years. That is a number that represents more than half of all refugees in the world--8 million in camps for at least 5 years. In many cases, the refugees have been confined in camps for decades. These warehouse refugees include people who have fled oppressive regimes, civil wars, even genocide. Their confinement deprives them, in my opinion, of the guaranteed right of the U.N. Refugee Convention of 1951, such as the right to work, to travel, to own property, and to receive a basic education. Generations of refugees are born and die in camps. They cannot support their families. Their living conditions too often are horrendous. Their inherent potential as human beings, as recognized by our own Declaration of Independence, is suppressed and squandered. Unfortunately, the neighboring countries that have absorbed a sudden inflow of refugees are often the least equipped to care for them. So it is with the Burmese, the subject of the resolution adopted today, sanctioning the Burmese Government for antidemocratic policies. So it is with the Burmese who have fled to Thailand during this circumstance, to Bangladesh and India, the Angolans in Zambia, the Bhutanese in Nepal, and the Somalians and Sudanese in Kenya. In response to immediate humanitarian needs, refugees are frequently massed in camps where nongovernmental organizations and the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees can more easily get aid to them. That is an understandable short-term reaction. Too often the camps have become long-term realities. We cannot expect developing countries such as Africa, Asia and Latin America to shoulder alone the burden of assimilating refugees, but neither can we accept a status quo that allows millions to remain massed at border camps indefinitely. Instead, we must work with countries that host refugee communities to develop alternatives to confinement in camps, and that is what the language of this amendment that Senators Kennedy, Brownback, and I have introduced will do. Our amendment directs the Secretary of State to work with the UNHR, with nongovernmental organizations, and with host countries to develop programs that support refugees outside of camps, programs that facilitate the integration of refugees by promoting their access to schools, health care, and other local services in the communities in which the camps are located. The international donor community will need to be responsive to local needs and, of course, local sensitivities. We have to create incentives for the host communities so they can see the local assimilation of refugees as an opportunity, not a threat. For example, refugees with special skills can help create economic opportunities for others around them. Our aid can pay for doctors, teachers, and facilities that are shared by the refugees and the local communities, thus benefiting the local community as well, or for job training and job creation programs that also would benefit the people in the surrounding communities. Our amendment calls on the State Department to fund programs that encourage dialog among local communities, the United Nations, and nongovernmental organizations. There is no easy solution to this refugee crisis that exists around the world, but it does cry out to us as the strongest and, in my opinion, greatest and most humanitarian nation in the world to do something to assist these people, these fellow citizens of this Earth. In some instances, conditions will improve sufficiently so that refugees can return to their home countries. Many nations offer to resettle refugees, but relatively few of the world's refugees actually get that opportunity. Permanent integration into the country of first asylum is also rare, and that leaves a temporary solution that is neither temporary nor a solution, which is confinement in camps. Many in Congress and others around the world are speaking out against the warehousing of refugees. They are looking for a better way. Helping to improve the lives of refugees will take work, it will take money, and it will take perseverance, but that is what this country is all about. It is worth it when we consider the living conditions of the Sudanese, Burmese, and other refugee children. Let us think about the children who are born in these camps and will die in these camps unless we do something to help them. Without our help, they will never have a future beyond the confinement of these camps. When we think about what this $900 million can do to open up the possibility of a future to these children, we know it is worth it. That is why I am honored to have worked with Senators Kennedy and Brownback on this amendment, and again I am very grateful to Senators McConnell and Leahy for accepting it. It was amendment No. 1248. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to be present and cast votes the week of June 27. My mother, Marcia Lieberman, passed away on June 27 and her funeral was June 28, and I observed a period of mourning in Connecticut for the remainder of that week. While, as I stated to Senator Reid, I would have returned to the Capitol and voted had my vote been determinative of the outcome, that did not become an issue regarding votes that week. Before I address the various pieces of legislation that the Senate considered during my absence, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues and their staffs for their acts of kindness and words of sympathy during this difficult time for me and my family. I have set forth below for the Record, for the information of my constituents, my positions on the legislation and key amendments considered the week of June 27. Had I been present for vote on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, I would have voted yes. The bill is far from perfect; indeed, it does next to nothing to address the challenge of climate change and leaves us much work still to do in creating the kind of robust and diverse fuel mix for our cars and trucks needed to provide America with true energy security. What the bill does do, however, to stimulate the development and use of technologies that can help us address these challenges--or at least to get a start--justifies supporting it. I was disappointed that when Senator McCain and I offered the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act as an amendment to bill, the Senate turned down the opportunity to adopt a truly comprehensive program to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions using a market system. My disappointment was tempered, however, when the Senate adopted a bipartisan resolution, which Senator McCain and I cosponsored with Senators Domenici and Bingaman and several others calling for a mandatory market-based emissions reduction program for greenhouse gases. I am hopeful that over time the Senate will come to see that the legislation that Senator McCain and I have been pushing for provides just the right vehicle for producing the legislation called for in the resolution. At the same time, I believe that the bill will help nudge our energy system towards a cleaner, more efficient future. In addition to including a renewable portfolio standard for electric utilities, the bill includes a range of incentives and other support for businesses and consumers to develop and use clean technologies and clean fuels in their businesses and homes and on our highways. Finally, I appreciate the fact that the bill--for the most part--does not include provisions that would weaken environmental protections for our air, water and land that, in the past, some have mistakenly believed to be necessary to advance energy policy. On Thursday, June 29, the Senate voted on H.R. 2361, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Below are comments on the amendments that were offered and the vote on final passage of the bill. I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to Senator Coburn's amendment No. 1019. Combating diabetes and alcohol and substance abuse in Indian country must continue to be a priority for Congress, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Health and Human Services. It is also important that we continue to support Federal land acquisition programs that preserve the environment in its natural state. I believe that the Appropriations Committee has looked at these programs and made difficult but sound decisions about the funding levels for both of them, and therefore oppose the motion. I also note that I would have voted for Senator Dorgan's subsequent amendment No. 1025. I would have voted for Senator Coburn's amendment No. 1003 because this amendment and similar sunshine laws would make it easier for Americans to understand how and what the Federal Government does on their behalf. By requiring that all limitations, earmarks, and directives be explicitly stated in the conference report, this amendment would have forced Congress to do a better job explaining to the American people where their tax dollars are being spent. While I preferred Senator Boxer's amendment No. 1023, I would have voted for Senator Burns's amendment No. 1068 because it at least ensures that the Environmental Protection Agency will undertake the specific tasks of reviewing this very serious public health issue and reporting its findings to Congress. The amendment also confirms the EPA's rulemaking process, which I believe should be a necessary prerequisite before any human pesticide testing should be allowed to continue. I look forward to reviewing the EPA's final recommendations, and after doing so, will be able to make a decision as to whether any human pesticide testing should be allowed. In the meantime, I strongly support the moratorium imposed by Senator Boxer's amendment on all pesticide testing involving humans and the use of such studies until the EPA conducts and completes what I expect to be a thorough investigative and rulemaking process that ensures the safety of all involved. I believe the government should steer clear of even being perceived as sanctioning these types of tests until there is a complete review of the risks involved. A moratorium like the one provided for in Senator Boxer's amendment is the prudent and reasonable course for us to take at this time. As noted earlier, I would have supported Senator Dorgan's amendment No. 1024 because it finds additional funding in an otherwise unnecessary account for health care on tribal lands. There is a need for additional money to meet the increasing demands for mental heath care and other health care programs designed to meet the unique concerns of Indian Country. Though the motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act to make this amendment possible did not pass, I look forward to working with Senator Dorgan and my colleagues on this very important issue. I would have supported the efforts of Senators Sununu and Bingaman in amendment No. 1026 to halt Federal subsidies for logging roads in the Tongass National Forest. I also support the efforts of Senators Murray and Santorum in proposing legislation that meets the critical and immediate needs of our veterans. Providing health care to our veterans is a promise we make to our servicemen and servicewomen when they agree to protect our country. We must continue to fulfill that promise by fully funding the veterans health care system at a level that meets the medical needs of all of those who have so valiantly and bravely served our country in the war on terror, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in all previous wars and conflicts. I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee for their work on this legislation and join my colleagues in supporting its final passage. On Thursday, June 30, the Senate voted on S. 1307, the implementing bill of the Dominican Republic and Central American Free Trade Agreement, DR-CAFTA. Had I been in Washington on June 30, I would have voted for the motion to proceed to consider and for the bill, because I believe that, as is the case with most free-trade agreements, DR-CAFTA overall is good for Connecticut and good for the country. I must raise two concerns that affect not only this bill, but our future efforts to expand trade. My first concern is with the way in which this agreement addresses--or fails to address--labor and environmental standards. Second, we may need to adjust our priorities when it comes to trade in order to resolve certain key issues in our relationship with China. When NAFTA was negotiated in the early 1990s, labor and environmental issues were dealt with in a side agreement; the parties' treaty obligations were that they enforce their own labor standards. When, in 2001, the Jordan Free Trade Agreement was adopted, the labor and environment provisions were included in the body of the agreement. As a result, they were fully subject to sanctions through the agreement's dispute resolution process. This was the culmination of crucial progress through the 1990s, not just for workers in Jordan who happened to benefit from the Jordan trade agreement, but also for import- sensitive industries in the U.S.--and for fostering broad bipartisan support for trade expansion. Unfortunately, the more recent trade agreements have retreated from the strong provisions in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement and I believe that in order to garner support of Congress, at a minimum, future trade agreements must include strong enforcement provisions that would prevent countries from backsliding or ignoring labor and environmental standards. As to my second concern, while we now focus on DR-CAFTA, our constituents continue to be concerned about China. They are right to do so since China is a country with almost ten times the gross domestic product of the Dominican Republic and Central American countries combined. Trade with, and support for, the democracies in Latin and Central America is important. That said, we must focus on the growing need to address trade pressures from China, including China's approach to manipulating its currency and subsidizing its manufacturing sector, as well as its failure to enact strong labor standards. The lack of a comprehensive U.S. trade policy results in a reactive, muddled trade agenda, rather than a focus on issues that will grow our economy, lower the trade deficit, and create jobs. On Friday, July 1, the Senate voted on H.R. 2419, The Department of Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Here are my positions on the amendment that was offered and on the vote on final passage of the bill. I would have supported Senator Boxer's amendment No. 1085 because the administration has failed to make the case for why the mission of this potential weapon can not be achieved by current weapon systems and America's nuclear arsenal already serves as an effective deterrent. We do not need to launch a new nuclear weapons program at this time. I would have supported final passage of the bill, which includes support for some important programs in my State.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to be present and cast votes the week of June 27. My mother, Marcia Lieberman, passed away on June 27 and her funeral was June 28, and I observed a period of mourning in Connecticut for the remainder of that week. While, as I stated to Senator Reid, I would have returned to the Capitol and voted had my vote been determinative of the outcome, that did not become an issue regarding votes that week. Before I address the various pieces of legislation that the Senate considered during my absence, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues and their staffs for their acts of kindness and words of sympathy during this difficult time for me and my family. I have set forth below for the Record, for the information of my constituents, my positions on the legislation and key amendments considered the week of June 27. Had I been present for vote on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, I would have voted yes. The bill is far from perfect; indeed, it does next to nothing to address the challenge of climate change and leaves us much work still to do in creating the kind of robust and diverse fuel mix for our cars and trucks needed to provide America with true energy security. What the bill does do, however, to stimulate the development and use of technologies that can help us address these challenges--or at least to get a start--justifies supporting it. I was disappointed that when Senator McCain and I offered the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act as an amendment to bill, the Senate turned down the opportunity to adopt a truly comprehensive program to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions using a market system. My disappointment was tempered, however, when the Senate adopted a bipartisan resolution, which Senator McCain and I cosponsored with Senators Domenici and Bingaman and several others calling for a mandatory market-based emissions reduction program for greenhouse gases. I am hopeful that over time the Senate will come to see that the legislation that Senator McCain and I have been pushing for provides just the right vehicle for producing the legislation called for in the resolution. At the same time, I believe that the bill will help nudge our energy system towards a cleaner, more efficient future. In addition to including a renewable portfolio standard for electric utilities, the bill includes a range of incentives and other support for businesses and consumers to develop and use clean technologies and clean fuels in their businesses and homes and on our highways. Finally, I appreciate the fact that the bill--for the most part--does not include provisions that would weaken environmental protections for our air, water and land that, in the past, some have mistakenly believed to be necessary to advance energy policy. On Thursday, June 29, the Senate voted on H.R. 2361, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Below are comments on the amendments that were offered and the vote on final passage of the bill. I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to Senator Coburn's amendment No. 1019. Combating diabetes and alcohol and substance abuse in Indian country must continue to be a priority for Congress, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Health and Human Services. It is also important that we continue to support Federal land acquisition programs that preserve the environment in its natural state. I believe that the Appropriations Committee has looked at these programs and made difficult but sound decisions about the funding levels for both of them, and therefore oppose the motion. I also note that I would have voted for Senator Dorgan's subsequent amendment No. 1025. I would have voted for Senator Coburn's amendment No. 1003 because this amendment and similar sunshine laws would make it easier for Americans to understand how and what the Federal Government does on their behalf. By requiring that all limitations, earmarks, and directives be explicitly stated in the conference report, this amendment would have forced Congress to do a better job explaining to the American people where their tax dollars are being spent. While I preferred Senator Boxer's amendment No. 1023, I would have voted for Senator Burns's amendment No. 1068 because it at least ensures that the Environmental Protection Agency will undertake the specific tasks of reviewing this very serious public health issue and reporting its findings to Congress. The amendment also confirms the EPA's rulemaking process, which I believe should be a necessary prerequisite before any human pesticide testing should be allowed to continue. I look forward to reviewing the EPA's final recommendations, and after doing so, will be able to make a decision as to whether any human pesticide testing should be allowed. In the meantime, I strongly support the moratorium imposed by Senator Boxer's amendment on all pesticide testing involving humans and the use of such studies until the EPA conducts and completes what I expect to be a thorough investigative and rulemaking process that ensures the safety of all involved. I believe the government should steer clear of even being perceived as sanctioning these types of tests until there is a complete review of the risks involved. A moratorium like the one provided for in Senator Boxer's amendment is the prudent and reasonable course for us to take at this time. As noted earlier, I would have supported Senator Dorgan's amendment No. 1024 because it finds additional funding in an otherwise unnecessary account for health care on tribal lands. There is a need for additional money to meet the increasing demands for mental heath care and other health care programs designed to meet the unique concerns of Indian Country. Though the motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act to make this amendment possible did not pass, I look forward to working with Senator Dorgan and my colleagues on this very important issue. I would have supported the efforts of Senators Sununu and Bingaman in amendment No. 1026 to halt Federal subsidies for logging roads in the Tongass National Forest. I also support the efforts of Senators Murray and Santorum in proposing legislation that meets the critical and immediate needs of our veterans. Providing health care to our veterans is a promise we make to our servicemen and servicewomen when they agree to protect our country. We must continue to fulfill that promise by fully funding the veterans health care system at a level that meets the medical needs of all of those who have so valiantly and bravely served our country in the war on terror, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in all previous wars and conflicts. I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee for their work on this legislation and join my colleagues in supporting its final passage. On Thursday, June 30, the Senate voted on S. 1307, the implementing bill of the Dominican Republic and Central American Free Trade Agreement, DR-CAFTA. Had I been in Washington on June 30, I would have voted for the motion to proceed to consider and for the bill, because I believe that, as is the case with most free-trade agreements, DR-CAFTA overall is good for Connecticut and good for the country. I must raise two concerns that affect not only this bill, but our future efforts to expand trade. My first concern is with the way in which this agreement addresses--or fails to address--labor and environmental standards. Second, we may need to adjust our priorities when it comes to trade in order to resolve certain key issues in our relationship with China. When NAFTA was negotiated in the early 1990s, labor and environmental issues were dealt with in a side agreement; the parties' treaty obligations were that they enforce their own labor standards. When, in 2001, the Jordan Free Trade Agreement was adopted, the labor and environment provisions were included in the body of the agreement. As a result, they were fully subject to sanctions through the agreement's dispute resolution process. This was the culmination of crucial progress through the 1990s, not just for workers in Jordan who happened to benefit from the Jordan trade agreement, but also for import- sensitive industries in the U.S.--and for fostering broad bipartisan support for trade expansion. Unfortunately, the more recent trade agreements have retreated from the strong provisions in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement and I believe that in order to garner support of Congress, at a minimum, future trade agreements must include strong enforcement provisions that would prevent countries from backsliding or ignoring labor and environmental standards. As to my second concern, while we now focus on DR-CAFTA, our constituents continue to be concerned about China. They are right to do so since China is a country with almost ten times the gross domestic product of the Dominican Republic and Central American countries combined. Trade with, and support for, the democracies in Latin and Central America is important. That said, we must focus on the growing need to address trade pressures from China, including China's approach to manipulating its currency and subsidizing its manufacturing sector, as well as its failure to enact strong labor standards. The lack of a comprehensive U.S. trade policy results in a reactive, muddled trade agenda, rather than a focus on issues that will grow our economy, lower the trade deficit, and create jobs. On Friday, July 1, the Senate voted on H.R. 2419, The Department of Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Here are my positions on the amendment that was offered and on the vote on final passage of the bill. I would have supported Senator Boxer's amendment No. 1085 because the administration has failed to make the case for why the mission of this potential weapon can not be achieved by current weapon systems and America's nuclear arsenal already serves as an effective deterrent. We do not need to launch a new nuclear weapons program at this time. I would have supported final passage of the bill, which includes support for some important programs in my State.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senators from New Hampshire and West Virginia, respectively. It is my understanding the Senate Homeland Security; Appropriations Report includes language designating $50 million for ``Next Generation'' Explosive Detection Equipment, EDS, that ``have been tested, certified and are being piloted.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I wholeheartedly support the need to encourage new technologies. However, I think it is important we further clarify the purpose of this funding stream. I ask the Chairman ``Is it true the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, the agency responsible for issuing Letters of Intent, LOIs, that provides the funding to airports for the installation of EDS equipment, has only made less than a dozen LOIs available to the major airports? And is it not also correct smaller and medium hub airports have not received any of the LOIs issued to date?''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Therefore, is my understanding correct that the objective of this set aside was to aid in the development and deployment of next generation explosive detection equipment?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I further hope the procurement and deployment of EDS machines will be based on acquiring the best technology for the particular airport in question.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I applaud the leadership of both the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from West Virginia in helping to ensure TSA has the necessary funding to meet the critical missions of the agency and I appreciate their hard work on this issue.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security and my grave concern that it does not provide the tools we need to meet the threat of terrorism. This is not to criticize the appropriators who, as always, have done a thoughtful job in sorting through the many competing needs of the Department. But I feel strongly that neither the President nor the congressional leadership was willing to allocate sufficient funds for homeland security at the outset of this process and that, as a consequence, this bill comes up short on too many critical homeland programs. I speak with a sense of caution in the wake of last week's terrorist attacks on London. I agree with Secretary Chertoff's statement that we can't base our national homeland defense policies on a single attack especially since the specifics of the London attack are not known. Yet experts in and out of government keep warning us that nearly 4 years after 9/11 we are still vulnerable and will remain vulnerable unless we begin to seriously and strategically start investing in our own security. CIA Director Porter Goss this year told the Senate Intelligence Committee that ``it may only be a matter of time'' before terrorists try to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. At the same hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller also warned of possible terrorist operations within the United States, and called finding such terrorists ``one of the most difficult challenges'' his organization faces. Experts have identified billions of dollars in urgent homeland security needs, ranging from communications equipment for first responders, to transportation security, to securing our borders. Yet this year, the President proposed only modest increases for the Department of Homeland Security. And even those proposed increases were illusory based on a controversial proposed airline ticket fee that congressional budget leaders and appropriators have rejected. In letters to the Appropriations and Budget Committees earlier this year, I identified about $8.4 billion in critical homeland security needs above and beyond the President's proposed budget, with more than $6 billion of that for programs within the Department of Homeland Security. Yet the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have both approved bills that actually provide even less for DHS programs than the President proposed. It may be tempting to think we do not need to make these investments because we have already increased spending on homeland security since 9/11, and because we face difficult budget constraints. But when we focus on the new threat confronting us, it becomes clear that these investments are an urgent necessity. Let me highlight some of the most serious shortfalls, starting with transportation and mass transit. We know from last week's attack on London and last year's attacks in Moscow and Madrid that transit and rail systems are appealing targets for terrorists. And we also know we have far to go in making this country's transit and rail systems as secure as they should be. Experts have identified billions in unmet security needs for this array of critical assets. For mass transit alone, the American Public Transportation Association has identified more than $6 billion in security needs, and a committee-approved Senate bill last Congress would have authorized $5.2 billion for transit security over 3 years. These funds are needed to conduct security assessments, install sensors and other surveillance equipment, and train transit employees to cope with a terror attack. In the area of rail security, the Senate last session passed legislation authorizing $1.2 billion in Federal spending over 4 years, nearly half of it in the first year, for measures such as upgrading aging rail tunnels and other security measures, and increased R&D to reduce the vulnerability of passenger and freight trains. Unfortunately, the administration has shown little interest in funding rail or transit security measures and our systems remain dangerously exposed. Last year, Congress provided $150 million for rail and transit grants--and only because lawmakers pushed for this dedicated funding. This year, the President proposed no dedicated funding for rail and transit--just an unspecified share of an overall infrastructure protection grant fund--and the Senate Appropriations bill proposes only $100 million. We simply cannot make the progress we need at this rate. Rather, a dramatic new infusion is needed to harden these potential targets for terrorist mayhem. But mass transit and transportation security is just one example of the critical security needs that not receiving the investments they need to make the American homeland more secure. Under this legislation, terrorism preparedness funding for first responders would drop for the second straight year. In June 2003, a nonpartisan, independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and chaired by our former colleague Senator Warren Rudman, issued a report entitled ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.'' The report listed a number of urgent needs left unmet due to a lack of funding--including obtaining interoperable communications equipment, enhancing urban search and rescue capabilities, and providing protective gear and weapons of mass destruction remediation. The task force concluded that, at then-current funding levels, our Nation, over the course of 5 years, would fall nearly $100 billion short of meeting the needs of our first responders. Incredibly, though, the administration's response to this sobering analysis has been to cut funding for first responders--2 years running. Even taking into account proposed increases in two grant programs, the administration's proposed budget would slash overall DHS grants to first responders by $565 million. To my dismay, the Senate's DHS funding bill goes even further and cuts $587 million below last year's appropriation. This marks the second year these programs have been decreased, following a massive 32- percent reduction in the core homeland security grant programs in fiscal year 2005. None of these proposed cuts make sense given our pressing homeland security needs and the Senate voted 63 to 37 on a bipartisan basis for a Collins-Lieberman amendment to the budget resolution to restore the administration's proposed cuts to first responder programs at DHS. Unfortunately, that consensus was not reflected in the final budget resolution, nor in the pending appropriations bill does not reflect that consensus. To hold these programs at current levels is the very least we can and should do. In truth, we need significantly more funds to dramatically improve our abilities to prevent and respond to possible terror attacks. We especially need an infusion of new funds to help State and local communities develop interoperable communications systems that will allow officials and first responders to speak to one another during a crisis. Senator Collins and I have introduced legislation that would provide dedicated funding for interoperability, strengthen Federal leadership on this issue, fortify outreach and technical assistance to state and local first responders, promote greater regional cooperation and ensure research and development to achieve interoperability for first responders. The legislation would authorize $3.3 billion over 5 years for short and long-term interoperability initiatives. Another key concern is critical infrastructure protection. Damage to one or more key ports could wreak economic havoc, while the tens of thousands of containers streaming through those ports could also serve as conduits for a weapon of mass destruction. We have made important first steps toward securing our ports-- including through the Marine Transportation Security Act--but we know that much more remains to be done. We must also devote more resources and attention to safeguarding critical infrastructure sites such as chemical plants. As security expert Stephen Flynn testified before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee earlier this year, ``the [A]dministration must acknowledge that its assumption that the private sector would invest in meaningful security for the 85 percent of the nation's critical infrastructure that it owns--and upon which our way of life and quality of life depends--has not been borne out.'' Even in the area of aviation security, where the government has invested significant resources since 9/11, pressing needs remain. Many have pointed out the glaring weakness regarding air cargo. Passengers may be subject to exhaustive searches of their luggage and persons, yet air cargo loaded into the belly of the very same plane may undergo little or no scrutiny. Following a 9/11 Commission recommendation that steps be taken to improve air cargo security, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act included several provisions to enhance and augment existing programs. It authorized $2 million for the development of a pilot program to develop blast resistant cargo containers, which could be used on passenger planes to provide an additional layer of security. The bill also authorized an additional $300 million for fiscal year 2006 for ongoing air cargo security programs and additional air cargo research and development programs. Yet the President's budget request only included $40 million for air cargo security, and the Senate bill raises this amount just $10 million. Where is the sense of urgency this problem deserves? We also must move more quickly to install efficient and effective systems to screen passenger bags. I am concerned that the Senate bill holds funding for the installation of in-line explosives detection equipment at this year's level of about $400 million when it is estimated that more than $5 billion is needed to install the explosives detection equipment at approximately 60 major airports. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act authorized an additional money for this program, and according to investing in the up-front costs associated with installing this equipment could not only boost security but also provide significant savings to DHS in labor costs. We are also shortchanging the U.S. Coast Guard and its leadership role in homeland defense. Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has been asked to dramatically increase these security functions even as it continues to perform critical nonsecurity roles in areas such as search and rescue and fisheries enforcement. Unfortunately, resources have not kept pace with the extraordinary demands being placed upon this service. I am particularly concerned about the deepwater program to modernize the Coast Guard's aged and fast deteriorating fleet--which includes cutters commissioned during World War II and aircraft as much as 30 years old. Although the Senate bill does provide a modest increase for the deepwater program, it is less than the President's budget and will not speed up the modernization program. Indeed, the Coast Guard has estimated that $240 million--virtually the entire proposed increase for the program--will be needed in fiscal year 2006 just to maintain its legacy assets. At the current rate, it will take more than 20 years to finish the fleet and systems overhaul--hardly the pace associated with true ``modernization.'' Accelerating the deepwater project is not only good for our security, it makes good financial sense. Last year, a RAND report concluded that accelerating the deepwater program to 10 years would provide the Coast Guard with almost one million additional mission hours which could be used for homeland security, saving the Federal Government approximately $4 billion in the long term. This is hardly an exhaustive list of the unmet homeland security needs, but it should serve to illustrate that we are not doing all that we could or should to meet the homeland threat. At a January 26, 2005 hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, homeland security expert Flynn stated: ``Any honest appraisal of the department as it approaches its 2nd anniversary would acknowledge that while there have been significant accomplishments in some areas, we are a very long ways from where we need to be.'' Flynn describes our predicament well in his recent book, America the Vulnerable: ``Homeland security has entered our post-9/11 lexicon, but homeland insecurity remains the abiding reality. With the exception of airports, much of what is critical to our way of life remains unprotected . . . From water and food supplies, refineries, energy grids and pipelines; bridges, tunnels, trains, trucks and cargo containers; to the cyber backbone that underpins the information age in which we live, the measures we have been cobbling together are hardly fit to deter amateur thieves, vandals and hackers, never mind determined terrorists. Worse still, small improvements are often oversold as giant steps forward, lowering the guard of average citizens as they carry on their daily routine with an unwarranted sense of confidence.'' Flynn also rightly points out that homeland security spending is still minuscule in comparison to the overall Pentagon budget, revealing the extent to which our government continues to perceive that the country's primary threats will be found only outside our borders. We must remember how exposed we rightly felt on September 11, 2001, and listen to the security experts who tell us that this threat is one we must live with--and prepare for--for the indefinite future. I hope we can step back and take stock of what we are doing with respect to homeland security. Experts have warned that, in the absence of new attacks, there is a danger of complacency. I fear we are losing the urgency and determination we shared immediately after the 9/11 attacks, to do whatever we could to thwart another such assault. The threat is still there--and so must be our commitment to meet it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to LCpl Thomas William Fritsch, U.S. Marines, of Cromwell, CT. Lance Corporal Fritsch lived as a true patriot and defender of our great Nation's principles of freedom and justice. While serving during the Vietnam War, a group of marines from Battery D, including Lance Corporal Fritsch, was assigned to search for Sergeant Miller and medic Thomas Perry. The search had become necessary when it was apparent that the medic was missing during the evacuation of the base at Ngok Tavak which had come under enemy attack early on the morning of the 10th of May, 1968. It was during the course of this search when the small group was attacked by enemy fire. Although it has been 37 years since his loss, his repatriation serves as a testament to our Nation's commitment to our Prisoners of War, those Missing in Action, and their families. I commend the Department of Defense Prisoner of War and Missing Personnel Office for their remarkable and tireless efforts during their numerous investigations which have once again been successful in identifying one of our Nation's heroes. I can only imagine the range of emotions caused by the loss and years of uncertainty experienced by Lance Corporal Fritsch's family, as well as other families of our servicemen missing in action. In addition to his family, there are many in Connecticut who still remember him fondly. As a 1966 graduate of the EC Goodwin Technical- Vocational School in New Britain, CT, he is remembered as a good friend, a good neighbor, and an active member of the community who enjoyed volunteering for the Portland Fire Department and participating in the Boy Scouts. Perhaps, Lance Corporal Fritsch will most be remembered as an aspiring chef as his former guidance counselor, Jane Rich, vividly recalls. Lance Corporal Fritsch will soon be laid to rest at Rose Hill Cemetery in Rocky Hill. Lance Corporal Fritsch lives on through his parents, William and Mary, and his siblings, Patricia, Gloria, Bill and Steve whom I thank for his patriotic service. Our Nation extends its heartfelt condolences to his family. We extend our appreciation for sharing this outstanding marine with us, and hope that they may find peace and closure. They may be justifiably proud of his contributions.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support this amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill to provide additional funding for our first responders and preventers--the men and women who go to work every day to keep our communities safe, and who rush into the face of disaster when it happens. Last Thursday, the world saw again with the despicable attacks in London that terrorists are still capable of killing innocent civilians. It is yet another wake up call to all of us, and a sign that we cannot let down our guard. We must stay vigilant. In fact, our intelligence and security experts have been telling us in no uncertain terms that the threat of terrorist attacks right here at home is one we will have to live with for some time to come. CIA Director Porter Goss has said, ``It may only be a matter of time'' before terrorists strike again within our borders with weapons of mass destruction. And FBI Director Robert Mueller has said our Nation is, ``awash in desirable'' targets for terrorists. Given these pronouncements, it is wrong to leave our police, firefighters, and emergency medical workers undertrained and ill- equipped to protect American citizens. We would never consider denying the training and equipment needs of our men and women fighting in Iraq and we should not deny the training and equipment needs of those we rely on to protect us in the war on terror at home. Yet that is exactly what this spending bill does. It sends the wrong message not only to first responders and the state and local officials struggling to cover the costs of preparing for new threats. It also sends a dangerous message of complacency to the public. The amendment that Senator Akaka and I are offering today would boost our first responder spending by $587 million--to restore three key grants programs to last year's funding levels. Those grant programs are the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Areas Security Initiative, and the Fire Assistance Grant Program--all of which supply first responders with the training and equipment they need to do their jobs effectively and safely. Opponents of this amendment will argue that Congress has already appropriated billions of dollars for first responders and preventers since September 11, and that some $7 billion remains unspent in the pipeline. This is a common misperception. First, the $7 billion figure includes fiscal year 2005 grant funds-- funds that were only made available to states by DHS very recently and that could not reasonably be expected to have already been spent in the middle of the same fiscal year. Second, the $7 billion refers to money that has not actually been ``drawn down'' from the U.S. Treasury. Much of this money, however, has been legally obligated for specific purposes or in some cases even already spent. As DHS's inspector general observed in a March 2004 report on the distribution of first responder grants, ``The amounts of funds drawn down by states provide an incomplete picture of the progress states and local jurisdictions are making. A more accurate way to monitor progress would be to identify the amount of funds obligated and spent (outlays) by the states and local jurisdictions.'' Following this approach and looking at data we have received from the Department of Homeland Security, it appears that virtually all the money that has been awarded to States in prior years under the three main homeland security first responder grant programs--the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, has been obligated. At any rate, the billions we have appropriated over the years still pales by comparison to what most experts--Republican and Democrat--say is needed to adequately prepare our first responders and preventers. In June 2003, a nonpartisan task force chaired by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman reported that--over the next 5 years--we will under fund the needs of critical emergency responders by nearly $100 billion. And that figure was arrived at based on maintaining 2003 funding levels. The task force found that, on average, fire departments had enough radios to equip only half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one-third. Just 10 percent had the personnel and equipment needed to respond to a building collapse; and police departments did not have the protective gear needed to secure the site of a WMD attack. These dismal numbers may have improved somewhat since 2003, but no one has suggested that our level of preparedness is near where it should be. On the key issue of first responder communications interoperability-- the top priority of State and local homeland security advisors--the task force recommended spending almost $7 billion over 5 years. And DHS estimates the cost of modernizing first responder communications infrastructure at $40 billion. No wonder most States have not yet achieved interoperability. In March, New York's Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response reported that emergency medical workers generally lack not only proper equipment but also proper training. And at a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing in April, we heard disturbing testimony that first responders are often not prepared to respond adequately to accidents at chemical facilities, leaving the American public dangerously exposed, even more so if there is deliberate release caused by terrorists. I cannot say it often enough: our first responders are on the frontlines of the war on terror here at home, and we must equip and train them to do their jobs safely and effectively. Words of praise are useless. They need dollars--dollars to help train and equip State and local police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians to help detect or disrupt terrorist activity before an attack occurs or to save as many lives as possible and contain the damage if an attack occurs. This amendment is a modest proposal--$587 million--and it seeks primarily to halt to downward trend in funding for our Nation's first responders, and important, and I hope achievable goal. Last year, we spent more on Mars exploration. I have consistently advocated that we spend much more to make sure that first responders have the training and equipment they need to keep the American people safe. For example, earlier this year, I proposed to the Budget and Appropriations Committees that we spend $4.2 billion more for first responders and preventers, consistent with the advice of experts who have told us that we need to invest billions more to secure our Nation. Yet this appropriations bill reflects, once again, an ill-advised administration strategy to reduce funding for first responders for the second year in a row. This is no time to retreat. I urge my colleagues to support this modest but urgent effort to meet our homeland security needs.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Maine. I regret I had other commitments that did not allow me to join with her in defense of our very worthy amendment. I look forward to being back here at 2:15 when we return to it. Yesterday, I explained why I believe that our amendment is the right thing to do. It is balanced. It increases the funding based on risk to those areas that have been deemed to be highest risk. But it recognizes a reality that terrorists strike at vulnerable targets. Because they struck Washington and New York on September 11, 2001, doesn't mean that they are not going to strike smaller areas of our country, less populated, in the years ahead. In fact, one of the great fears people have had is of a coordinated series of terrorist attacks on public places outside of large urban areas. The fact is, those places in America need to have some support from us as well for their first responders and to serve also as first preventers. That is exactly what our amendment does. The amendment introduced by the Senators from California and Texas would all but eliminate the minimum amount of Homeland Security funding guaranteed to each State and would give the Secretary of Homeland Security almost unfettered discretion over more than 90 percent of Homeland Security grant funds. This amendment that Senator Collins and I have introduced dedicates significantly more funding to purely risk- based grants than has been the case in previous years. Under our amendment, it is fair to say that everybody gets more support to protect their citizens against the terrorist threat, including those areas that are deemed to be the highest risk, but at the same time we, in the Collins-Lieberman amendment, strike a judicious balance that would allow each State to achieve basic preparedness. Further, substantial reductions in the minimum would make it more difficult for States to achieve those essential capabilities, as outlined in the National Preparedness Goals that the Department of Homeland Security has set out for our Nation. I want to very briefly outline, in the minute or two left before we go to another matter, several reasons why I think we should stick with the balanced approach in S. 21, which is the Collins-Lieberman amendment that came out of the Homeland Security Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support--only one vote against it. While there is a need for more risk-based funding, risk-based methodology is an art, not a science. The bottom line is that while we think we know where terrorists wish to attack based on past experience, the fact is we don't know for sure. They strike hard targets, they strike soft targets. Risk-based methodology is an art the Department of Homeland Security is still struggling to develop. So let's not talk about it as if it is science. It is prediction. It is a probability. If we focus all of our funding on where those probabilities lead, it will leave most of the country undefended. Terrorists have demonstrated a willingness to attack a wide variety of targets in a wide variety of places. In 2001, a plot was uncovered by intelligence agencies to attack an American school in Singapore. In 2002, in Bali, terrorists targeted a discotheque. In 2003, terrorists struck a residential compound in Riyadh. In 2004, terrorists targeted a school in Beslan, Russia. Most of these may not have been considered to be high-risk areas, but nonetheless they were targets of terrorists. Our own distinguished FBI Director Bob Mueller has said America is awash in desirable targets for the terrorists throughout this country. Funding provided to States outside of the so-called high-risk areas could well be the key to preventing an attack in another State, which I will speak to later in the day. The Collins-Lieberman amendment will assure that every State can achieve the level of preparedness the Department of Homeland Security has defined for the Nation. It will be a predictable, reliable stream of funding. The bottom line is more States have more to gain from our amendment in defense of our homeland security. I thank the Chair. Noting the hour, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1129

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is an important debate. I wish to give a little background to it because there is a sense in which what is said up here is a contest between the Collins-Lieberman amendment and the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. Both of these amendments are amendments to the underlying bill. It is in that sense I urge my colleagues to consider the Collins-Lieberman amendment first. There is some history to this amendment. It just didn't arise up in response to this Homeland Security appropriations bill, but from our committee; Senator Collins is the chair and I am the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. This is the committee from which the Department of Homeland Security emerged as an entity to be adopted by the Congress and signed and implemented by the President. We have been concerned about these homeland security grants because, if I am correct, we had some testimony that there was not another grant program of this size, over $1 billion--over $2 billion, actually, last year--that did not have an authorization, that just sort of was in the air. We wanted to create an authorization for it. We also wanted to create some accountability. This is a lot of money. We, as Senator Collins has indicated, create a series of auditing and review processes to make sure the people's money is well spent so we do not find the kind of wastefulness of which Senator Collins has given examples. So that is the first thing. The bill, S. 21, that passed our committee overwhelmingly--as a matter of fact, I believe it passed on a unanimous voice vote, bipartisan obviously--becomes this amendment, so it creates an authorization. Second, it creates a formula. Because the formula has been changing from year to year at the judgment of the Department of Homeland Security and the administration, it doesn't give a predictable flow of funds to the local communities that are trying to prepare themselves to protect us from a terrorist attack, which could occur anywhere in this country. The second part of it is, how do you allocate the money in the formula? That is what now is at issue between the two amendments that are being debated, the Collins-Lieberman and the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment. Senator Collins and I very strongly believe that our amendment, the committee proposal, is balanced. The choice seems to be, do you allocate based totally on risk assessments or do you allocate based on risk assessments and then give some minimum amount to every State in the country because we are not sure where the terrorists are going to strike next? My friends who are supporting the other amendment sometimes have seemed to describe what is at issue here as a choice between a congressionally mandated, politically inspired--some dare use the word pork barrel formula--on the one hand and an intelligence-driven, pure risk-based approach determined by the Department of Homeland Security on the other hand. Not true. In fact, contrary to what my friend from New York, Senator Schumer, just said, it is not really a battle between big States and small States. It is a much more complicated but very crucial argument here as to how you assess risk in an age of terrorism, post-9/11, when our homeland was struck and 3,000 people were killed. Sometimes my friends supporting the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment speak about risk assessment as if it were pure science, as if it were an exercise that was 100 percent predictable, as if one could say 2 plus 2 equals 4. That is right, you can say that: 2 plus 2 equals 4. You cannot make that same kind of certain conclusion about risk assessments regarding where terrorists will strike. The fact is, forgive me--maybe don't forgive me--terrorists are inherently irrational, insane, crazy, inhumane. So how could we predict where they are going to strike next? We understand one of the factors they consider is the visibility of an attack. Presumably that is one of the reasons why they struck on September 11 in New York and in Washington. But that is not the only motivation they have. Their motivation is to create panic and fear in our society. In fact, they have not always struck major population centers. Remember the disco attacks in Bali, a resort area. Why was that done? There are westerners gathered there, and it was done to terrify people in an area where they would not expect to be attacked. What about the school in Beslam, Russia? That was not a major population center. That was carried out in a community similar to thousands of communities across America for the psychological impact as well as the brutal effect on the children who were there. When we talk about risk analysis, it is not a certainty. It is an educated guess about where the terrorists are going to strike next. The most likely guess, an educated guess about where they will strike in the United States. But does that justify not continuing to fund the Homeland Security grants, the local law enforcement personnel all across America in other medium-sized cities and small cities? What about the risk everyone talks about of attacking our food supply or poisoning our water supply? That risk is not in the cities designated, according to the conventional risk analysis, as high risk. The 9/11 Commission said our failure to be better prepared for September 11, our failure to do more to prevent it was what they described as a ``failure of imagination.'' What did they mean? We could not imagine that people would do what the terrorists did on September 11. And they were right. Therefore, as we think about how best to protect America, we have to put ourselves in the perverse and hateful heads of terrorists. There is all too much of a plausibility that terrorists want to strike not just the major population centers but smaller towns, places where people congregate. Want to create real panic in the United States? Do something like that. For us to assume, based on essentially an educated guess that is risk analysis, that all the communities around the country that need our help should not get some amount of help seems to me to be without foundation. Senator Collins was very compelling yesterday when she said also that if we take the September 11 attacks and look at places around America where those 19 terrorists gained access to the United States--Portland, ME, for instance; they took off from Portland to head to New York; the small towns where they trained in flying planes, where they acquired equipment to carry out their deadly deeds--we need to provide the kind of support that the Collins-Lieberman amendment provides to law enforcement officers all across America, the 700,000, God bless them, out there risking their lives every day for us. They are the first responders. But they are also the first preventers, the ones whose eyes and ears are all across America. They see that piece of evidence that makes them suspicious; that can be the thread that will unravel the next terrorist plot, even one targeted toward one of the areas that is higher risk according to these risk assessments. Senator Collins and I tried to balance this. We have deferred to the current risk analysis. We give effectively 60 percent and as high as 70 percent when we follow our sliding scale of money under this grant program to higher risk analyzed places in America. But the rest deserve some support, too. The rest merit some protection, as well. Bob Mueller, the FBI Director, said America is awash in targets. America is awash in possible vulnerable targets for terrorists--and they are all over America. We want to respond in a positive way and work to protect all of America. This chart is a map of the United States of America. It is a comparison of the impact of the Collins-Lieberman amendment compared to the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. All the States in green would get more funds under the Collins-Lieberman amendment than under the Feinstein- Cornyn amendment. The big States would also do fine. They get that extra money because of risk analysis. And we defer to that, but we do not yield totally to it. Incidentally, we have some big States that receive more money under our proposal than under the other, including Texas, Florida, Michigan, and Ohio. Senator Levin will explain why, coming from Michigan, he strongly supports this amendment. I hope Members will keep this chart in mind when voting. The second point, I go back to what I said at the beginning. This is an amendment to the underlying Homeland Security appropriations bill. In addition to the argument about risk and the formula, there is a difference of opinion about money. We have all been talking about this with an intensity after the dreadful attacks in London last week. The current appropriations bill would cut funding in these grant categories from $2.3 billion down to $1.9 billion. Senator Collins and I and members of our committee believe that is not enough. I say again what I have said before: We have the best military in the world for a lot of reasons, one of which is we have had the guts to invest in that military, to spend the money on it. We will only have the best homeland defense if we similarly invest. This amendment would raise the authorization level up to $2.9 billion. That is the least we can do to support our local and State efforts, our first responders and first preventers. I hope, as our colleagues come to vote on these two amendments at 5 o'clock, they will understand not only the differences in the approach on risk formula, but the differences between our amendment and the underlying appropriations bill. In the moment or two remaining, I will speak a little bit about how the Collins-Lieberman amendment improves on H.R. 2360, the underlying bill. We provide States with predictable funding over time. The appropriations bill adopts a different formula this year than last year and may adopt another formula next year. That does not help our local first responders, preventers, Homeland Security agencies in planning and protecting America. Second, our amendment includes a sliding-scale baseline different from the Appropriations Committee proposal that provides additional guaranteed funds to the largest and most densely populated States. Third, the amendment provides an overall framework for how Homeland Security funds are to be distributed. Fourth, there are accountability measures designed to ensure that the grant money is spent properly and effectively. There are no accountability measures in the Appropriations Committee bill. Incidentally, there is no dollar number in the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment as compared to our $2.9 billion and the Appropriations Committee's $1.9 billion. Finally, fifth, our amendment does improve the grants process itself compared to the underlying bill. The Collins-Lieberman amendment does not just establish a formula, it includes measures to streamline and improve the Homeland Security grants process. That includes provisions on applications, planning, and reporting measures to encourage regional coordination, so important in protecting our people from terrorism. We establish a list of essential capabilities for all jurisdictions so that the Homeland Security Department and the localities understand what capabilities the experts feel they should develop in the local areas to be prepared to prevent, and God forbid, if an attack occurs, to respond to a terrorist attack. And it creates an interagency committee to find ways to eliminate redundant and duplicative requirements for the Homeland Security grants across the Federal Government. In short, our amendment takes a far more comprehensive approach to the first responder grants than the underlying bill. On that basis alone, not to mention the fairness of our formula, I urge my colleagues to support the Collins-Lieberman amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am glad to summarize on our side. The last opportunity I had to speak, I said that there is a very significant difference, which Senator Collins compellingly demonstrated, between the Collins-Lieberman approach to contributing these funds and the Cornyn-Feinstein approach. Of course, I think ours is much more fair. The amendment Senator Collins and I are introducing is an amendment to the underlying appropriations bill. I want to stress the differences between our amendment and the underlying bill. The first goes to funding. Here is a sad story in the midst of an increasing concern about terrorism. In 2004, the Federal Government appropriated $2.9 billion to the States and localities in homeland security grants. In 2005, that number was reduced to $2.3 billion. The President's budget for 2006 recommended slightly over $2 billion. The appropriations bill that is before us now has slightly over $1.9 billion. Senator Collins and I do what we think is the minimum we should be doing to protect our people from the threat of terrorism here at home. We went back to the 2004 level of $2.9 billion. So we increase by $1 billion the amount of money authorized in the underlying bill. Secondly, we have a predictable formula. It is not ad hoc every year. It will tell local law enforcement what they can expect to get. Third, it is a balanced formula. Most of it is based on risk. The rest gives a minimum to each State. Why a minimum to each State? Because who knows where the terrorists will strike next? A lot of emphasis has been put on risk analysis here, Mr. President. I repeat that risk analysis is an educated guess about what these insane, inhumane, hateful terrorists will do next to strike at America. All of America is vulnerable and all of America needs help. That is why the National Governors Association supports our amendment and most law enforcement agencies do as well. I thank the Chair and urge support of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to LTC Lon Pribble, Deputy Chief of the Army Senate Liaison Division, Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison who will retire on 30 August 2005. Lieutenant Colonel Pribble's career spans over 22 years during which he has distinguished himself as a soldier, leader and friend of the U.S. Senate. A native of Kansas, Lieutenant Colonel Pribble graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1983 and was commissioned as a lieutenant in the Armor Branch of the U.S. Army. During his career he commanded at the platoon and company levels where he ably trained and led America's soldiers at home and overseas. In Kirchgoens, Germany he commanded D Company and Headquarters and Headquarters Company 2nd Battalion 32nd Armor Regiment. He served in Southwest Asia as an Intelligence and Operations Officer with the 503rd Forward Support Battalion during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Lieutenant Colonel Pribble also served in staff and instructor positions in the United States at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA, and the Army Staff Management College at Fort Belvoir, VA. Prior to assuming his current duties he served as a U.S. Army Military fellow for the U.S. Senate and a congressional liaison for the House of Representatives. Since January 2003 Lon Pribble has served with distinction as the Deputy Chief, Army Senate Liaison Division where he has superbly represented the Chief of Legislative Liaison, the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Secretary of the Army, as well as promoting the interests of soldiers, their families and civilians of the Army. His professionalism, mature judgment, sage advice and interpersonal skills have earned him the respect and confidence of Members of Congress and congressional staffers with whom he has worked on a multitude of issues. In over 5 years on Capitol Hill, Lon Pribble has been a true friend of the U.S. Senate and the Congress. Serving as one the Army's primary points of contact for Senators and their staff he has assisted the Congress in understanding Army policies, actions and requirements. As a result he and the Army Senate Liaison staff have been extremely successful in providing prompt, coordinated and factual replies to all inquiries and matters involving Army issues. In addition he has provided invaluable assistance to Members and their staff while planning, coordinating and accompanying Senate delegations on official travel to numerous countries worldwide. His substantive knowledge of the key issues, keen legislative insight and ability to effectively advise senior members of the Army leadership directly contributed to the successful representation of the Army's interests before Congress. Throughout his career, LTC Lon Pribble has demonstrated his profound commitment to our Nation, his selfless service to the Army, a deep concern for soldiers and their families and dedication to excellence. Lieutenant Colonel Pribble is a consummate professional whose performance in over 22 years of service has personified those traits of courage, competency and integrity that our Nation has come to expect from its professional Army officers. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Lieutenant Colonel Pribble for his honorable service to the people and the Army of the United States. We wish him and his family Godspeed and all the best in the future.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor with Chairman Collins of this amendment. I want to speak on its behalf. Thanking Senate Colleagues Mr. President, I do want to say on a personal matter, very briefly, this is the first day I have returned to the Senate since my mother, Marcia Manger Lieberman, left this Earth on June 26. The following week I was observing a period of mourning. We were blessed to have Mom live to the age of 90. She taught us a lot of lessons throughout life: how faith and family and community matter most. We are going to miss her, of course. But I want to take this moment to thank all my colleagues who reached out to me and my family, including the occupant of the chair, the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, and my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Collins. I thank you and everyone else for your calls and your letters and flowers and baskets of food, all of which were a source of great strength and comfort to my family, my sisters and me, and honor the memory of the great lady I was blessed to have as my mom. So I thank you all for that. Amendment No. 1142 Mr. President, Mom, most of all, would say: Life goes on. Every day get up and make the most of it. So I am very honored to have the opportunity on this day to join with Senator Collins in offering this amendment. This amendment tracks S. 21, the Homeland Security Grants Enhancement Act, which was reported out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in April with strong bipartisan support. Senator Collins and I believe that the ideas the committee endorsed represent the most balanced, constructive approach to supporting those all across America whom we ask to protect the rest of us from harm. This amendment accomplishes many things, including the doubling of the amount of money that will be delivered to States and localities most at risk. It reduces the potential for waste. It authorizes adequate funding for our Nation's first responders whom the Senator from Maine has spoken of so eloquently. It establishes, for the first time, a comprehensive framework for supporting homeland security efforts by fully authorizing the essential grants programs that each year have, unfortunately, been left to the whims of the appropriations process and have left people all across America uncertain. These are essential reforms to our grants process, made even more compelling by the knowledge--underscored by last week's bombing in London--that terrorists are out there, that they will strike, and that we are involved in a world war. It is not like any world war before. But this enemy has a mission. It is to destroy as many of us as they can. And they will choose the battlefields, where they will choose them. This amendment responds to that threat in a most direct and sensible way. We direct more money to the places that are at greatest risk of terrorist attack, that are most vulnerable, and where the consequences of an attack would be, obviously, disruptive to the people, to our economic well-being, and to our very way of life. In other words, the terrorists obviously strike without regard to the loss of life, innocent life, but they also want to disrupt our society and create fear. This amendment responds to that threat in two ways: First, by guaranteeing a higher baseline level of funding to the largest and most densely populated States, States that are likely to be at more risk of attack and to suffer greater consequences if they are attacked and, second, by substantially increasing the funds we entrust to the Homeland Security Secretary's discretion to allocate based on an assessment of risk. A key part of this amendment is also a desire to balance support for those cities and States at high risk without sacrificing the security of locations that may not be on the top of a target list today but could very well be in the future. That is because this amendment recognizes what I said a moment ago, that the terrorists aim to break our confidence, to create panic, to take advantage of the openness of our society. This is a big country. As a result, no matter how good our intelligence is, we cannot be certain that in every case--maybe even in most cases--we will be on notice about where the terrorists might strike next. This amendment recognizes the fact that terrorists alter their methods of destruction, of murder, that one day they may strike fortified targets such as military facilities, as they have in Iraq and in Lebanon, and the next day they may strike soft targets, as they have and did when they blew up a discotheque in Indonesia or took hostages and brought an end to life at a school in Beslan, Russia. Common sense, therefore, requires us to continue to build basic capacity to prevent and respond to attacks wherever they may occur in this country. And that means everywhere in this country. To build that capacity over time, State and local officials need some predictability of funding. They need to know when and how much assistance they are likely to receive from year to year if they are to do what their citizens expect them to do: to plan and carry out the best possible homeland security throughout America. This is a difficult balance to reach. But I feel confident that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has achieved that balance in this amendment. First, we double the amount of dollars over current levels for grants based on risk. I want to emphasize that because some have criticized the committee action, saying we do not pay attention to the experts' predictions of risk. The fact is, we set aside over 60 percent of the total amount authorized in this measure to distribute to States and cities considered to be most vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The rest of the money would be used to guarantee a minimum level of preparedness in every State, although more highly or densely populated States would get more money. So each State would be guaranteed a minimum of 0.55 percent of the total amount appropriated. The high- and dense-population States get a little bit more. Beyond these formula changes, the amendment would streamline the State homeland security grant process, require better planning and therefore better spending, and add a dose of reality to the grants distribution process. Unlike the Department's current opaque and changeable approach for distributing the so-called Urban Area Security Initiative grants, this amendment, the Collins-Lieberman amendment, would allow metropolitan regions to apply for funding. The 100 largest metropolitan areas could apply. They enter automatically this pool of eligibles. And others could submit applications with the consent of their Governor and the Homeland Security Secretary. Each applicant would have an opportunity to make its own case based on its specific risks, vulnerabilities, and needs. The Department of Homeland Security would award the grants based on merit. There would be no arbitrary limits on funding to areas that demonstrate they are at risk, such as the population cutoff the Department instituted this past year, saying that if you are not larger than a certain number of people you cannot qualify for the Urban Area Security Initiative, even if you have uniquely vulnerable assets, facilities in that area that in the normal course of exercise of due diligence would require extra support. Our amendment would encourage cooperative planning and execution across jurisdictional lines by allowing at least two contiguous jurisdictions to submit a regional application. In addition to dedicating funding for the largest metropolitan areas in the country, our amendment would, for the first time, allow States to apply for risk-based funding and to make the case to the Secretary that there are threats to their jurisdiction that require additional grant money to address. Another critical element of our amendment would be to require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with a task force of State and local first responders, to establish what we call essential capabilities--in other words, targets for the levels and quality of planning, people, and equipment different types of communities need to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events. These essential capabilities will provide guidance to States and localities, but they also provide benchmarks for measuring State and national progress in achieving preparedness. Other accountability measures--because we are authorizing a lot of money to be spent here for a good reason, but we are requiring accountability as to how it is spent--include, for instance, an annual GAO audit and new, more robust reporting requirements for grant recipients and for the Department of Homeland Security. This amendment would also give the Secretary the authority to terminate or revoke grants if a recipient doesn't comply with the accompanying requirements. We honor the old proverb that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is why, in the very contemporary context of the threat of terrorism, our amendment dedicates 25 percent of authorized funds to strengthen law enforcement efforts that are made to prevent attacks before they occur. We have 700,000 pairs of eyes and ears on the ground in every community across this Nation. What am I speaking about? Local law enforcement officers. They are our foot soldiers, our boots on the ground in the war on terrorism. But too often, up until now, they have been left on the sidelines. The brake that stops that next attack on New York, Washington, Los Angeles or any small or mid-size community across America may well come from the alert work of a police officer many thousands of miles away. Senator Collins mentioned some of the small communities across America that tragically played critical roles, inadvertently, in all the activity that led up to the September 11 attacks against us. We quite simply cannot afford to waste the talents of any law enforcement officer in America. So we have to do what we can to facilitate, encourage, and support their vigilance on our behalf. Finally, our amendment authorizes $2.9 billion in funding for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. That is the same level--not higher--as provided in fiscal year 2004. Unfortunately, the trend for State homeland security funding is pointing down, not up, even as we understand that the threat remains at least as great as it has been up until now, perhaps even greater. But at least a $2.9 billion authorization will send a strong message that we will provide reliable and consistent funding to get the job done at the local level and the State level, that we will not begin to chip away at the funds that our allies at the State and local level can expect from the Federal Government. Our amendment improves upon the current approach and upon the approach spelled out--I say with respect--in the underlying appropriations bill. That is why the Collins- Lieberman amendment has received support, for which the Senator from Maine and I are grateful and honored, from the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Union of Police Associations, the National Troopers Coalition, the National Fire Protection Association, the National Association of Development Organizations, and many others--all support this amendment. This is an expression of support. Indeed, I think it should be taken as a plea for support by these organizations that represent a broad swath of law enforcement officers at the State and local level across America. This amendment is a considered approach to the administration and distribution of homeland security grants. We believe it strikes the right balance between not only risk and population, high-risk areas, according to the experts, and other areas that may well be at risk as we go forward, but also risks between providing flexibility and ensuring accountability. Most importantly, it provides our Nation's first responders, who are also first preventers in our war against terrorism, with a solid, long-term platform of support. It has, once again, been a great pleasure to work with my friend and colleague, Senator Collins of Maine, chairman of our committee. We were grateful for the overwhelming bipartisan support of the committee for this measure when it came out of committee as S. 21. We thank our colleagues for that. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.