Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate my good friend and colleague from Maine. She said ``reluctantly'' opposed the amendment, but opposed it nonetheless, and the Senator from Mississippi. My own feeling about this is, just as I have fully supported funding for the war on terrorism abroad--and it has been a considerable amount of money. We had a tremendous debate and controversy around the $87 billion supplemental last year, and we will have another supplemental this year, but at least $50 billion for the war on terrorism, critically necessary to our security, for the advancement of our values, and to our freedom. In the same way, $6.8 billion, less than we will give to the international war against terrorism, is critical for the homeland side of the war against terrorism, to raise our defenses, to protect our people. As I said at the outset, we have made real progress in the last year as a result of the work that the Department of Homeland Security has done, but I do not think anybody--including the folks over there-- believe we have done enough to secure the safety of our people. We provide for funding. It is a deficit reduction amendment, a $6.8 billion deficit reduction, paid for by the now familiar tax cut for millionaires. It is fiscally responsible. Can we afford it? I say we can't afford not to afford it. This is today's primary way in which we are fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities to provide for the common defense and to ensure domestic tranquility. This ought to be nonpartisan because it is like national security. We always used to say partisanship stopped at the Nation's borders. Since our enemies have attacked us within our borders, when it comes to homeland security, we ought to be joining across party lines to do what is right to protect our people. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senate Budget chairman and ranking member. I ask that when the vote is taken, it be done by the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. At this time, I yield 2 minutes of the time I have allowed to the Senator from New York for his statement.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. I will take 3 additional minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask for an additional minute of my colleague from Connecticut who has a related matter.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, last week we observed the first anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security, the largest reorganization of the Federal Government in almost a half century. With that anniversary came a round of reflection on the status of our homeland defenses. There was general agreement on the verdict. Yes, we are stronger and safer at home, thanks to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and other steps that we have taken since September 11, 2001. But no, we are not nearly as safe as we should be. We are not as safe as we should be because this administration has not given homeland security the focused leadership and resources that it demands. The Gilmore commission, led by former Virginia Governor James Gilmore, a distinguished Republican leader, recently warned of complacency about the terrorist threat and decried the lack of a clear strategy to bring about improved security. Other expert panels, one of them convened and led by former colleagues Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, called the Nation ``still unprepared'' to respond to another September 11 attack and said that our first responders were ``drastically underfunded.'' Homeland security will not come cheap. On first responders alone, one of the expert panels I described told us they believe it would take $98 billion over 5 years to bring our defenses at home up to where they need to be. Yet the administration proposes a stunning 30-percent cut in resources for firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel. The President's budget for fiscal year 2005 fails to acknowledge, much less address adequately, the new threats we face as a nation, shortchanging the homeland side of our war on terrorism. That is why I rise today to offer this amendment that would add $6.8 billion to the administration's homeland security budget. Let me describe where the money would go: $4.4 billion of that amount would go toward helping our first responders, the firefighters, the police officers, the emergency medical personnel, the hundreds of thousands of people who every day go to work, put on a uniform to serve not only as first responders but really, if we use them well, as first preventers of terrorist attacks. I also propose $900 million in additional resources for port and container security, widely acknowledged as a continuing vulnerability to terrorists who will strike always where we are undefended, and our ports and containers are too greatly undefended. I am calling here for $500 million to better prepare for the threat of bioterrorism, which recent intelligence reports say continues to be a focus of the terrorist groups around the world. I am asking for $500 million for additional border personnel as well as for needed equipment and technology for border security, so we will not see a repeat of the terrorists who came into America to carry out the evil deeds of September 11, 2001. I am asking for $\1/2\ billion to make further advances on aviation security and for greater protection of other modes of transportation-- rail, bus, mass transit--that remain too unprotected. About $2.5 billion of this amendment is needed just to restore cuts that the administration's budget makes in some of these homeland security functions from fiscal year 2004 spending. For example, in this amendment we restore the administration's $1 billion cut to the State homeland security grant program, the main source of assistance to State and local governments and first responders, an unacceptable cut. The amendment also would restore more than $1 billion in cuts to proven first responder programs in the Justice Department: the local law enforcement block grant, the Edward Byrne Memorial grant program, and the Community Oriented Policing Services Program, widely and appreciatively known as COPS. If someone asked whether we have been safer since September 11 from another attack, I just say: Thank God, we have been safe. But this is not an overreaction. Mr. Tenet testified before the Armed Services Committee the other day and he said that al-Qaida and more than two dozen other terrorist groups around the world are still in eager pursuit of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. Their No. 1 goal--not their only goal--is to carry out another ``spectacular attack'' on the United States. Those are the terms they use, ``spectacular attack,'' which they are convinced will break our will and certainly disrupt our economy. We cannot let that happen. We must defend our homeland and protect our infrastructure and our people where we are vulnerable, through the Department of Homeland Security, with the kinds of funds that are authorized and appropriated in this amendment. We have a long way to go before we fulfill the promise each of us has made that our Federal Government would adequately secure the American people when they are at home. We have to approach this profound responsibility with the same unity, the same resolve, and the same resources we have brought to the war on terror overseas. That is why I have introduced this amendment and asked for my colleagues' support. Allow me to lay out, more specifically, what this amendment would do and why it is so necessary. I am advocating $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2005--above the President's request to help ensure that first responders have the equipment, training, and other resources they need to prevent, prepare for and if necessary respond to acts of terrorism. We all remember the heroic role police, firefighters and other first responders played on 9/11, as our Nation responded to the horrific attacks of that day and braced for untold sequels that might be soon to follow. Less visible is the role many of these officials also play in attempting to prevent acts of terrorism here at home: State and local police are the eyes and ears of the community that may first detect a terrorist plot on U.S. soil or intercept a terrorist before he or she can strike. We owe these front line homeland security troops more than our admiration we owe them our full financial support. Yet a distinguished panel convened by the Council on Foreign Relations found these first responders wanting for the tools they must have to confront a terrorist attack: firefighters without their own radios or breathing equipment; police departments without protective gear to respond to an attack with a chemical, biological or radiological agent; and nearly all without interoperable communications equipment. This is unacceptable and must be changed. Let's start with the work that must be done just to undo the harmful cuts sought by the administration. First, my proposal will restore the administration's drastic $1 billion cut to the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which is the main source of assistance to state and local governments and first responders for emergency planning, equipment, training, exercises, mutual aid agreements, and other preparedness activities. There is bipartisan support for restoring these cuts, reflecting the reality that all states face certain homeland funding needs and need a steady, predictable source of money-- as this program provides--to plan wisely. My amendment will also restore more than $1 billion in cuts to key first responder programs in the Justice Department: the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG), the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program (BYRNE), and the Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPs). These programs provide vital aid to help communities hire more police officers and equip them with the tools they need. Funding levels for these three programs have declined more than $1.8 billion since fiscal year 2002, representing a dangerous and unwise reduction at a time when the threat from terrorism, but also domestic crime, has clearly increased. The amendment would also provide $400 million to restore a 33 percent cut in the vital Fire Act program, which provides direct support to thousands of fire departments around the country, and to bring it to full funding. And it restores a $9 million cut to the Emergency Management Planning Grants program, which supports the capacity of state and local governments to respond to emergencies of all kinds. All of these programs are integral to the strength of our first responders and it is incomprehensible that we would cut them at a time the terrorist threat remains high. But we must do more than just hold the line we need to dramatically improve our homeland defenses in our communities. My proposal would provide $1 billion in new funding to be dedicated to helping first responders obtain interoperable communications equipment so they can ``talk to one another'' when responding to events. The lack of communications interoperability has received substantial attention since the September 11, 2001 attacks revealed major problems with communication between police and fire fighters at the World Trade Center in New York. But the problem is hardly unique to New York. Federal officials involved with this issue report that at best--only 14 States have communications equipment that allows public safety agencies to talk to each other during a terrorist attack or other emergency. The price tag for fixing the problem nationwide has been estimated as high as $18 billion, and the lead Federal official on this issue has stated that, at the present rate, it will take 20 years to achieve full interoperability in our country. This is much too long. Yet, the President's 2005 budget actually takes a step backwards by eliminating relatively small grant programs at FEMA that were dedicated to interoperability. Instead, funding for interoperability must now compete with funds for protective gear, training, exercises, and other equipment. My proposal would dedicate $1 billion specifically for interoperability to provide a significant lift to States' efforts to overcome a critical obstacle facing emergency responders across America. In addition to equipment, this would include funding necessary for planning, evaluation, deployment, and training on the use of modern interoperable communications. Another $1 billion in this amendment would go to fully fund the SAFER Act, staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, that is necessary to hire 10,000 additional fire fighters. According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, the shortage of fire fighters has reached crisis proportions. Two-thirds of all fire departments do not have adequate staffing, falling below the accepted industry standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association and, more to the point, putting those firefighters who are on the job in danger. The SAFER Act, which Congress finally passed last year due to the outstanding leadership of my colleague Senator Dodd, authorizes $7.6 billion in grants over 7 years to career, volunteer, and combination fire departments hire new firefighters. At a time when budget cuts have forced some local jurisdictions to actually reduce the number of first responders, this funding is necessary to help protect firefighters and to provide the emergency response capabilities communities want and expect. Virtually every expert analysis of terrorist threats to the United States focuses on the critical issue of port security. Small wonder-- millions of containers arrive at U.S. ports each year, coming from all parts of the globe and subject to only limited, if any, inspection. The ports are at once a tempting portal into the U.S. for dangerous cargo, and a vital economic conduit that--if shuttered due to a terrorist assault--could cause devastating disruption of the Nation's economic life's blood. Earlier this year, the FBI testified that terrorist organizations are looking ``for any holes in the port security system to exploit.'' Yet in the face of such risk, the administration proposes to cut spending on port security grants and eliminate Operation Safe Commerce, an innovative program to improve the security of container traffic into this country. In addition, the President's budget puts Coast Guard fleet and equipment modernization on a slow boat--at the administration's pace, the Deepwater modernization program will take 22 years. A 22-year modernization is practically an oxymoron. My amendment would provide $900 million in additional resources for port and container security. About half of that would go to restore Operation Safe Commerce and to improve physical security at our ports. Bring port security grants--at only a suggested $46 million in the President's budget--to $500 million. The Coast Guard has estimated it will cost $7.5 billion--and $1.5 billion this year--just to provide all ports with minimum security measures and implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act. The grants help finance measures such as fencing and surveillance to better secure the ports and--with them--our vital trade links. Operations Safe Commerce has explored new technologies to track container traffic and can provide a valuable think tank for new approaches to secure their travel into our country. The rest of the money would go to accelerating the Deepwater program, a 22-year Coast Guard fleet modernization program. Since 9/11, we have turned to the Coast Guard again and again for a growing roster of homeland security needs--even as we expect them to continue their outstanding work on non-defense missions such as fisheries enforcement and search and rescue. Yet this outstanding agency operates with virtually the oldest naval fleet in the world--39th out of 41. Senators from both parties--and even the Heritage Foundation--have called for more money for Deepwater. Not only is it the right thing to do, it will actually save money in the long run since the longer Deepwater takes to complete, the more the Coast Guard must spend on maintenance of the decaying fleet. More than 2 years after the anthrax attacks demonstrated our country's vulnerability to bioterrorism, our efforts to protect the American people against biological attacks remains disorganized and underfunded. Indeed, a recent report by the Trust for Public Health concluded that communities are ``only modestly better prepared'' to respond to a bioterror attack than they were before 9/11. Yet here again, the administration actually wants to cut spending--contradicting the opinion of even its own official responsible for bioterror preparedness. The President's budget cuts $105 million from Centers for Disease Control grants to help public health agencies prepare for bioterrorism, and another $39 million from a program to help hospitals expand their capacity to treat victims of a bioterror attack. Where bioterror is concerned, these health officials are our first responders and we must give them support commensurate to the threat. It is true that The President would provide some new money for surveillance to detect a bioterror attack, but this will be of limited use if we have no resources to respond to an attack once we detect it. One public health official likened it to ``laying off firefighters while investing in new hoses and ladders.'' Therefore, my amendment would add $500 million for bioterror preparedness, to restore those cuts and significantly expand the hospital grant program. The health community has identified more than $11 billion in additional needed medical supplies, protective gear for staff and other essentials to respond to a bioterror attack. At the current pace, it would take more than 20 years before hospitals could provide even basic care in the event of such an attack. We must speed up this effort, and my amendment would help us begin down that road. The investments we make here will have the added benefit of improving our capacity to respond to naturally occurring diseases, such as a severe flu outbreak. Our border officials process more than 440 million visits each year, and police more than 7,000 miles of border with Canada and Mexico. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Congress recognized we must spend more to make this system work--to facilitate lawful visitors and trade, while weeding out and halting those who pose a threat. We passed the Patriot Act and the Enhanced Border Security Act, both of which called for significant new border personnel. But since then we have fallen short--hundreds upon hundreds short--of meeting those targets. Indeed one of the only targets that was met--posting 1,000 Border Patrol agents along the Northern Border--was reportedly achieved only by shifting agents from the Southern Border. This is not real homeland security. My amendment would provide $500 million for additional border personnel, as well as for needed equipment and technology for border security. The needs are extensive and include portable, interoperable communications equipment, surveillance systems and fingerprint identification equipment. As US VISIT--the entry/exit system mandated by Congress--is expanded to land ports, we will need expanded facilities to process visitors. Total implementation costs for the program could reach $10 billion. Border security can make a difference. The September 11th Commission discovered that one alert inspector in Miami had apparently stopped one of the would-be hijackers simply by conducting a probing interview at the airport. But we cannot expect such high performance if critical homeland defense workers such as these are overworked and poorly equipped. We know from 9/11, and from terrorist attacks around the world, that transportation networks pose a tempting target to would-be attackers. This knowledge spurred Congress to create the Transportation Security Agency in record time. Now we must give the agency the resources to fulfill its mandate. My amendment would provide $500 million to make further inroads on aviation security and expand to other modes of transportation, which have been largely neglected thus far. Although TSA has made headway on aspects of passenger and baggage screening, much work remains to close known gaps in our aviation security. Specifically, I would direct additional funding to developing systems to screen air cargo, to screen passengers for explosives, and to screen airport workers with access to aircraft. About a quarter of all air cargo travels on passenger planes. Yet, despite all the added precautions we've developed for air passengers and their bags, this cargo remains largely uninspected--only about 5 percent is screened. All-cargo jets pose a similar vulnerability. We must also develop effective systems to screen cargo and implement short-term solutions at once. Another vulnerability is explosives: current passenger screening only detects metallic threats, such as guns or knives, not explosives. Yet we know this is not an obscure threat-- would-be terrorist Richard Reid was able to bring about 10 ounces of explosives onto an American Airlines flight and was only stopped from igniting them by an alert passenger on board. There are promising technologies in this area, but we must spend money to develop them. Finally, many airport workers with access to aircraft and sensitive areas of the airport receive little scrutiny. We must do better. However incomplete the work on aviation security, the federal effort to secure other modes of transportation has hardly begun. According to a recent news report, we have intelligence suggesting that al-Qaida is looking at derailing trains, possibly carrying hazardous material. GAO has also identified vulnerabilities regarding rail shipments of hazardous materials, as well as protective measures that have not yet been taken. Yet despite such concerns, little has been done to assess the risks to our rail system or to deploy countermeasures. Similarly, we know from the deadly sarin attack on the Tokyo subway and suicide bombers on Israeli buses, that mass transit presents an inviting target to possible terrorist activity. The American Public Transportation Association has identified at least $6 billion in transit security needs, such as video surveillance and chemical and biological detection systems. But DHS has released only $115 million in transit security grants thus far, and no money is set aside for this purpose in the President's budget.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we are a Nation at war. It is a war against terrorism. It is a war that is being fought abroad and at home. A day or two ago, this Senate overwhelmingly restored $7 billion to the Department of Defense budget, in part to assist our military in fighting the war against terrorism overseas. At home, we have not adequately funded the homeland side of the war against terrorism. We have not adequately funded the Department of Homeland Security. This amendment would do that: $6.8 billion, $4.4 billion of which would go to first responders. It is outrageous that at this time of conflict, there are police and fire departments all over America that are letting firefighters and police officers go, just when we need those first responders. That is about as foolish as an army laying off soldiers in the middle of the war.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor to express my support for the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from the State of Washington, Mrs. Murray, and my distinguished colleague from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act and to improve overall funding for education and training programs. I believe it is critical that my colleagues in the Senate adopt this amendment which represents a critical investment in America's future. A little more than 2 years ago, in this Chamber, we made a bipartisan commitment to leave no child behind. This landmark legislation has the potential to strengthen our public education system. It represents an ambitious Federal effort to dramatically revitalize public education by closing the achievement gap, making sure every classroom has a qualified teacher, and giving parents and students adequate choices to ensure that their children receive a quality education. Adequate funding, however, is essential in order to give our public schools the support and resources they need to implement the act, and to meet the goals embodied therein. The amendment before us will ensure that the budget resolution fully funds the No Child Left Behind Act at its authorized level. We have all heard complaints with this law; the predominant one being that it is another unfunded Federal mandate. Schools across the Nation are struggling to meet the requirements of the law. However, they have been shortchanged by this President, and they are being shortchanged again by the budget resolution before us--shortchanged to the tune of $8.6 billion. How can we expect our schools to embrace the act when their hands are tied by lack of funding? This issue has become so pronounced that 18 States have considered a resolution that would grant them a waiver from the law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment to assure our school systems will receive the funding levels they were promised when the law was enacted. This amendment will signal to our schools and school districts that we will meet our end of the bargain, in order to make public education in this country first class for every child in America. It will signal to our State and local education leaders that we will stand behind our commitment to them, and give them the support they want and need to do their job for our children. The $8.6 billion being allocated by this amendment can be used to ensure that we have highly qualified teachers in our classrooms, provide additional afterschool programs, send resources to schools identified as ``in need of improvement,'' supply tutoring and supplemental services, and give students specialized instruction in reading and mathematics. It can also be used to leverage additional State and local resources for public education in this country. Finally, I would like to point out that not only does this amendment pay for itself, but it also dedicates an additional $8.6 billion for deficit reduction. I commend the Senators from Washington and Massachusetts for offering this amendment as an investment in our Nation's future. I am proud to be a cosponsor. Our schools and students need adequate resources to meet the high expectations that have been placed upon them. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend and colleague from Nevada. Mr. President, it is now more than a month since I ended my quest for the Democratic nomination for President. It was a thrilling, demanding, purposive journey across this great country. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity I had. I learned a lot. In fact, I would recommend anyone who has the opportunity try it at least once in a lifetime. But today I want to share with my colleagues a few serious reflections from my campaign experience about the current state of our politics and the way they may affect our work here in this election year on the great questions of our economy and our security, particularly in Iraq. It is now clear who the Presidential nominees of the major parties will be: President Bush and Senator Kerry. Therefore, it is time for members of both parties to start thinking and talking about how we want the national campaign to be conducted at this uniquely difficult and dangerous moment in American history. For the United States, this is a very good time, but it is also a very difficult time. We have the largest economy and the strongest military in the world. Our core values of freedom and opportunity are ascendent around the globe. In so many ways here at home we live better than any people ever have because of the truly amazing advances in medical science, telecommunications, information technology, and transportation. However, these advances and the globalization they have facilitated have also brought painful changes for millions of Americans in lost jobs, declining income, skyrocketing health care costs, and a fear of what the future may bring. On top of that, we face an unprecedented new challenge to our security and our freedom from fanatical Islamic terrorists who brutally attacked us and our homeland on September 11, 2001. These two new realities have made the American people more anxious about their future, as I met them during this last year, than I have ever seen them before. Our confidence and our optimism must be restored. How best to do that and who can best do that is ultimately what this year's Presidential campaign is all about. Ideally, the campaign will raise our hopes, not deepen our insecurities; it will unite us, not divide us; it will strengthen us, not weaken us; it will create an environment in which our Government, including this Congress, will produce relief for some of what ails America, hopefully this year. But I can't say I am optimistic that any of these ideals will be achieved because of the rigid and reflexive partisanship that has come to dominate so much of our politics. Warnings about factionalism are, of course, as old as our Republic, but they seem especially relevant and necessary today, when strategists from both major parties seem poised to seek electoral victory by inflaming their inner constituencies with ideological tinder and brutal personal attacks on the other party's candidates. That will only divide us more deeply and make it more difficult for us to overcome the enormous threats to our security and our prosperity. Our political parties and Presidential candidates must find ways to differ without being destructive, to debate without demonizing, to put our national interests ahead of special interests, to take the long view rather than the most politically expedient short view, to rise above partisan politics, to put America first. I know the conventional wisdom is that in an election year, the breakthrough in our politics and Government I am calling for is unlikely to occur. But I also know there have been many times in our history when the proximity of an election has induced exactly the kind of leadership and consensus building that produce progress in our democracy. Congress passed and previous Presidents signed the Federal Highway Aid Act in 1956, the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1972, and welfare reform in 1996. These were all landmark pieces of legislation that required and received bipartisan cooperation in an election year. Let us hope we can produce similar progress this year. Let us work together to lower the crushing price of health care, to develop and implement a plan to stop the bleeding of American manufacturing and service jobs, to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget, to reduce the growing number of poor people in our country, to address the real threat of global warming, and to reassure the American people that we understand their anger at the contemporary culture which too often undercuts their traditional values of faith and family, of right and wrong. Let us hope we can work effectively toward those goals. There is one area of challenge that demands more than hope, where we simply cannot afford to allow campaign-year politics to take over until after election day. That is the current crisis in Iraq. We are at war. The lives of more than 100,000 American troops are on the line in Iraq. So, too, is the fulcrum of our present and future national security. Yes, there is violence and bloodshed, sadly, elsewhere in the world, but the impact Iraq will have on our future security and our prospects for victory in the wider war against terrorism is of the greatest magnitude. It has no equal in the world today. Our politics must catch up with that reality. I recognize the differences of opinion about why and how we went to war in Iraq. I know they run deep and they run wide. As for myself, I remain a strong supporter of the war that removed Saddam Hussein. Yes, I have criticized the administration for some of its policies, both before and immediately after the war. But I believe deeply we cannot allow arguments about past policy to stop us from finding common ground to face the present threats in Iraq. We cannot refight the last war in Iraq against Saddam with such ferocity that we falter in fighting the terrorist insurgents that threaten Iraq and us right now. The days between now and our election day in November will be critical days for Iraq, as sovereignty is returned to the Iraqi people and they prepare for what we hope will be their own historic election day in December. Unless the security situation in Iraq improves dramatically, that election day may not come. The fact is, as the newspapers and media have told us in the last 2 days, there is danger in Iraq. One hundred and eighty-five people were killed on Tuesday by suicide bombings. These are threats not just to the lives and security of the Iraqi people, but they present the staggering prospect of civil war in Iraq. Together with the Iraqi people and our coalition partners, we are going to need to make critical decisions and take strong, difficult, tough actions in the upcoming weeks and months to maintain security in that country. To do so, we here at home must transcend the partisan reflex rancor that has become the norm in American politics. The consequences of failure in Iraq are staggering. The fact that the battle has been joined in Iraq--the historic battle between security and terror, between freedom and tyranny. Iraq is a critical battleground now in our larger war against terrorism because the fact is that members of the same Jihadist movements that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, are now fighting alongside Saddam loyalists, systematically targeting and murdering Americans and Iraqis for working so hard to build a secure, new civil society in that country. If we fail to stop these insurgents and lose the peace in Iraq, the Iraqi people will be condemned to chaos and relentless violence. The Middle East will be destabilized. The forces of worldwide terrorism will gain new confidence, energy, and resources to attack us. On the other hand, establishing a stable democratizing, modernizing Iraq would be a major victory in our battle with the terrorists and our struggle to bring hope to the majority of Muslims in the world, who clearly desire peace, not war. It will show them a better way to a better future than the hatred and death that the fanatics of al-Qaida and their ilk preach. It will bring about much greater stability and opportunity throughout the Middle East. In the weeks ahead, I intend to speak in more detail about how together we can accomplish these critical American goals. But for today, I want to concentrate on how best we can separate the challenges to us in Iraq from this Presidential campaign. There are significant differences of opinion, clearly, between the Presidential candidates, President Bush and Senator Kerry, about our past policies in Iraq. But I don't see significant differences between them about the need to successfully finish what we have started there. Both have asserted that we must not cut and run from Iraq. We cannot allow the politics of this campaign to obscure or block that agreement, that commitment to finish our mission. We must recapture the spirit of bipartisanship and national purpose we achieved following the September 11 attacks. It is that important. For Democrats, that doesn't mean that all debate about the war must stop. But I believe it does mean we must focus on how best to win the war we are engaged in now against terrorist insurgents. Only questioning how and why we got into the last war against Saddam is simply not enough. Doing only that is not acceptable anymore. For the President, his party, it means not politicizing the conduct of the war in any way. As Commander in Chief, the President has a special responsibility to focus on winning the war, even in this election year--perhaps most particularly at this time. In the months ahead, the President must make tough decisions necessary to bring security to Iraq and a better life to Iraqis, regardless of the political consequences at home because that is what will best serve America's values and security. The fact is, both parties and our leaders must reach out to each other--difficult as that is in an election year, but it is necessary at this moment--to find a common ground that will secure our common future. Mr. President, it is reassuring to look back across American history and find that at some of our most difficult times our predecessors in positions of power in the American Government have made sure that partisan politics ended at our Nation's borders. Following the Second World War, for example, leaders in Congress and the White House forged a bipartisan foreign policy to combat communism. It lasted half a century and brought us to victory in the cold war. During that time, the best of our elected officials no longer saw themselves just as Democrats or Republicans. They saw themselves as Americans fighting a common enemy. Our times demand from us that same spirit of surpassing bipartisanship in the war against terrorism, for obviously the terrorists do not distinguish among us based on our party affiliations. Each of us is their enemy because we are all Americans, so we Democrats and Republicans must, therefore, in this campaign year, see beyond the red States and the blue States to a larger cause that is as critical to the red, white, and blue as any America has ever fought for. It is the cause of defeating Jihadist terrorists who hate us and our free and tolerant ways of life more than they love life itself, and who would, if we allow them, plunge this modern world into a primitive global religious war. For the sake of our children's futures, for the sake of America's core values, for the sake of world peace, we cannot allow that to happen. I am a proud member of the Democratic Party and, as such, I will work for a Democratic victory in the elections this fall. I know my Republican colleagues in this Chamber will work just as hard for a Republican victory. But during this time of war, we each must make certain that our party loyalties do not prevail over our national responsibilities. As important as a partisan victory is to each of us, it cannot be more important than a victory over terrorism for all of us, a victory that will enable the American people to feel secure again at home, that will enable our soldiers to return from Iraq, that will enable the Iraqi people to enjoy the blessings of liberty, which it is America's historic mission to advance and defend. A final word. On November 2 of last year, PFC Anthony D'Agostino of Waterbury, CT, was killed in Iraq. A few weeks later, I received a note from Anthony's father, Steven. I read this paragraph from it: Please continue to support all our men and women in uniform. Please support our Commander in Chief in his resolve to obtain his objectives. Please keep America the true leader of peace in the world. Tony was our only son, our only legacy. Although this was a great loss to our family, we wish you godspeed in making the world a safer place. The quiet, selfless strength and patriotism of the D'Agostino family have been echoed for me in other voices I have met throughout America during the last year. We must hear those voices through the sound and fury of the coming national campaign. We must assure them by our words and our deeds that we have our priorities right, that we will come together in this election year across party lines to protect their sons and daughters, to make certain that America will remain the true leader of peace and freedom in the world, and to achieve a better life for all of our people at home. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am very proud to join Senators McCain, Reed, DeWine and our other cosponsors in proposing and supporting this critical amendment. Too often gun legislation has divided Members of Congress. This is a proposal that should not do that. This is a proposal that builds on common values we all share as Americans. As citizens of this great Republic, we all recognize that we have rights and we have responsibilities. Among our rights is the right to own guns. Among our responsibilities are the responsibilities to use those guns safely and to make sure that those who are neither law- abiding nor peaceful are permitted access to deadly force. For several decades, our Nation has had a clear policy against allowing convicted felons to buy guns, because we know that mixing criminals and firearms far too often yields violent results. That same insight has caused us to agree that it causes too great a risk to society for a number of other groups of people to buy guns--those under felony indictments, who are fugitives from justice, who are subject to restraining orders and who are convicted spouse abusers. Through the Brady law, we established what seems like an obvious corollary to that policy a requirement that those selling guns first determine whether someone trying to buy a firearm isn't supposed to get one. The Brady law has been an enormous success. Since its enactment, background checks have stopped almost one million gun sales to those who by law aren't allowed to own guns. The majority of stopped sales involve convicted criminals or those under felony indictment. Stopping these nearly one million transactions has saved an untold number of our citizens from the violence, injury or death the sale of many of these guns would have brought. Importantly, this life-saving legislation has brought its benefits with the most minimal of impact on the law-abiding citizens who have the right to buy guns. Over 90 percent of background checks are completed immediately; 95 percent within 2 hours. In other words, the vast, vast majority of those seeking to buy guns suffer no inconvenience whatsoever from these virtually instant background checks. But, again, the benefits to the rest of us, to those who have been saved from the violence that could have resulted from just a fraction of those nearly one million sales stopped by the Brady law-- those benefits are incalculable. Unfortunately, the Brady law contained a loophole that has since been exploited to allow criminals and others who aren't legally allowed to buy guns to evade the background check requirement by buying their guns at gun shows. The problem is that Brady applies only to Federal Firearms Licensees, so-called FFLs--people who are in the business of selling guns. Brady explicitly exempts from the background check requirement anyone ``who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.'' As a result, any person selling guns as a hobby or only occasionally, whether at a gun show, flea market or elsewhere, need not obtain a Federal license and therefore has no obligation to conduct a background check. This means that any person wanting to avoid a background check can go to a gun show, find out which vendors are not FFLs, and buy a gun. This situation is dangerous not only because it allows convicted felons and other prohibited persons to buy guns, but also because--in contrast to FFLs--non-FFLs have no obligation to keep records of the transaction, thereby depriving law enforcement of the ability to trace the gun if it later turns up at a crime scene. Now I know that some argue that there is no gun show loophole, or that if there is one, it has little or no consequence. That's just wrong. But don't just believe me on this--listen to a report by the government agency charged with investigating gun trafficking. In June 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms issued a report in which they stated: ``The access to anonymous sales and large numbers of secondhand firearms makes gun shows attractive to criminals. . . . [G]unshows were associated with the diversion of approximately 26,000 firearms.'' The report went on to describe an ATF review of gun show investigations, which it said: shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations. Our amendment will change that. We will make sure that no one will be able to buy a gun at a gun show without it first being determined whether that person is a convicted felon, a spouse abuser or a member of one of the other categories of people we all agree should not be allowed to buy guns. Our bill does this, though, by respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners and taking into account some of the concerns that were expressed about previous efforts to close this loophole. At the outset, let me emphasize that background checks at gun shows will be no more burdensome than those that so successfully and efficiently have been conducted over the past decade, with minimal intrusion on the rights of law abiding citizens. Again, over 90 percent of checks produce immediate answers and 95 percent yield results in under two hours. Just as importantly, there's nothing in the experience of those states that have already closed the gun show loophole to suggest that gun shows will suffer as a result of closing this dangerous loophole. According to the Americans for Gun Safety, gun shows are thriving in the States where background checks are required. Pennsylvania, which closed the loophole in 1995, hosts the second most gun shows of any State in the country. And of the top 5 gun show States, three Pennsylvania, Illinois and California--require background checks or a firearms ID card for gun purchases. But we understand the concerns some have expressed--that a bill closing the gun show loophole will somehow extend beyond gun shows into small private sales from someone's home or will create a barrier so high that gun shows won't be able to operate. We've made sure that won't happen. First, our bill has a simple definition of a gun show--an event where 75 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale--and we make clear that that definition doesn't include sales from a private collection by nonlicensed sellers out of their homes. Second, to respond to the argument that previous proposals made it too difficult for nonlicensed sellers to fulfill the background check requirement, our bill makes sure that nonlicensed sellers will have easy access to someone who can initiate background checks for them, by creating a new class of licensee whose sole purpose will be to initiate background checks at gun shows. Third, we have tried to respond to those who say that a three-day check is too long for gun shows, because those events only last a couple of days. It is worth noting yet again that the length allowed for the check doesn't affect the overwhelming majority of gun purchasers, because over 90 percent of checks are completed almost instantly. But to allay the concerns that have been expressed, we have come up with a compromise that authorizes a State to move to a 24-hour check for nonlicensed dealers at gun shows when the State can prove that a 24-hour check is feasible. A State can prove that by showing that 95 percent of the records that would disqualify people in that State from buying guns are computerized and searchable by the NICS system. And, because of the particular need to keep guns out of the hands of spouse abusers, the bill specifically provides that a State must have computerized 95 percent of its domestic violence misdemeanor and restraining order records dating back 30 years before it is eligible to go to a 24-hour check at gun shows. Putting all of these provisions together, I frankly cannot understand why reasonable people would oppose this amendment. If we all agree that criminals, spouse abusers and the like shouldn't be able to buy guns, why in the world aren't we doing a very simple thing and saying that just like the person who sells at a gun store has to do a background check, the person who sells at a gun show does too. All this bill does is make sure that we have an effective means to implement something upon which there has been a national consensus for decades--that criminals and other people we all agree shouldn't own guns can't buy them. Now I know that there are many who argue that what we need to solve the gun violence problem are not new laws, but the enforcement of existing ones. I agree with part of that statement, and firmly support efforts to crack down on those who violate our gun laws. But I believe we must go farther than that, because we will never be able to enforce existing laws unless we close the loopholes in them that criminals exploit. And we all know that there is a big loophole in the provision saying that felons and spouse abusers aren't supposed to buy guns, and that is that criminals know that if they go to a gun show, they will be able to avoid the background check that was set up to keep them from getting guns. Gun crime remains a critical public safety problem. For too long, differences over finding a solution to that problem have unnecessarily divided the Congress, and the American people have been left to suffer the violent consequences. But the reality is that most of us agree on most of the critical questions. We agree that the laws on the books should be enforced, that the rights of law-abiding gun owners should be protected, and that convicted felons and spouse abusers shouldn't be able to get guns. Again, I believe law abiding citizens have every right to own guns, but we also all share in the responsibility of keeping our society safe and keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. This amendment would write those principles into law. I hope all of my colleagues support it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I intend to join Senator McCain in this objection. Let me say this briefly because he has spoken clearly and powerfully. Life is about choices. We don't take any pleasure in stopping the extension of the highway law and the consequent disruption that may occur. There are priorities here. As I see this, the objection we are registering in pursuit of an extension of the time limit or deadline of the work of the September 11 Commission, as agreed to by the White House, as requested by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission led by the distinguished former Governor of New Jersey, Republican Tom Kean, as demanded by the families of the victims of September 11, that has to take precedence in the choices we make. I believe the work of this Commission is a critical element in the larger war on terrorism because the work of this Commission is to determine independently, aggressively how did September 11 happen. September 11 occasioned the official commencement of our war on terrorism. Unless we exhaust every opportunity to determine how it happened, we cannot feel we are successfully prepared to fight and win the war on terrorism and to protect the American people at home from ever having to suffer again the kind of devastating attack we suffered September 11, 2001. It is that important. Senator McCain and I introduced this proposal in the fall of 2001 to create the Commission. It took more time than it should have to create it. It has been created. The Commission has had more trouble than it should have had obtaining documents, including noncooperation--or at least footdragging by folks in the administration, which I don't understand, because we are all on the same side here. It is possible had that kind of delay not occurred, the original deadline of May 27 of this year for the work of the Commission would have been adequate. It is not. The bipartisan commissioners have told us that the White House has agreed--to the President's credit and the administration's credit--that a 2-month extension is necessary, to July 27, plus an additional month for the Commission to wind down after it issues its report and the work it is doing. The Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously reported out such a proposal yesterday. I don't believe there is any objection to it here in the Senate. There is bipartisan support. Yet some of our friends in the House leadership apparently do object. With all respect, I say they are plain wrong. I don't understand it. Therefore, Senator McCain and I are faced with a choice. We have to make a choice. We have made the choice and, in doing so, respectfully, there may be consequences to this highway bill. I join the Senator in saying we would be happy to have another vehicle that the House will definitely have to take up to get this done. It is that important. We do not live in ordinary times. We have constitutional responsibilities to provide for the common defense and to insure domestic tranquility. To me, with all respect to the consequences of not extending the highway law--and they are real--they pale in significance to not giving this commission the extra time it needs to complete its work. Here again, the Congress is challenged procedurally to find a way to allow what I think every Member of the Senate wants to happen. That is why Senator McCain and I are standing up and basically crying out to our colleagues: Help us. Don't just help us, help the country successfully prosecute the war on terrorism with the information that will result from this Commission's report. Help us honor the memory of the 3,000 who were killed on September 11, 2001, and help us respond to the understandable appeals of the families of the victims of September 11, of which about 114 families live in the State of Connecticut. It is for those reasons, respectfully, that I join Senator McCain in this objection. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. No, not at all.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and the leader. My friend from Arizona is right. That is the first thing I wanted to point out that it was February 20, 1 week ago, in the Washington Post that Governor Keane made those statements. I will give a quote from him: Every week that goes by makes the extension less valuable. When you have to work toward the earlier deadline, you have to start cancelling things and you can't go over things quite as clearly as you might like. This is last Friday. He says: Congress comes back into session next week and we really need to hear something by then. We all know we would not be here doing this if the leadership in the House at one point had not said quite clearly that they were not going to let this extension pass, notwithstanding the fact that the Commission requested it, the President has accepted the extension, and it is pretty clear to me, Senator Frist, the leader, the Democratic leadership, all support the extension. Unfortunately, the nature of the presses that often breaks down here, the only way one can get done what one really thinks is necessary in the national interest is to stand up and say, stop. Of course, we do not want to put those 5,000 families at a disadvantage even temporarily, but we do not have an alternative.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, very briefly, let me join the Senator from Arizona in thanking the majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, and our colleagues for working together. We have, in fact, in the words of Scripture, ``reasoned together,'' have we not? It may have taken longer than it should have, which is not unusual for the Congress, but we have reached a just result. I am grateful to the Speaker for having agreed to the extension of the deadline during which the Commission investigating September 11 will have to report by the 2 months that the Commission itself, the bipartisan Commission, requested and now having apparently indicated to at least staff of the Commission that he is prepared, in addition to the 2-month extension for the report to be completed, to have an additional 30 days for a winddown period. But this will be worked out in detail. As Senator McCain said, the easiest way to do this is the way we all started today, which was with the Senate bill adopted that, in fact, does this 2-month extension for the report, 30 days for winding down of the Commission. The basic principle is the enormity of what happened, the horror of what happened on September 11, 2001, that none of us want to ever happen again. That is what this Commission was created to investigate, and then advise us how to avoid. There never should have been on the question of the search for truth about September 11 a time deadline which the Commission itself believed was too short to complete their work. I think we have now opened a path--a door--to give it the time it needs to complete its work, which is going to be critical to us as we continue to protect the security of the American people at home. Again, I thank everybody for being part of it. Once again, it reminds me of the truth of what I said a short while ago. It is good to be back in the Senate where sometimes it takes a little longer but good things actually get done. This is one of them. I thank my colleagues, and I thank my friend from Arizona. He is a great and principled fighter for what is right. The majority leader is bipartisan. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, for working families in the State of Connecticut and across the country, these are hard economic times. Millions have lost their jobs, and millions more fear they might lose theirs soon. Outsourcing American service jobs overseas, as the President's economic advisors suggest, would only add to the unemployment rolls and to growing anxieties. What American needs is not a plan for creating jobs abroad, but a plan for creating jobs here at home. Nearly all sectors have been affected by the national economy's sluggish performance during the past 3 years, with job losses across the board. The manufacturing sectors has been hit particularly hard. In the State of Connecticut, nearly 26,400 manufacturing jobs have been cut in the past 38 months, and 33,500 since January 2001. Most of these jobs have gone overseas. In addition to manufacturing job loss, services and high-tech jobs are also being sourced outside the United States--to lower cost, lower wage countries. The employment trends in this sector are harder to quantify, but the impact is no less real. They threaten to put U.S. technological competitiveness and future economic growth at risk. The Bush administration has done next to nothing to stop this hemorrhaging--relying instead on factory photo-ops, toothless trade missions and new organizational charts. The latest comment from President Bush's top economic advisers that the outsourcing of U.S. service jobs to workers overseas is good for the Nation's economy only underscores the administration's lack of understanding and leadership on this issue. Instead of policies that shift jobs overseas, we need to create jobs in this country. We need to strengthen enforcement of trade agreements; provide tax credits to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States; promote innovation through Federal research and development policy; leverage Federal purchasing power; create tax incentives for investment in manufacturing modernization and expansion; and strengthen manufacturing and service workers' skills. Today I join my Senate colleagues in sponsoring a resolution that tells President Bush--loudly and clearly--we will oppose efforts to encourage the outsourcing of American jobs overseas and instead provide a manufacturing tax incentive to encourage job creation in the United States.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today Senator McCain and I are introducing legislation to extend the life of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States so that it can complete its critically important investigation into the causes of the September 11th terrorist attacks, which claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent people. Under legislation Senator McCain and I authored in December 2001 to create the Commission, its final report was to have been completed by May 27, 2004. The Commission itself has asked for more time. So we are now proposing to extend that deadline until January 10, 2005 and to provide an additional $6 million for the Commission to complete its work. Senator McCain and I are grateful to the Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, for joining us in this effort. We are also happy to have the support of Senators Dorgan, Lautenberg, Corzine, Graham, Durbin, and Dodd. In the House, Representatives Fossella, Shays, Hinchey and Emanuel are expected to introduce companion legislation this week, and we welcome their support as well. We want the Commission's final report to be as searching and complete as possible. We owe that to the memories of the 3,000 victims and their families. And we owe it to the Nation as a whole. In fact, our future security depends upon it. George Washington once said we should look back ``to derive useful lessons from past errors, and for the purpose of profiting by dear- bought experience.'' That is the precise mission of this Commission to better understand what went wrong so we can prevent such a catastrophic attack from ever happening again. The Commission simply needs more time to do that. From the beginning, Senator McCain and I have been motivated by the experience of the families of victims of September 11. Above and beyond the grief of their losses, they have endured terrible pain in not knowing the whole account of how something so horrific could have happened to them and those they loved. It was a tribute to the power of the families' message that our legislation creating the Commission passed the Senate on September 24, 2002, by a resounding vote of 90-8. And it is a tribute to the enduring power of their message that Senator McCain and I are seeking this extension. Last week, the Commission asked Congress for at least an additional 60 days to finalize its interviews, hearings, and report. The families, however, expressed concern that two months may be an inadequate amount of time to accomplish all that must be done. They have called for a seven-and-a-half month extension so the Commission can conduct all the public hearings it had originally intended to hold, so that it can conduct thorough reviews of the President's daily intelligence briefings--a process barely underway--and so that it has the time to deal with the Administration's anticipated objections to declassifying material in the final report. Indeed, the Commissioners I asked have confirmed that they can benefit from more than the minimum two months requested. I have therefore been convinced by the families and the Commissioners that the extra time is necessary. But I would also warn the Administration that this extension is not an excuse to engage in additional dilatory tactics. I add this warning because the Bush Administration has a long record of opposing this Commission and an equally long record of making its work more difficult. Ever since Senator McCain and I first joined forces on this issue, we have faced White House intransigence. The President opposed the Commission for 10 months until the eve of a Senate vote he knew he would lose. During final negotiations over the details of the legislation, the White House negotiated to keep the Commission's duration as short as possible, rather than give it ample time to do a thorough job. Once the Commission got underway, the Administration hampered the Commission's progress through slow document production and other stalling tactics, limiting the Commission's ability to proceed expeditiously with its investigation. Even now, the Administration is refusing to give the full Commission notes, taken by members of the Commission, that describe key White House documents. When one considers the obstacles generated by the White House, it is not in the least bit surprising that the Commission now needs additional time to finish the job. I would note, however, that this extension does not preclude the Commission from releasing interim reports, as the original legislation establishing the Commission allows. Furthermore, the Commission is free to release its final report before the deadline, if it has completed its work. The Commission's hearings, questioning of witnesses, factual findings, and staff report issued last week proved exceptionally valuable in shedding light on some of the causes of the terrorist attacks. Future hearings and staff reports, no doubt, will continue to provide important new information about weaknesses in our defenses against terrorism. Therefore, we encourage the Commission to continue to release its findings and recommendations as they become available, so that we can learn from the mistakes of our past as quickly as possible, and work harder to shore up existing vulnerabilities. Congress and the relevant federal agencies have a duty to develop new strategies and capabilities to deter and prevent future terrorist attacks, and expeditious reporting by the Commission will help enormously. Major systemic problems have already surfaced, for example, that can point us in the right direction, or maybe even an entirely new direction, to address an array of vulnerabilities, particularly in our law enforcement and intelligence communities. Allow me to cite just a few examples from the Commission's work thus far to illustrate how many hands we will need, laboring in unison, to patch the breaches that remain in America's domestic security: 1. An immigration official at Orlando International Airport, Mr. Melendez-Perez, testified that on August 4, 2001, he turned away and sent home a suspicious, unresponsive, and belligerent Saudi national holding a one-way ticket with no departure plans and insufficient funds to stay in the U.S. and purchase a ticket home. This individual claimed that he was to meet a friend at the airport but would not name the friend. It turned out that one of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta, was at the airport on that day. Amazingly, neither the FBI nor anyone else from the intelligence community has ever debriefed Mr. Melendez-Perez, even though the immigration inspector informed the FBI of the incident immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 2. The excellent performance of Mr. Melendez-Perez demonstrated that a vigilant and well-trained officer can spot suspicious behavior in the course of a routine interview. But the Commission's hearings and reports also revealed how infrequently that occurs. Government officials admitted in public testimony that consular employees are not expected to screen for possible terrorists during interviews of visa applicants, nor are they trained to do so. The Commission discovered that many of the hijackers had passports that were fraudulently altered or had other suspicious indicators, but between 1992 and September 11, 2001, the federal government had not attempted to disseminate, to border security or other relevant employees, available information about the travel and passport practices of Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. All of the hijackers' visa applications were incomplete, and several contained false statements that were easily identifiable. The hijackers entered the United States, often more than once, without incident, despite the fact that several of them had violated immigration law. Hijackers referred to secondary inspections for more detailed scrutiny were nevertheless admitted. 3. New information has been revealed about the abundant knowledge the intelligence community had about three of the 19 hijackers, who held a strategy session in Malaysia and were extensively tracked by U.S. and foreign intelligence services. The story fleshed out by the Commission underscores the fact that not only did the government fail to share information that might have kept the terrorists out of the country, but they also failed to share information that might have exposed the terrorists' September 11th plot. That is why I have focused personal attention on the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and the Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection at DHS to make sure that these new centers are receiving all intelligence information, mixing it together with skilled and intense analysis, and warning the relevant state, local, and federal officials of emerging terrorist plots. 4. All the evidence that consolidated watch lists might have prevented entry to some of the terrorists notwithstanding, the watch lists still haven't been consolidated despite numerous Administration promises to do so. The Commission learned from the Federal Aviation Administration that, prior to September 11th, the no-fly list created for the airlines had only 12-20 names on it, whereas the terrorist watch list at the State Department had tens of thousands of terrorists' names. We also learned that the no-fly list and the larger terrorist watch list are still not equal in numbers and that there are still terrorists on the larger list who might be permitted to fly if they evade other detection. These disclosures demonstrate the Commission is accomplishing its assignment, and so it must be allowed to complete its investigation. I am certain the Commission will use the extra months wisely to complete a thorough investigation, continue its public hearings, interview all relevant government officials and complete a comprehensive final report for release as soon as possible. It is a basic American principle that we must learn from the past in order to secure a better future. Our ability to counter, prevent, and defend against the next terrorist attack on our homeland depends in no small part on the Commission's ability to bring satisfactory closure to its work. If we only give the Commission the time, resources, and cooperation it deserves, the Commission's full, fair, and unflinching assessment of what went wrong will be of immediate value to our national security. And it will be of lasting value to the American people, who will finally discover the unvarnished truth. I urge the Senate to approve this legislation in a timely manner so that the victims' families and the rest of America may have some measure of peace. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to SGM Philip R. Albert, U.S. Army, of Plymouth, CT. A 23-year Army veteran, he had served in Operation Desert Storm and already had a tour in Afghanistan. Sergeant Major Albert was considered an adventurer with a good sense of humor, dedicated to the Army, and devoted to his friends and family. Joining the Army as a teenager, Sergeant Major Albert was an example of the powerful American spirit which permeates this Nation's history. A member of the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, Sergeant Major Albert was killed in a helicopter crash during a combat operation on November 23 in Afghanistan. Five others died with him and eight others were injured. Sergeant Major Albert who loved the military, served as a messenger of high justice and idealism in the best tradition of American principles and patriotism. I am both proud and grateful that we have the kind of fighting force exemplified by Sergeant Major Albert serving in the Persian Gulf. Our Nation extends its heartfelt condolences to his mother, brothers, and sisters. We extend our appreciation for sharing this outstanding soldier with us, and we offer our prayers and support. You may be justifiably proud of his contributions which extend above and beyond the normal call of duty.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I commend Admiral Loy for his willingness to take on the position of Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, one of the most important and also most difficult jobs in the federal government. The fledgling Department of Homeland Security is a critical undertaking for our government and our country. We know that we face real and ongoing threats to our domestic security from terrorism, and the Department is our best hope of bringing the critical focus, resources and leadership to bear on these new and insidious threats. It is a momentous undertaking fraught with challenges, and we must give the Department every support we can to achieve its vital task. Unfortunately, in the face of numerous expert reports chronicling the terrorist threat to United States citizens)--and the need for a dramatic infusion of new federal funds-- President Bush has consistently failed to embrace the challenge of homeland security with vision or resources. As Deputy Secretary, Admiral Loy will be second-in-command and have influence over the full array of DHS policies and practices. As such, I hope he will work forcefully to close the existing gaps in our security--and in the administration's efforts on homeland security. I have detailed some of my concerns in other floor statements and in numerous letters to Secretary Ridge and other DHS officials. We are, to quote a distinguished report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, ``drastically underfunded, dangerously unprepared'' with respect to our state and local first responders and the federal government's efforts here are falling far short. The administration is thwarting a critical congressional mandate to create a true intelligence fusion center within DHS. On critical infrastructure protection, our government has yet to complete vital threat and risk assessments, much less implement forceful measures to protect these critical assets. I will not repeat all those concerns here, but instead focus on the dangerous gaps I perceive with respect to transportation security--the issue that has been Admiral Loy's direct responsibility as head of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and one over which he will continue to exercise considerable influence. TSA was created in the aftermath of 9/11 in response to the tragic weaknesses in the air security realm that were exposed by the attacks. Indeed, TSA has made important strides to improve certain aspects of aviation security, such as passenger and baggage screening. But critical deficiencies exist in these and other areas of air security, and the agency has barely begun to tackle its broader transportation security mandate. Although Admiral Loy will be leaving his post as Administrator of TSA, I believe it is essential that he continue to place a high priority on resolving these critical issues. By law, the Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security in all modes of transportation. But TSA has thus far focused almost exclusively on commercial aviation, leaving treacherous weaknesses in other transportation systems--a problem I outlined in a July 9 letter to Secretary Ridge. For fiscal year 2004, the administration sought $4.3 billion for passenger aviation security, but only $86 million for TSA's maritime and land security efforts. Congressional appropriators added some additional resources for maritime and land security, but there is still very little money available for these critical needs. For instance, with respect to maritime transportation, the Coast Guard has identified billions of dollars worth of necessary improvements--and Congress has mandated greater security--yet the administration requested no money for port security grants to help make the changes and only $125 million for this purpose was ultimately included in the DHS appropriations bill. Indeed, there is not even enough funding for Coast Guard employees to review the security plans mandated under the Maritime Transportation Security Act. This even as expert upon expert has identified the Nation's 360 commercial ports as a leading cause for concern on the homeland front--in large part because of the valuable goods and energy imports channeled through these ports and because the millions of containers that enter this country by sea can hide untold dangers. Mass transit systems are another grave source of concern. We all remember the 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway, when members of a Japanese cult released sarin, a lethal chemical nerve gas, on five subway trains during rush hour. Twelve people were killed and thousands injured. Only mistakes by the terrorists kept the death toll from being far higher. Here in the United States, our transit systems remain vulnerable to such an attack. In many cases, transit officials have already identified steps to make the system more secure, but simply cannot afford to take them. Transit systems typically struggle just to meet operating costs and are simply not in a position to fund major new security investments on their own. A December 2002 GAO report concluded that ``insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making . . . transit systems as safe and secure as possible.'' The administration did recently award some grants to help a number of urban transit systems, but nowhere near the kind of commitment that is needed to confront the problem. Nor do we see a commitment to improve rail security, although vast quantities of hazardous materials are shipped by rail. Given this vast amount of work to be done by TSA in all modes of transportation, it is inexplicable to me why the administration actually sought to decrease the agency's budget in FY 04. But it is not simply a matter of money. TSA has not formulated the essential strategic plans needed to guide transportation security efforts. Admiral Loy testified last May that the agency was close to finishing such a document--the National Transportation System Security Plan or NTSSP. GAO has testified that this national plan is a ``prerequisite'' to investing wisely in transportation security. Yet as part of the hearing process for this nomination, Admiral Loy stated that such a plan is still months away, at best. Even in the area of passenger aviation, where TSA has focused virtually all its resources, troubling gaps remain. Although TSA spent hundreds of millions to recruit and train screeners, thousands of these employees are gone due to layoffs and attrition and we now face serious screener shortages at some airports. While I recognize that this is a complex question, it simply is not clear that TSA has control of this issue and is implementing a staffing level needed to assure adequate security. There have been other problems. For example, TSA failed to complete background checks of many of the screeners hired before they were trained and deployed, resulting in the discovery last spring that over 1200 screeners had felony convictions or other disqualifying problems that required their termination. Investigations by the DHS Inspector General and TSA's Office of Internal Affairs into the baggage screener training program found that trainees were given the questions and answers to the final certification exam and that some of the test questions were ``inane'' or simply ``gave away'' the correct response. GAO has reported that TSA has not yet fully developed or deployed recurrent or supervisory training programs to ensure that screeners are effectively trained and supervised. Moreover, despite considerable attention to the safety of air passengers and their baggage, TSA has not developed a reliable system to screen commercial cargo loaded onto the very same planes. This cargo is still not being screened for explosives and TSA currently is relying on the airlines to implement a ``known shipper'' program as the primary method of ensuring the security of this cargo, despite the numerous vulnerabilities GAO and the Department of Transportation Inspector General have identified in this approach. TSA has still taken only preliminary steps toward assessing security technologies that are needed to restrict access to secure areas of airports, despite the requirements of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that it do so. Airport perimeter security also requires significant improvement, according to GAO, including the need to guard against possible terrorist attacks using shoulder-fired portable missiles from locations near airports. In addition, GAO has raised substantial concerns about the limited progress TSA has made in shoring up security at general aviation airports. To date, general aviation pilots and passengers are not screened before takeoff and the contents of general aviation planes are not screened at any point, leaving general aviation far more open and potentially vulnerable than commercial passenger aviation. I understand that the administration's failure to seek adequate funding and TSA's deadlines have greatly contributed to the challenges TSA faces in remedying these and other gaps in our aviation security. I pledge to continue my efforts to increase the resources we devote to these needs. However, TSA has also exercised inadequate oversight of the contracts it has entered into to perform many of the essential tasks needed to improve aviation security. The resulting problems include the huge cost overrun of its screener hiring contract with NCS Pearson, which ballooned from an original estimate of $104 million to over $700 million. I intend to watch closely to make sure that TSA implements stringent management controls and procedures so that we can be assured TSA's programs are effective, appropriately focused and achieving expected results.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, although I do not intend to object to the confirmation of Michael Garcia to be Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, BICE, I do want to take this opportunity to express my concern about his handling of an issue that arose during the Committee on Governmental Affairs' consideration of his nomination. Specifically, I would like to describe my concerns about the way Mr. Garcia responded to questions from the committee related to his bureau's participation in a search for a plane belonging to a Texas state legislator. My concerns about the nominees's answers occurred in the context of problems we have been having getting clear and comprehensive answers from some other nominees for department positions, and from receiving satisfactory answers to inquiries related to our oversight responsibilities. I hope that by calling attention to these concerns, I can encourage the Department of Homeland Security, DHS to work with its oversight committees in a more straightforward and cooperative fashion. In this statement, I intend to describe in some detail the circumstances that I find troubling. To summarize, I have two main concerns. First, it took Mr. Garcia far too long--until well after the Governmental Affairs Committee reported his nomination--to acknowledge what until then had been a rather uncontroversial fact: that the pendency of an investigation by an agency's Inspector General does not preclude an official of that agency from responding to congressional requests for information about matters that are the subject of the IG's investigation. A significant part of Congress' work involves overseeing how agencies do their jobs, and this committee in particular often conducts investigations of alleged waste, fraud and abuse by agencies. If the pendency of an internal investigation stood as a per se bar to congressional information requests, our oversight work would often be stymied. Mr. Garcia's assertion of virtual immunity from being questioned about matters under internal investigation is unfortunately emblematic of this administration's and this Department's frequent stinginess with sharing information with Congress about matters that are appropriate topics of congressional oversight. That this refusal to provide information occurred in the context of a committee's consideration of a nomination was all the more troubling, because it suggested that even at the moment when the incentive for cooperation was the greatest, the department was urging its officials to resist appropriate requests for information. The department and Mr. Garcia now concede that a pending IG investigation is not grounds for refusing to provide Congress with information; as they acknowledge, Congress frequently inquires into--and receives information about--matters under investigation. Although it came frustratingly late, I appreciate their willingness to revisit their position and look forward to greater cooperation from them on such matters in the future. Second, I was concerned that Mr. Garcia's answers to written questions were misleading, whether or not he intended them to be, and I am even more disturbed that after I challenged Mr. Garcia's responses, he and his advisers passed up a number of opportunities to clarify his responses. I will describe the back and forth in greater detail below, but in short, Mr. Garcia stated in written answers to the committee that he declined to answer questions about the search for the Texas legislator because the IG's office had directed him not to, even though neither he nor his advisers had even contacted the IG's office about my questions until he had twice declined to answer them. Mr. Garcia continued to maintain that the IG's office directed him not to answer my questions, even after I reported to him that the IG's office did not believe it had issued such a direction and even after one of his advisers was explicitly told by the Assistant Inspector General heading the Texas investigation that such an answer was inaccurate. After the committee reported his nomination, Mr. Garcia ultimately expressed his regret for these events, explaining that he did not intend to mislead the committee, which is why I will not stand in the way of his nomination. But I once again am forced to observe that this exchange was nowhere near the frank and honest effort at providing requested information that Congress has a right to expect from agency officials. It instead appears to have been an effort at finding any excuse for declining to answer questions and then, when it became apparent that the excuse could not stand, seeking to find any way possible to avoid correcting the mistaken assertion. As mentioned, Mr. Garcia has subsequently expressed his regret for how he answered these questions, and has pledged to better cooperate with the Committee in the future. I am hopeful that both he and the department will live up to that pledge. To provide more detail: when the Committee on Governmental Affairs received the nomination of Michael Garcia on March 26, 2003, he was already serving as Acting Assistant Secretary for BICE. He was leading the Bureau when, on May 12, 2003, it assisted in a search for the plane belonging to a member of the Texas legislature; the search had been initiated by leaders from the opposing party, as part of a highly political and partisan intrastate redistricting feud. At the time of these events it struck me as inappropriate that homeland security resources were diverted for this purpose, especially as it set a disturbing precedent of misusing the department's powers and authority to pursue American citizens who had broken no laws. So, as part of the committee's consideration of Mr. Garcia's nomination, I submitted a series of written questions about the incident, in my capacity as ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. Over the course of several weeks, Mr. Garcia provided answers that were unresponsive, unsatisfactory, and inconsistent. Mr. Garcia's legal advisers at the Department of Homeland Security appear to have compounded the problem by looking for ways to avoid the questions rather than clear up misunderstandings that became increasingly apparent. In written questions sent on May 16, 2003, before Mr. Garcia's committee hearing, I asked the following questions: On May 15, 2003, the Bureau acknowledged that its Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center, AMICC, had earlier that week participated in the search for the airplane of a Texas legislator. 1. What action was requested of the AMICC, and by whom? 2. What action, if any, was actually taken by the AMICC? Which federal officials were involved in directing that action be taken? 3. What other federal agencies were involved, if any, and what actions did they take? 4. If any action was taken by the Homeland Security Department, please explain how these actions fall within the Department's mission? 5. If actions were taken in error, or in contravention of Department policy, what steps will be taken to ensure that similar mistakes will not happen again?'' On May 30, 2003, Mr. Garcia responded that because BICE had referred the underlying issues to the Office of the Inspector General, OIG, ``it would be inappropriate to offer comment on the questions above.'' He attached to his answer a press release BICE had earlier issued, offering comment on the matter, including conclusions that BICE had acted appropriately in the incident. Concerned by the suggestion that the existence of an IG investigation serves as an absolute bar to an Executive Branch official providing any information to Congress, my staff on June 2, 2003, again asked Mr. Garcia about the issue at the bipartisan interview Committee staff routinely conduct in the course of considering nominations. Mr. Garcia again declined to answer the questions. At the staff interview Mr. Garcia was informed that Congress routinely seeks information and testimony about matters under criminal investigation, and is routinely provided the information. Apparently in response to the concerns raised at the staff interview, on June 2 the Chief Legal Counselor to the Department of Homeland Security, Lucy Clark, contacted the Counsel to the department's Acting Inspector General, Richard Reback. According to Mr. Reback, Ms. Clark told him that Mr. Garcia would be appearing for his confirmation hearing and asked how he should respond if questioned about the Texas matter. At Ms. Clark's request, on June 4, Mr. Reback sent by e-mail a hypothetical question and proposed answer, in which Reback suggested that Mr. Garcia, if asked ``what actions are you taking on the issue of diversion of Department of Homeland Security resources to search for Texas State legislators?'', could respond, ``The OIG has asked that any questions relating to this matter be directed to them.'' Mr. Reback later made clear in a letter to me that he was not aware at the time ``that specific questions were pending or had been posed.'' Ms. Clark did not tell Mr. Reback that Mr. Garcia had already declined to answer questions on two occasions, or that he had been informed by Committee staff that his answer was unsatisfactory. Mr. Reback later explained that he was not directing Mr. Garcia not to answer inquiries from Congress. Rather, it was his hope that a referral to his Office could be the beginning of a dialogue with Congress, not the end of the dialogue. After Mr. Garcia's nomination hearing, on June 5, 2003, I remained concerned by the suggestion that an IG investigation could immunize Executive Branch officials from Congressional information requests. I therefore submitted post-hearing questions, which included the following inquiries about why Mr. Garcia believed he could decline to answer my questions on the Texas matter: a. Why do you believe it would be inappropriate to comment? b. Did the Office of Inspector General ask you not to comment? c. Will you refuse to provide Congress with information on any matter being investigated by an inspector general? If your willingness to provide information to Congress would depend on the circumstances, please specify in what circumstances you would refuse to provide information. d. As Acting Assistant Secretary for BICE at the time the incident occurred, do you have any knowledge of the circumstances of your bureau's involvement, either direct or second-hand? Did you take any steps to learn about the bureau's role? Were you involved in deciding how the Bureau should respond to the incident, and to the news reports that described the incident?'' On Friday, June 13, 2003, Mr. Garcia sent his responses to the post- hearing questions. Mr. Garcia stated that he had ``received direction from the Inspector General's Office to refer all inquiries regarding this matter to that office.'' He also stated that ``the IG's office directed that it would not be appropriate to comment on this issue and that all inquiries be directed to that office,'' and ``in this case I was directed to refer all inquiries to the Inspector General's Office.'' Mr. Garcia's answers did not specify who had directed him not to answer, nor did they describe the nature of the communications with the IG's office. In response to the question about whether he would refuse to provide Congress with information on any matter being investigated by an inspector general, Mr. Garcia responded ``(g)enerally, I would defer to the IG's office for direction on inquiries relating to any matter actively being investigated by that office.'' He declined to answer whether he had any knowledge of the circumstances of his Bureau's involvement in the incident, and what actions he took in its aftermath. Aware of no law, custom or precedent that would allow an IG to direct an Executive Branch official to decline to answer Congressional information requests, I had my staff contact the Department of DHS Office of Inspector General to learn more about the IG's views of this issue. On the afternoon of June 13, Lisa Redman, the assistant Inspector General responsible for the investigation into the Texas incident, denied to my staff that anyone from the IG's office had directed Mr. Garcia not to comment on the issue. She also informed Committee staff that the IG's office had no policy that would have precluded him from answering questions about his role in the incident, or from giving answers based on information provided by personnel at BICE. Concerned by this discrepancy, on the evening of June 13, I sent Mr. Garcia another set of post-hearing questions, seeking clarification regarding the apparently contradictory information received from the IG's office. My questions also informed Mr. Garcia that both the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Legal Counsel had confirmed that an ongoing IG's investigation did not provide a legal basis for someone to refuse to provide information to Congress. As we later learned from Ms. Redman in a letter responding to my inquiries, on the morning of June 16, while Mr. Garcia and his staff were preparing answers to my questions, Ms. Redman received a telephone call from Mark Wallace, who was then Mr. Garcia's principal legal adviser at BICE. According to Ms. Redman, Mr. Wallace ``was very agitated and stated that the OIG had provided answers [to the Committee] inconsistent to those he provided on Mr. Garcia's behalf.'' Ms. Redman informed Mr. Wallace that no one from the IG's office had ``directed'' Mr. Garcia not to answer questions from Congress, that the IG's office had never been told about Mr. Garcia's written responses to my questions, and that Mr. Wallace should have cleared Mr. Garcia's answers with the IG's office before submitting them. She also pointed out that the IG's office cannot direct Mr. Garcia to do anything. According to Ms. Redman, Mr. Wallace ``became quite angry and demanded that we make our responses consistent with his,'' and he ``said it was the OIG's fault that Mr. Garcia was now in this situation because we were not consistent in our responses.'' Ms. Redman refused to change her story. According to correspondence I received from Mr. Reback, Mr. Wallace also contacted Reback on June 16, in an e-mail ``in which [Wallace] stated that the OIG had provided inconsistent guidance to Mr. Garcia on responding to questions regarding the Texas matter.'' Mr. Reback said that he responded in an e-mail to Mr. Wallace, in which he said he explained that ``I had been asked for guidance on what Mr. Garcia could say if asked a question [on] the Texas matter at his confirmation hearing, and that I had provided guidance reflected in my June 4th e- mail to Ms. Clark.'' Mr. Reback also told Mr. Wallace that he was ``unaware that Mr. Garcia ever had received any written questions on the matter and had not seen or cleared on [sic] any of his written responses.'' Late in the evening of June 16, Mr. Reback was contacted by Ms. Clark and another adviser at BICE, Tim Haugh, who provided him a copy of draft responses to the questions I sent Mr. Garcia on June 13th. Mr. Reback did not review or comment on all of the draft responses, but did request that ``with respect to questions that implicated OIG statements, Mr. Garcia refer to my June 4th e-mail in his responses.'' At 11:00 p.m. on June 16, less than 12 hours before the committee met to consider his nomination, Mr. Garcia provided additional responses in which he continued to maintain that he had in fact been directed not to answer. For the first time, he referred the committee to the e-mail message Mr. Reback sent to Lucy Clark on June 4, 2003, but he made no mention of Ms. Redman's different interpretation of that communication, or of the IG's authority. Despite Ms. Redman's statements to his adviser, Mr. Garcia did not correct his earlier assertions that the Inspector General has the authority to instruct someone not to cooperate with Congress; he cited his legal advisers at DHS and the IG's office as the sources of his conclusion. At the committee mark-up on the morning of June 17, I expressed my concerns about Mr. Garcia's refusal to answer questions about the Texas incident, and I questioned whether his reliance on supposed instructions from the IG's office were factually accurate or legally sound. I entered into an agreement with Chairman Collins that I would not object to the committee reporting Mr. Garcia's nomination, but that Mr. Garcia's nomination would not go to the Senate floor until my questions and concerns had been satisfactorily resolved. I subsequently sent letters seeking additional information from Mr. Reback, Ms. Redman, and Mr. Garcia. I have already described the information I received from Mr. Reback and Ms. Redman. Mr. Garcia, for his part, maintained that all of his answers had been accurate, and that he had reasonably interpreted Mr. Reback's e-mail as equivalent to being directed by the IG's office not to respond. He concluded that at all times he was ``guided by a sincere desire not to in any way interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation'': ``At no time did I intend to evade answers or to in any way challenge the authority of Congress to inquire into such matters. I responded based on what I reasonably believed was the guidance from the OIG and counsel.'' Although I am troubled by how Mr. Garcia and his advisers at the Department dealt with this issue, I have nevertheless decided not to oppose this otherwise qualified nominee. Still, I felt that the issues raised during his nomination process were important enough that they deserved to be fully aired. One of the principal functions of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, like all Senate committees, is to ensure that qualified, capable and responsible people are ultimately appointed to the highest positions in our government, and to conduct oversight over the departments and agencies within its jurisdiction. Through both the confirmation and oversight processes, we ensure ourselves and the American people that our government is functioning as it should be. As part of these processes, we regularly engage in dialogues with nominees, including through written questions; the integrity of our process requires that nominees fully and forthrightly answer the questions asked. It appears to me that Mr. Garcia and his legal advisers at DHS provided answers to the Committee that were misleading factually and misstated the legal reasons a nominee could refuse to answer questions. For example, Mr. Garcia did not have any communications with any official from the IG's office until June 4, 2003, after he had already, on two occasions, declined to answer questions about the Texas matter. Nevertheless, his answers to my post-hearing questions stated that he had declined to answer the questions because ``the IG's office directed that it would not be appropriate to comment on this issue and that all inquiries be directed to that office.'' Whatever Mr. Garcia's intention, that answer was not a factually accurate way of explaining answers given before he or his advisers spoke with the IG's office about the issue. Furthermore, it is now clear that Mr. Garcia never was ``directed'' not to answer the questions by the Office of Inspector General--an assertion he repeatedly made in his written responses to my questions. Regardless of whether Mr. Reback's June 4 e-mail could have been interpreted as something stronger than intended, Mr. Garcia's legal adviser, Mr. Wallace, knew prior to Mr. Garcia's submission of his final set of answers that the IG's office was not directing him not to answer questions and had never intended to do so. Nevertheless, Mr. Garcia submitted written answers on June 16 in which he continued to assert that the IG's office had directed him not to answer the questions, referring to Mr. Reback's e-mail. Nothing in the answers gave any indication that the IG's office had explicitly rejected this interpretation of Mr. Reback's e-mail. Mr. Garcia's rationale for not answering the questions raised important institutional issues. As a general matter, I find it unacceptable for agency officials to argue that the pendency of an IG investigation categorically precludes them from responding to congressional information requests. Congress often seeks information-- and sometimes even conducts parallel investigations--on matters also under review by IG offices. Were the pendency of IG investigations a basis for an agency official or employee to decline to respond to Congressional inquiries, numerous Congressional inquiries conducted by the Governmental Affairs Committee and other Committees would be inappropriately stymied. The notion that an Inspector General could ``direct'' a Department official not to cooperate with Congress was itself troubling. Officials at the Inspector General's office understood that they did not have the authority to ``direct'' Department officials not to answer questions, but neither Mr. Garcia nor his legal advisers consulted with IG officials on their choice of words until after they had already sent the Committee Mr. Garcia's answers. I was especially disturbed, in this context, to learn that Mr. Garcia's legal adviser, Mark Wallace, apparently berated the Assistant Inspector General and attempted to get her to change her version of events to make it ``consistent'' with the answers he had previously prepared. If true, this is highly improper behavior for a government attorney, and might itself have been worthy of an investigation. Subsequent to the Committee's reporting of Mr. Garcia's nomination, my staff met with him to discuss these issues and my concerns about these events as well as with other examples of DHS nominees providing less than adequate answers to questions posed during the nomination process. In light of Mr. Garcia's statement in that meeting that he did not intend to mislead the Committee and now understood the need to better cooperate with Congress, I am prepared to move forward with his nomination. I could not do so, however, without leaving a complete record of my concern over these events. Mr President, I thank my colleague, Chairman Collins, for working with me towards a satisfactory resolution of this issue. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to share with Mr. Garcia and with other DHS officials our concerns about how this nomination was handled. I hope that in the future the Department of Homeland Security will endeavor to work constructively with all senators to avoid misunderstandings of the type we experienced in this case, and to take seriously its obligations to provide Congress with the accurate, timely and complete information it needs. In the interest of fairness to all parties, I ask unanimous consent that the text of letters from Mr. Reback, Ms. Redman, and Mr. Garcia, be printed in the Record following my remarks. Space limitations prevent me from including the full text of the pre-hearing and post- hearing questions asked of Mr. Garcia, and his answers, but those may be found in the Committee's hearing record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Proponents of this prescription drug bill have tampered with America's seniors. They have broken the seal on the compromise we had reached over the summer, emptied the contents of the legislative bottle, slipped in what I believe are a couple of poison pills, and put it back on the shelf for us to buy. America's seniors are not buying it. They know what is in the bottle. We shouldn't buy it either. I cannot and will not vote for this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. The Medicare Prescription Drug Legislation

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for the 1 minute that Senator Dodd did not use. He delegated me to have that minute.