Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I believe under the previous order, the Senate returns now to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona and myself; am I correct?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I call for the regular order.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, with the consent of my friend from Arizona, at this point I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for pointing out that point. And I thank--it must be Vanna White holding the chart. I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the Senator from Vermont, that he be allowed to remain seated--he just had recent knee surgery--as he delivers his remarks for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, seeing none of my colleagues on the floor, I will proceed for a moment or two and then suggest the absence of a quorum. Yesterday, Senator McCain and I laid down the basic arguments for our amendment. The fact is that the planet is warming. It is warming as a result of human actions. This is no more just a matter of science, although most scientists agree with this. We can see it. We can see it in the kinds of satellite photos that Senator McCain showed such as in the case of the State of Florida. The most graphic evidence is the satellite photos of the polar icecaps. The way in which they have diminished, shrunk, over the last 10, 15, 20 years is startling, with the obvious effect that the water is rising. One could pick their favorite story of evidence. The one that we cite a lot is the Inuit people, the native people in northern Canada, saw robins a few years ago for the first time in their 10,000-year history. They did not have a word for ``robin.'' They had to create a word. That reality is something my friend from Vermont is aware of. Senator Jeffords has been a great crusader, in the best sense of the word, for environmental protection. He is from the green state, as he says. He has been a wonderfully green Senator in the best sense of that term, and I thank him for his support of this amendment. This amendment is the only amendment that will come before the Senate that will do something about global warming. With all respect to the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska yesterday, it offers some technology support, it may request a report or two, but all of its goals are voluntary. We found out in the 1990s that voluntary goals do not work, that the planet has continued to warm. The result of that conclusion was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Bush administration has now taken us out of that protocol. I wish to make very clear that the amendment Senator McCain and I have introduced sets goals for a reduction of greenhouse gases by the United States much below what Kyoto requires. In fact, I think if one puts the Hagel amendment of yesterday on one side and the Kyoto Protocol on the other, Senator McCain and I are right in the middle where we like to be. In this case, substantively, we are in the middle. This amendment makes meaningful reductions, by 2010, to reduce American emissions of greenhouse gases to the 2000 level. It creates a meaningful market, and it is the only one that does that. It is not oldtime command and control. This is bringing in an enormous number and range of emissions reduction options for businesses and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The allowances are allocated at the point of emissions to electricity and industrial sectors. Agriculture can participate in this program on a voluntary basis. They are not covered mandatorily at all. This is a tremendous opportunity for the agriculture sector of our economy to come in voluntary and say, I want to earn some credits by reducing some sources of greenhouse gas or, even more, I want to make some money by holding some of my land in uses that will absorb carbon dioxide and therefore achieve some credits that can be sold. In our amendment, this is a maximum opportunity for innovation and cost savings. One of the foremost studies conducted by a group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that per-household cost of the passage of this bill--we are going to hear a lot of numbers about this--is in the range of $15 to $20 per year more per household. I am sure if the average American householder were asked whether he or she would pay $15 to $20--frankly, a lot would be willing to pay a lot more--to deal with the problem of global warming so that we can preserve this planet and turn it over to our children as close as possible to the way we found it, they would say yes. That is not even taking into account the innovative, cost-saving technologies that this bill will support in research. It is a comprehensive technology strategy that we offer. We have a new title this year that creates a technology program funded by the sale of allowances, not appropriations; would stimulate innovation at each of the three critical phases of innovation: engineering, full-time construction, and bringing it to market. The language in this amendment says that the funding would go to a series of possible uses, including but not limited to biofuels, solar, advanced clean coal, and nuclear. All of the technologies must meet environmental and economic criteria to gain support, and any technology beyond the ones we mentioned is eligible for funding. This is a real economic investment and economic growth section of this bill. I know there are some who are concerned about the mere mention of nuclear. The fact is, today 20 percent of electric power generated in America comes from nuclear plants. They are functioning safely. Some of them are getting to a point where they are going to have to be replaced. This amendment simply opens the door to some research in the next generation of possible savings on nuclear powerplants. It is not an endorsement. It is not a win or a lose strategy. Anybody who has a good idea for proposing or doing some research in a technology or a system that could reduce greenhouse gases, that person can apply to this public corporation we are setting up for funding under this proposal. We do not want to close the door on any technology that will give us the power to run our society and help us deal with the greenhouse gas global warming problem, and that includes but is not limited to, as we say, nuclear. We also have some very important funding for a separate program for the retooling of manufacturing facilities, particularly targeted to advanced technology automobiles--a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, a major consumer of oil. Interesting fact that probably a lot of people do not appreciate: Only 2 percent of the source of electric power in this country today is oil-driven. That is pretty amazing. Most of it is coal, twenty percent is nuclear, and the rest is a mix of renewable sources. When it comes to the transportation sector, just about 95 percent is driven by oil products. That is a big source of greenhouse gas emissions and, of course, a big source of our vulnerability to the kind of crazy oil price shocks we are now experiencing that run through and eat up the budget of every family and every business in our country. So here we offer funding for the retooling of automobile manufacturing facilities. This is the only climate amendment that really does something and does it comprehensively. It passes the emissions test, it passes the market test, and it passes the technology test. I know the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, is soon going to be on his way to speak on behalf of the bill. I know my colleague, Senator McCain, will return to the Senate floor to join in this discussion. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Assuming my friend from Colorado is here to speak on our amendment, I yield to him from the time allocated to Senator McCain up to 10 minutes. Is that enough or would the Senator like more?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want very briefly to thank my friend from Colorado for a very powerful and learned statement. I appreciate his support very much. I am proud, as we think about how the debate has gone, the Senator from Arizona and I, the Senator from Connecticut, introduced it. Yesterday we had the Senator from California. Today we have Senators from Florida, Vermont, and Colorado. This is a national problem which is being recognized across the Nation. The fact is, if you put this amendment to the American people for a vote, it would pass overwhelmingly. I hope that sentiment can express itself here before long on the floor of the Senate. I note the presence on the floor of the Senator from Ohio, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. He has spoken with characteristic sincerity and thoughtfulness. We talked along the way. I am disappointed we cannot take care of the amendment today, but I am encouraged by the very strong statement he has made recognizing what has changed since we last took up this matter, seeing global warming is a real problem, and wanting to work together with Senator McCain and me and others to find a solution that is good for the planet, good for the country, and good for Ohio. I thank him for that outreached hand. I accept it, extend myself to him, and look forward to working together in the months ahead to reach a good, balanced, progressive solution. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Delaware for a very compelling statement. If anybody wasn't listening to what he had to say, look at the pictures, understanding that he didn't start out being in favor of this, but the science brought him in this direction. When people look at it with an open mind, they will join us. I thank him for his support. I ask unanimous consent to make a minor modification to the amendment Senator McCain and I have offered and send a modification to the desk. On page 100 of our amendment, it would strike lines 16 through 20. I believe it has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I wonder if the Senator would allow me a moment to respond to something Senator Domenici said?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Florida for his very powerful statement supporting this amendment. We all bring a unique perspective to the Senate, but nobody brings the same perspective as Senator Nelson. He was up in space, he was an astronaut before he came to the Senate, so he has that big picture. He also has a very local understanding, as he said, because of the threat that the rising water levels will place on Florida. The occupant of the chair is a distinguished Senator from Alaska. We can already see evidence in Alaska of water rising. One of the great reinsurance companies, from a pure business point of view, supports antiglobal warming legislation because they project that within 10 years, we are going to be spending $150 billion a year to compensate for climate-driven disasters. There was a particularly notorious Emperor of Rome who is remembered for fiddling while Rome burned. I believe we here in Washington are fiddling while the planet warms and while the waters rise. I honestly do believe this amendment we offer today gives us a chance to turn that around. I thank my friend from Florida very much. I now yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am glad to.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend. I don't mind him calling it McCain-Feingold.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. We are going to stick with this as long as Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have, which is to say, until it passes. I thank the Senator from Illinois for a very eloquent statement. Mr. President, I am very happy to see the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, is here. He has asked for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Senator Domenici raised a very important point and I want to engage on it. That is the question of how the allocations are set under the McCain-Lieberman proposal. Let's say, first, we feel strongly unless you have a cap, unless you have some limit, goal, for how you will reduce your greenhouse gas emissions, it is a phony. It does not work. We tried that in the 1990s and it did not work. That is why we need a cap and we have a market- based system. In our proposal it says you allocate emissions credits based on the amount of emissions in 2000 because that is the goal we want to get back to, and then you give the EPA Administrator the opportunity to make adjustments based on economic impact--maybe it is too hard for a particular industry or sector to do that. I hope we can engage the Senator from New Mexico--he is a leader here--as we go forward. When it came to the acid rain provisions on which this is based, when it finally came to a bill, Members of the Senate and the Congress pretty much stated what the allocations were going to be. They did not leave much room for administrative judgment by the EPA Administrator. To my friend from New Mexico, if this really matters to you, as I know it does, in the months ahead I will try to do exactly the same thing. I thank my friend from Arizona and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague and partner in this cause, Senator McCain, for his persistent, principled leadership. It is an honor to fight alongside him on behalf of what we believe is right for future generations of Americans--our kids and grandkids. As I have listened to the debate in the Senate--particularly, with all respect, listening to some of the opponents of this amendment--I keep thinking of a song by Bob Dylan, from a younger time in my life. I apologize to the great Dylan if I have the lyrics a little wrong, but it was generally along the lines of: Come Senators, Congressmen, please heed the call. Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall. The theme was that the times are rapidly changing. What is rapidly changing in our times is the temperature on this planet that God has given us. It is changing with observable, bad consequences, and it is changing as a result of what we humans are doing. The science is changing to be clearer and clearer that global warming is a problem. What is not changing is the failure of some of my colleagues to recognize that science. Senator McCain is right. We fought hard again, but we are not going to win this vote. As he said earlier, the real losers here are our children and grandchildren. If we don't act soon, they are going to inherit a planet that is not going to be as hospitable as the one we were given by our parents and grandparents. The fact is, however, that I see something hopeful changing around this Senate, and it is an increasing recognition that global warming is a real problem. Some of our friends may go back to those old arguments. You can always find one scientist who disagrees with the great majority of them. But there is a prevailing, powerful consensus internationally that global warming is real. I see that consensus now being expressed in the Senate. When Senator McCain and I started on this effort to have America do something to reassert its moral leadership in the global battle to stop the planet from warming dangerously, some people said we were ``smoking something'' or that we were ``Chicken Littles.'' That has changed now. Now people are saying: Yes, we agree with you that there is a problem. But we think you are going at it the wrong way. You are trying to do too much too soon. I took heart from the statement by Senator DeWine of Ohio, who came to the conclusion, based on thoughtful consideration, that the science tells him this planet is warming, and he doesn't want to look back at the end of his service and say he didn't do anything about it. He is not ready to support the bill. He has a couple of changes he wants to make. Senator Domenici basically said the same thing. The science is compelling. Global warming is real. And colleague after colleague, including Senator Feinstein of California, Senator Akaka of Hawaii, Senator Nelson of Florida, has come to the floor and said that they see it in their statements. They see with their own eyes the impact that global warming is having. Senator Carper brought pictures his friend had taken of glaciers melting over a period of years. The question is, Are we going to change quickly enough to deal with this problem before it has catastrophic consequences? The science is real. Costs? Well, again, you could find economists--the old line is if you lined up end by end all the economists in the world, they would not reach a conclusion. An MIT study said if our amendment was adopted, it would add $20 a year per household to the cost of living. Isn't that worth it to save our children and grandchildren on this planet so they can enjoy it as we have? Times are changing in the business community. Listen to Wayne Brunetti, CEO and chairman of Xcel Energy, Inc., who says: Give us a date. Tell us how much we need to cut. Give us the flexibility to meet the goals, and we will get it done. Linn Draper, former chairman and CEO of American Electric Power, says: Climate change is a challenge facing both business and policymakers. Early action represents a commonsense approach that can begin the process of lowering emissions along a gradual, cost-effective glidepath. Steve Percy, former chief executive of BP America, said: Some companies feel if we don't act soon in the United States, we may be missing out on opportunities to innovate and to develop the technologies that will address these problems in the future. On top of that, I think this is a recognition on the part of some of these leading companies that public opinion is slowly beginning to shift on these issues. They want to be able to say in the future that they were progressive on this issue. Senator McCain and I have worked a long time with a lot of people in the business and environment and scientific and political worlds to present this proposal. It is no more perfect than anything fashioned by human beings, but we think it is the only real opportunity the Senate will have in this session--on this bill certainly--to do something real about global warming. That is what this is about. Not only do you recognize that there is a problem--there is--are you willing to work to do something about it? If you are, you will vote for this amendment. I quoted Jonas Salk yesterday when we began the debate, the discoverer of the polio vaccine. He said something to this effect: One of the most important things for anybody to do in life is to be a good ancestor. We must be good ancestors, which is to say that the generations who follow us will look back at us and ask: Were they good ancestors? Did they turn the world over to us in better condition than they received it. If we don't do anything about global warming, we are going to turn this world over to our children and grandchildren in a much worse condition than we received it. I end not with science, not with economics, not with politics because the times are changing, and eventually the Senate will change with those times and catch up with the reality and the American people. Finally, we are blessed to live on God's good Earth, and at the beginning in the Book of Genesis, God instructed Adam and Eve to not only work the garden but to guard it. We are working the garden but not guarding it as well as we should be. This amendment will help us to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to finally address one of the most long-standing and difficult problems facing our Nation's first responders--the lack of communications interoperability. I want to thank Chairman Collins of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Levin and Senator Akaka for joining me in this effort. I don't want to be confused with the evil road captain in ``Cool Hand Luke,'' but there is only one way to say this: ``What we have here is a failure to communicate!'' By now, we all know that the inability of first responders to talk to one another when responding to emergencies costs lives during terrorist attacks or natural disasters. According to the 9/11 Commission, the lack of interoperability contributed to the deaths of more than 100 fire fighters in New York on 9/11. However, this failure to communicate also creates problems during every day emergency operations, endangering both first responders and the public while also wasting precious resources. For example, when law enforcement officers cannot communicate effectively about a suspect fleeing across jurisdictions, criminals can escape. It is past time we fixed this problem. Achieving interoperability is the top priority for State homeland security advisors. It is essential for first responders to achieve the national preparedness goals that the Department of Homeland Security has established for the Nation. However, for most States obtaining the equipment and technology to fulfill this goal remains a challenge. And a major hurdle continues to be lack of sufficient funding. A non-partisan task force of the Council on Foreign Relations recommended spending at least $6.8 billion over five years. DHS has also estimated the cost of modernizing equipment for 2.5 million public safety first responders across the country at $40 billion. I am convinced that we can achieve interoperability for much less-- but only if strong national leadership drives cooperation and adoption of smart new technology solutions. Achieving interoperability is difficult because some 50,000 local agencies typically make independent decisions about communications systems. The result is that first responders typically operate on different radio systems, at different frequencies, unable to communicate with one another. Strong national leadership is necessary to ensure that different jurisdictions come together to work out the often complex issues that prevent interoperability in the first place. The legislation we are introducing today will provide this much needed Federal leadership and provide dedicated grants, enhance technical assistance to State and local first responders, promote greater regional cooperation, and foster the research and development necessary to make achieving interoperability a realistic national goal. The ``Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005'' or the ICOM Act for short, gets us there in three distinct ways. First, the ICOM Act will provide the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) within DHS the resources and authorities necessary to systematically overcome the barriers to achieving interoperability. ICOM requires OIC to conduct extensive, nationwide outreach and facilitate the creation of task forces in each State to develop interoperable solutions. It requires coordinated and extensive technical assistance through the Office of Domestic Preparedness' Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program. OIC will also be charged with developing a national strategy and national architecture so that we systematically move towards a truly national system of public safety communications. This Act authorizes OIC to fund and conduct pilot programs to evaluate and validate new technology concepts needed to encourage more efficient use of spectrum and other resources and deploy less costly public safety communications systems. Second, the ICOM Act will identify and answer the policy and technology questions necessary to achieve interoperability by requiring the Secretary to establish a comprehensive, competitive research and development program. This research agenda will focus on: understanding the strengths and weaknesses of today's diverse public safety communications systems; examining how current and emerging technology can make public safety organizations more effective, and how local, State, and Federal agencies can utilize this technology in a coherent and cost-effective manner; evaluating and validating new technology concepts; and advancing the creation of a national strategy to promote interoperability and efficient use of spectrum. The legislation authorizes some $126 million for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for the operations of the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility so DHS can finally provide the national leadership necessary to achieve interoperability in the most cost effective manner; for research and development; and to provide enhanced technical assistance to state and local officials around the country. Third, the ICOM Act will provide consistent, dedicated funding by authorizing $3.3 billion over five years for initiatives to achieve short-term or long-term solutions to interoperability. It authorizes grants directly to States or regional consortium within each State to be used specifically for key aspects of the communications life-cycle, including: State-wide or regional communications planning; system design and engineering; procurement and installation of equipment; training and exercises; or other activities determined by the Secretary to be integral to the achievement of this essential capability. The bill adopts the same formula for distributing funds in S. 21, the Homeland Security Grants Enhancement Act as reported by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Each State will receive a minimum baseline amount of 0.55 percent of the total funds appropriated under the bill. States that are larger/and or more densely populated receive a higher baseline amount, based on a formula that combines population and population density. The remaining funds--over 60 percent of the total--will be distributed based on additional threat and risk-based factors. This will ensure that the majority of funds are distributed to those areas at highest risk, while we systematically ensure that this very basic communications capability is built in every state across our country. The Secretary will be required to establish a panel of technical experts, first responders, and other State and local officials, to review and make recommendations on grant applications. This legislation also promotes regional cooperation, consistent with the National Preparedness Goal, which identifies the essential capabilities States and localities need to fight the war on terrorism, rewarding those jurisdictions that join together in robust regional bodies to apply for funds. Most importantly, this dedicated funding program for interoperability will ensure that jurisdictions can receive and rely on a consistent stream of funding for vital interoperability projects, without also being forced to neglect all of the other essential capabilities DHS has said they need to develop. This legislation is crucial for the safety of our citizens and the men and women who go to work everyday pledged to protect them. It will ensure that, for the first time, achieving communications interoperability is an achievable national goal, a genuine national priority. To win the war on terrorism and protect the American people, we cannot have a failure to communicate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona with whom I am proud, once again, to sponsor the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act to combat global warming. Senator McCain has, as is his characteristic mode of behavior, talked straight. He has sounded a clarion call. He has spoken in words that I would echo right now: This is the challenge of our generation, environmentally. It will begin to affect the way we live on planet Earth. We feel so strongly about it that we are going to stick together, and I believe our ranks will grow over time, I hope before the worst effects of global warming occur, before the most cataclysmic effects occur. We are going to get this done because it has to be done. This amendment we are offering is the only proposal the Senate will consider that will actually put a halt to the rise in carbon emissions that cause global warming. It will also spur technological innovations to deal with that problem. In some sense, as I view this--and I have spent a lot of time working on it--what is involved is a conflict between science and the resistance to change. Change is frightening sometimes, particularly when the worst consequences of not changing are not apparent. This is why this is such a great challenge to our political system because, although we are beginning to see the effects of global warming, the worst effects are over the horizon. The challenge now, having been put on notice by science, is whether the political leadership of our country will take the steps necessary to protect the generations that will follow from the worst consequences of global warming. I will paraphrase Jonas Salk, who invented the polio vaccine: One of the tests of every generation is whether we have been good ancestors, whether we have acted in a way that those who follow us will say that we had farsighted ancestors who saw this problem coming and dealt with it. That is the challenge this amendment offers. Because it is about science. With the distinguished Presiding Officer, particularly, I cannot resist going into a bit of history. It was 100 years ago this month, June 30, 1905, that Albert Einstein finished a paper with the very dense title ``On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.'' Today we know it better as the Theory of Special Relativity or E equals MC squared. Why do I bring this up in the context of global warming? Because when Einstein first proposed the theory, it was dismissed as unrealistic, as a dream. Its consequences were widely misunderstood. Over time, the best scientists agreed not only that Einstein's theory was true, but they expanded upon it and used it to the extraordinary benefit of the generations that have followed. With apologies to another great scientist, Darwin, this process might be called the ``Evolution of Theory.'' The theory that the Earth is warming with dire consequences may have started off with little understanding or acceptance. In fact, when we first began to talk about it, Senator McCain and I, a lot of people including in this Senate discussed it as if it had a Chicken Little ``sky is falling'' quality. The fact is, we were basing our actions and our arguments on temperatures that were rising. But the worst effects that we were projecting were based on scientific modeling. Now the best scientific minds in the world have examined the evidence and stated that climate change is real. Its cost to our economies will be devastatingly real. Its costs to our people and the way they live will be devastatingly real if we do not act. Just a few months ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Pachauri, whose candidacy for that position that was supported by the Bush administration, said: We are already at a dangerous point when it comes to global warming. Immediate and very deep cuts in greenhouse gases are needed if humanity, as we know it, is to survive. The truth is, at this point, we do not need the scientists to tell us that the globe is warming. We can see it with our own eyes. The most compelling evidence is the satellite photographs of the polar ice caps. Look back 10, 15, 20 years; they are shrinking before our eyes. Consider this very real example that is a consequence of that warming: 184 Alaskan coastal villages already are facing the threat of relocation because their land and infrastructure are being impacted by advancing seas and warmer temperatures that are melting the permafrost. One estimate I have seen says it will cost $100 million to locate just one of those villages or towns. I hesitate to articulate this fear, but what would be the price if we needed to relocate New Orleans or Miami or Santa Cruz, CA? One of North America's leading reinsurers, Swiss Re, projects that climate-driven disasters could cost global financial centers more than $150 billion per year within the next 10 years. That is not Senator McCain or me or some environmental group. It is a business, an insurance company, which is on the line for the costs of climate-driven disasters: $150 billion a year within the next 10 years. I could go on with stories of wildlife appearing in places where they have never appeared before. Even in Connecticut, we have certain birds that are lingering longer in our State, because it is staying warmer longer. In Maine, our colleagues say the sugar maples are being affected by the alteration in the climate. What is the United States doing? The United States, the largest emitter, the largest source of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, what are we doing? Nothing. Literally nothing. In some sense, less than nothing because we pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol that subsequently has been ratified by enough of the industrialized world. I agree with Senator McCain about the preceding amendment. It is a fig leaf. It may allow some people to say we are doing something about global warming but it does not do anything. It leaves it all to voluntary action to support some research. It asks for reports. This goes back to the early 1990s, when the first President Bush was very actively involved in the Rio conference on global warming and recognized the reality of global warming, supported measures to deal with it, and set voluntary standards. They did not work. That is why Kyoto came along in 1997. We saw, in the intervening years, if you leave it just plain voluntary, nothing will happen. People will continue to do things as before. Sources of greenhouse gases will not change. We have to show some leadership. The last amendment I call ``fiddling while the Earth is warming.'' In its way, it is more consequential than Rome burning. The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which Senator McCain and I introduced as an amendment to this Energy bill, is the needed first step, second step, and third step. It is the only proposal that will come before the Senate that puts an absolute stop to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions by America. In that sense, it brings us back to some point of moral responsibility. This is a problem for the whole globe. We are the biggest source of it. Yet we are doing nothing about it, while a lot of other countries are. This amendment is the only proposal that will come before the Senate that creates not old-fashioned command and control but a true market mechanism reflecting the punishing social and economic costs of global warming. And this amendment, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, is the only proposal that will come before the Senate that harnesses these market forces and steers them toward new energy technology that will not only help us meet the standards but will energize our economy because it will create jobs; those jobs will create products that will fill a growing global demand for energy- efficient greenhouse gas-resistant technologies. Let me briefly state the basics of our bill. The original Climate Stewardship Act was the result itself of a lengthy process Senator McCain and I were involved in, with the stakeholders, sources of greenhouse gases, environmentalists, and scientists working together. A major role was played by the Pew Trust. The original Climate Stewardship Act asked the American people, businesses, to reduce our carbon emissions to 2000 levels by the end of the decade--by 2012-- easier to achieve than what Kyoto asked. Kyoto asked to go back to 1990. There was a graph in one of the papers yesterday that shows reductions from Kyoto about here; if we do nothing, about there; McCain-Lieberman was in between. It is always nice to be in the middle--the golden mean. That is exactly what this proposal is. Our proposal then, and now, will reduce carbon emissions by use of the market, by putting a price on those emissions, with a cap and trade policy modeled on the one used so successfully in the Clean Air Act of 1990 which, as we all know, has reduced acid rain at far less cost than expected without the old ``command and control'' Government. Simply put, a business that does not reach its emissions target can buy emissions credits from an entity who has managed to move themselves under the target. Because the cap and trade system creates a market price for greenhouse gas emissions, it exposes the true cost of burning fossil fuels and will drive investments toward lower carbon-emitting technologies. It will, incidentally, also help us break our dangerous dependence on foreign oil which now is approaching $60 a barrel and rising. I fear, as so many others do, no matter how strong we are militarily, it can ultimately compromise our national security. As the new title of this amendment implies, we have added an innovation section to our original bill because technological change and innovation are the keys in both the fight against global warming and the battle for energy independence. Our amendment creates a dedicated public sector fund for ensuring that investment is directed at the new technologies we need, including, but not limited to, biofuels, clean coal technology, solar and nuclear power, to name just a few off an open-ended menu of climate-friendly technology choices. Instead of turning to the taxpayer to fund these, our bill uses a very creative self-funding mechanism. It empowers the Secretary of Energy to use some of the money generated through the purchase of emissions credits, funneled through a new public corporation our bill would create to help bring those innovations to market. The amendment will ensure the most important and efficient technological alternatives are supported. We did not pick winners and losers. That is for the market to do. Our bill does make sure, however, that if there are barriers to developing or using these new technologies to meet the standards and cap in our proposal, the resources are available to knock those barriers down. If we do not help bring these new low carbon or zero carbon technologies to market, believe me, we will be buying them from the nations that do. Here is exhibit A to prove that point: Hybrid cars today are popular. There are waiting lists for them. I heard there is a market where people sell the ticket they have in the line so somebody can buy a hybrid car, low-emitting vehicles that consumers have clearly shown they want. Where did American companies get the technology to build those hybrids? They have licensed it from Japan. Our bill will ensure that assistance is provided to American manufacturers to help with the transition to new technologies and energy productions with programs to reduce consumer costs and help dislocated workers and communities. The point is, we want what we know will be an enormous market for low carbon, zero carbon, low/zero greenhouse gas-emitting products to be filled by products made in the United States. When Senator McCain and I sat down to write this bill, we knew it had to pass three tests: First, it had to guarantee that it would achieve a real reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions across our society. Second, it had to create a true wide-open market for emissions reductions. And third, it had to provide businesses, and ultimately consumers, with a wide range of low-emission, low-cost energy choices through technological innovations. I am proud to say to my colleagues our amendment meets all three of those tests. The Senate should scrutinize any alternatives that are offered to this amendment we have proposed and ask whether those meet those same tests, whether, as the planet is warming and the rest of the world is trying to do something about it, the United States is fiddling. I mentioned at the outset that 100 years ago this month that young man sitting in a Swiss patent office changed our understanding of the universe with the power of his new ideas. A century later, we are facing a real threat. To meet it, we need to empower our best minds to use the power of new ideas to help provide new sources of power to our world. If we do not take these simple steps now, steps that are well within both our technological and financial reach, the generations that come will rightfully look back at us with scorn and ask why we acted so selfishly, why we yielded to the status quo that did not want to change, why we cared only for short-term comforts or profits, and why we left them a global environment in danger. Einstein once said: The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them. Senator McCain and I and our other cosponsors and supporters believe the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act will not only set standards for reducing global warming but will lead us to the new thinking, to the new ideas, and the new products we need to halt global warming, achieve energy independence and protect the world as we know it and love it for the generations to come. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank our friend and colleague from California for a very powerful statement. In a personal sense, and I know I speak for Senator McCain, we are grateful for her support. We are honored to have it. But what a statement. I hope every Member of the Senate gets a chance to read the text of the Feinstein statement. In very practical terms, it describes the impact of inaction on our largest State--California--on water supply, not to mention the dairy industry and, perhaps of more national significance, the California wine industry. But this is real-life stuff. Shame on us if we don't take real action to stem the problem. I thank my colleague.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want very briefly to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin, for the statement he has just made. I know it has been a very difficult period of time for him. Which one of us has not erred? Which one of us, particularly in public life, has not said something that didn't come out exactly as we intended it to and certainly had an impact we never could have imagined? When I first heard about what Senator Durbin said last week, and I heard some people at home in Connecticut who were agitated by it, I said: I know Dick Durbin. I know he would never really compare the suffering of people in the Nazi concentration camps or the Soviet gulag or under Pol Pot to what is happening in Guantanamo, as much as he is concerned and has criticized some of what we have learned, including in the FBI report he cited. It is just not him. I know his character. I know his person. Look, we have seen it today. It takes a big person to stand up and apologize on the floor of the Senate. He has done it. I just appeal to everyone now to move on. Let this be the end of this. Anyone who will continue to try to fester this some more is doing a disservice to the Senate and to our country. Senator Durbin has made clear his regrets for what he said and the way it was misunderstood. He is a good man. He is an extraordinary Senator. He is a good friend. I thank him for the courage he showed in coming up and saying what is hard for us in public life, but we are no different than anybody else: I am sorry. I made a mistake. To err is human, but it is also important to say that to forgive is not only divine, it ought to be human as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to finally address one of the most long-standing and difficult problems facing our Nation's first responders--the lack of communications interoperability. I want to thank Chairman Collins of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Levin and Senator Akaka for joining me in this effort. I don't want to be confused with the evil road captain in ``Cool Hand Luke,'' but there is only one way to say this: ``What we have here is a failure to communicate!'' By now, we all know that the inability of first responders to talk to one another when responding to emergencies costs lives during terrorist attacks or natural disasters. According to the 9/11 Commission, the lack of interoperability contributed to the deaths of more than 100 fire fighters in New York on 9/11. However, this failure to communicate also creates problems during every day emergency operations, endangering both first responders and the public while also wasting precious resources. For example, when law enforcement officers cannot communicate effectively about a suspect fleeing across jurisdictions, criminals can escape. It is past time we fixed this problem. Achieving interoperability is the top priority for State homeland security advisors. It is essential for first responders to achieve the national preparedness goals that the Department of Homeland Security has established for the Nation. However, for most States obtaining the equipment and technology to fulfill this goal remains a challenge. And a major hurdle continues to be lack of sufficient funding. A non-partisan task force of the Council on Foreign Relations recommended spending at least $6.8 billion over five years. DHS has also estimated the cost of modernizing equipment for 2.5 million public safety first responders across the country at $40 billion. I am convinced that we can achieve interoperability for much less-- but only if strong national leadership drives cooperation and adoption of smart new technology solutions. Achieving interoperability is difficult because some 50,000 local agencies typically make independent decisions about communications systems. The result is that first responders typically operate on different radio systems, at different frequencies, unable to communicate with one another. Strong national leadership is necessary to ensure that different jurisdictions come together to work out the often complex issues that prevent interoperability in the first place. The legislation we are introducing today will provide this much needed Federal leadership and provide dedicated grants, enhance technical assistance to State and local first responders, promote greater regional cooperation, and foster the research and development necessary to make achieving interoperability a realistic national goal. The ``Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005'' or the ICOM Act for short, gets us there in three distinct ways. First, the ICOM Act will provide the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) within DHS the resources and authorities necessary to systematically overcome the barriers to achieving interoperability. ICOM requires OIC to conduct extensive, nationwide outreach and facilitate the creation of task forces in each State to develop interoperable solutions. It requires coordinated and extensive technical assistance through the Office of Domestic Preparedness' Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program. OIC will also be charged with developing a national strategy and national architecture so that we systematically move towards a truly national system of public safety communications. This Act authorizes OIC to fund and conduct pilot programs to evaluate and validate new technology concepts needed to encourage more efficient use of spectrum and other resources and deploy less costly public safety communications systems. Second, the ICOM Act will identify and answer the policy and technology questions necessary to achieve interoperability by requiring the Secretary to establish a comprehensive, competitive research and development program. This research agenda will focus on: understanding the strengths and weaknesses of today's diverse public safety communications systems; examining how current and emerging technology can make public safety organizations more effective, and how local, State, and Federal agencies can utilize this technology in a coherent and cost-effective manner; evaluating and validating new technology concepts; and advancing the creation of a national strategy to promote interoperability and efficient use of spectrum. The legislation authorizes some $126 million for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for the operations of the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility so DHS can finally provide the national leadership necessary to achieve interoperability in the most cost effective manner; for research and development; and to provide enhanced technical assistance to state and local officials around the country. Third, the ICOM Act will provide consistent, dedicated funding by authorizing $3.3 billion over five years for initiatives to achieve short-term or long-term solutions to interoperability. It authorizes grants directly to States or regional consortium within each State to be used specifically for key aspects of the communications life-cycle, including: State-wide or regional communications planning; system design and engineering; procurement and installation of equipment; training and exercises; or other activities determined by the Secretary to be integral to the achievement of this essential capability. The bill adopts the same formula for distributing funds in S. 21, the Homeland Security Grants Enhancement Act as reported by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Each State will receive a minimum baseline amount of 0.55 percent of the total funds appropriated under the bill. States that are larger/and or more densely populated receive a higher baseline amount, based on a formula that combines population and population density. The remaining funds--over 60 percent of the total--will be distributed based on additional threat and risk-based factors. This will ensure that the majority of funds are distributed to those areas at highest risk, while we systematically ensure that this very basic communications capability is built in every state across our country. The Secretary will be required to establish a panel of technical experts, first responders, and other State and local officials, to review and make recommendations on grant applications. This legislation also promotes regional cooperation, consistent with the National Preparedness Goal, which identifies the essential capabilities States and localities need to fight the war on terrorism, rewarding those jurisdictions that join together in robust regional bodies to apply for funds. Most importantly, this dedicated funding program for interoperability will ensure that jurisdictions can receive and rely on a consistent stream of funding for vital interoperability projects, without also being forced to neglect all of the other essential capabilities DHS has said they need to develop. This legislation is crucial for the safety of our citizens and the men and women who go to work everyday pledged to protect them. It will ensure that, for the first time, achieving communications interoperability is an achievable national goal, a genuine national priority. To win the war on terrorism and protect the American people, we cannot have a failure to communicate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my gratitude and, truly, this country's gratitude, to Chuck Ludlam of my staff, for his 33-year career in government service and public policy. He's retiring on June 24, 40 years to the month after his first job on Capitol Hill as a ``Stanford in Government'' intern in the House of Representatives. Thomas Jefferson once asked the question: What duty does a citizen owe to the government that secures the society in which he lives? Answering his own question, Jefferson said: ``A nation that rests on the will of the people must also depend on individuals to support its institutions if it is to flourish. Persons qualified for public service should feel an obligation to make that contribution.'' Chuck has answered that call--a call as old as our Republic--with dedicated service to our Nation and continued service to our world. Chuck began his public service as a Peace Corps volunteer in Nepal in 1968-1970. After his Senate retirement, he and his wife, Paula Hirschoff, also a 1960's Peace Corps volunteer, in Kenya, will serve again as Peace Corps volunteers, in Senegal. This full circle expresses well their commitment to service. The professionalism and accomplishments of congressional staff are often unsung and even unappreciated. While it is difficult to summarize a career as varied and distinguished as Chuck's, let me touch on a few highlights. I have known Chuck since I arrived in the Senate in 1989, and he has served as my economic counsel since 2001. Following the anthrax attack on the Senate in October 2001, Chuck went to work on biodefense and infectious disease policy issues. BioShield I, enacted last July, was in significant part due to his work, and he has now helped Senator Hatch, Senator Brownback, and me fashion BioShield II, S. 975, a visionary tour de force on the full range of issues we must address to prepare for a bioterror attack or infectious disease outbreak. This bill provides a prescription for how to prepare ourselves for these threats to our national health and well being. Now it is incumbent on us to enact it. It is hard to describe the importance to our country of moving this legislation. It is an area of extreme future risk not only for ourselves but for all nations. Chuck developed a profound view of what must be done to deter this nightmare, a nightmare not only of bio attacks but of infectious disease in general, and has been relentlessly pressing this problem and its solutions onto our national policy agenda since 2001. It has been an exceptionally dedicated and unique legislative effort and it underscores the kind of remarkable role talented and driven Senate staff like Chuck can play assisting Senator policymakers. Chuck had a long and very special working education that has enabled him to serve in this Senate policy-developer role. Before his service in my office, Chuck served as chief tax counsel on the Senate Small Business Committee, 1985-1993, with Senator Dale Bumpers; as legal counsel on the Joint Economic Committee, 1982-1985, with Congressman Gillis Long; as legal counsel on the Carter White House Domestic Policy Staff, 1979-1981, working with Si Lazarus and Stu Eizenstat; as counsel to the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1975-1979, with Senator James Abourezk; and as a trial attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, 1972-1975. In addition, he served as vice president for Government Relations, Biotechnology Industry Organization, 1993-2000, and Counsel, Musick, Peeler and Garrett, 1981-1982). During his long career on Capitol Hill, Chuck has brought his strong talents to bear on a wide range of legislative issues. While on my staff, these ranged from Federal fiscal responsibility and honest government accounting, S. 1915; to building assets for the poor, S. 476; to promoting U.S.-China educational and cultural engagement; S. 1117; to U.S. economic competitiveness policy, S. 2747; and, as I mentioned, to enacting Project BioShield, Public Law 108-276. Long before joining me, Chuck worked to establish the Office of Senate Legal Counsel, Public Law 95-521; to defeat problematic Airline Noise legislation in 1978; to enact the first law on the subject of organizational conflict of interest, Public Law 95-70; to enact the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public law 96-354; to save the tax exemption for the bonds for non-profit hospitals and schools, Public Law 97-248; enact the Patent Reform Act of 1999, Public Law 106-113; to enact the first law banning genetic discrimination, Public Law 104-191; to make permanent the Orphan Drug Tax Credit, Public Law 104-188 and 105-34; and to defeat attempts to criminalize some stem cell research in 1997-1998. We know Chuck to be a passionate and tenacious advocate, a dedicated mentor to the talented legislative fellows who have worked for him, an adventurer who continues to trek over some of the most forbidding and fascinating parts of the planet, a loyal friend to many in our office, someone who is always searching for the ``big idea-big picture'' as a visionary policy developer, and a generous human being with a sense of humor. As a Congressional Staffer, he has always kept his focus on the public interest, undistracted by partisan concerns, and I found I could always count on hearing his frank and perceptive perspective on what would be the right policy for the country. Chuck is completing an oral history of his unusual and remarkable Senate career, based on interviews with the Office of the Senate Historian, which has been transcribed and will be available on line. This history describes the challenges, skills and tactics of a Capitol Hill staffer who has fought in the political trenches over forty years. Chuck hopes that this history will encourage young people to consider careers in public service. He's served as the principal advisor and mentor for 25 years to the ``Stanford in Government'' program. He was one of 100 alumni awarded medallions to honor their service to Stanford University during centennial celebrations of the University's founding in 1991; the headquarters for ``Stanford in Government'' at the Haas Center for Public Service is named after him. We wish Chuck and Paula well in their venture in Africa. We will miss Chuck in the office but we know that he's following one of his great dreams, and starting on a remarkable and courageous new round of public service. My office and I are grateful for his dedicated service to our office, to the Senate, and to our Nation, as well as for his friendship. Somewhere right now Jefferson and our Founding Fathers are looking down and smiling proud that our Nation still produces men and women like Chuck and Paula. Congratulations Chuck. Keep in touch and keep teaching us. We eagerly await your reports from Africa.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to take note of the 25th annual National History Day and express my strong support for the goals of the National History Day program. A basic knowledge of history is essential for our Nation's children to become informed participants in our democracy. National History Day promotes history education in Connecticut and throughout the Nation. The National History Day Program encourages students to think critically and create dramatic performances, exhibits, documentaries, and research papers by exploring a variety of resources beyond classroom textbooks. Students in grades 6-12 engage in this challenging year-long program in order to gain a better understanding of the importance of studying history. I believe that a fundamental understanding of history is imperative in order to appreciate the present world situation. Fifty students from Connecticut have demonstrated their proficiency in the subject area by having been selected as National History Day finalists from our State. As a Senator from the State of Connecticut, I am pleased to congratulate the students from Connecticut who have been selected to represent our State at this year's National History Day competition. It also gives me great pleasure to pay special tribute to Sadie Hartell and Elizabeth Kelly. Sadie Hartell and Elizabeth Kelly, both students at Hall Memorial School in Willington, CT, were among the 19 students chosen out of more than half a million across America to display and present their history projects at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Sadie's project is titled ``The Beatles: Communicating to their Generation.'' Elizabeth's project is titled ``The Second American Revolution: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her Fight.'' I applaud all 50 delegates from the State of Connecticut for having been selected to represent our State as finalists in the National History Day competition and commend these students for their diligence and creativity. I join with the citizens of the State of Connecticut in wishing them well in all their future endeavors.