Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senators Kennedy, Chafee, Jeffords and many other colleagues as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the Employment Non- Discrimination Act of 2003. By guaranteeing that American workers cannot lose their jobs simply because of their sexual orientation, this bill would extend the bedrock American values of fairness and equality to a group of our fellow citizens who too often have been denied the benefit of those most basic values. More than 225 years ago, Thomas Jefferson laid out a vision of America as dedicated to the simple idea that all of us are created equal, endowed by our creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Jefferson knew, our society did not in his time live up to that ideal, but since his time, we have been trying to. In succeeding generations, we have worked ever harder to ensure that our society removes unjustified barriers to individual achievement and that we judge each other solely on our merits and not on characteristics that are irrelevant to the task at hand. We are still far from perfect, but we have made much progress, especially over the past few decades, guaranteeing equality and fairness to an increasing number of groups that traditionally have not had the benefits of those values and of those protections. To African- Americans, to women, to disabled Americans, to religious minorities and to others we have extended a legally enforceable guarantee that, with respect to their ability to earn a living at least, they will be treated on their merits and not on characteristics unrelated to their ability to do their jobs. It is time to extend that guarantee to gay men and lesbians, who too often have been denied the most basic of rights: the right to obtain and maintain a job. A collection of 1 national survey and 20 city and State surveys found that as many as 44 percent of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers faced job discrimination in the workplace at some time in their careers. Other studies have reported even greater discrimination--as much as 68 percent of gay men and lesbians reporting employment discrimination. The fear in which these workers live was clear from a survey of gay men and lesbians in Philadelphia. Over three-quarters told those conducting the survey that they sometimes or always hide their orientation at work out of fear of discrimination. The toll this discrimination takes extends far beyond its effect on the individuals who live without full employment opportunities. It also takes an unacceptable toll on America's definition of itself as a land of equality and opportunity, as a place where we judge each other on our merits, and as a country that teaches its children that anyone can succeed here as long as they are willing to do their job and work hard. This bill provides for equality and fairness--that and no more. It says only what we already have said for women, for people of color and for others; that you are entitled to have your ability to earn a living depend only on your ability to do the job and nothing else. This bill would bring our nation one large step closer to realizing the vision that Thomas Jefferson so eloquently expressed 227 years ago when he wrote that all of us have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it saddens me to note the recent passing of an old friend, Moe Biller. Moe was, until 2001, the long- time president of the American Postal Workers Union, and a tireless advocate for the postal employees he worked with and represented. I met Moe through my first Senate chief of staff, Michael Lewan, who was a long-time friend of Moe's from his days as a local union official in New York. Michael invited him to attend my Senate swearing-in ceremony, and we hit it off immediately. Moe was one of a kind--some would say the last of the breed of old time labor leaders. He was passionate about the causes he believed in, but always remained just a ``regular guy.'' It's fair to say that Moe was a pioneer who created the modern labor movement for Federal and postal employees. Surely he paved the way for the establishment of those employees' rights--postal workers, in particular, had little clout until Moe came along. He began his career as a substitute postal clerk in 1937 on Manhattan's Lower East Side, earning 65 cents an hour with no vacation benefits or sick pay. His success in negotiating a sick leave benefit for his fellow workers led to the beginning of his rise through the ranks of the union hierarchy, which culminated in his election as President of the national union in 1980. However, his national reputation as a fiery, but effective, leader was solidified a decade earlier in 1970, when his efforts encouraged Congress to pass the landmark legislation that created today's United States Postal Service, the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. Among the important changes instituted by this law was the right postal workers received to engage in collective bargaining over pay, benefits, and working conditions. In addition to his vital work to improve wages and working conditions for postal workers, Moe was an active supporter of civil rights and women's rights. He also gave generously of his time, serving on numerous trade, charitable, and civic organization boards, including the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the United Way International. Moe will be sorely missed by all of those who knew him, but I know that his achievements and his work will live on.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, one of the most solemn duties that any Senator has is the memorializing of a constituent who has fallen in the line of duty in a far-away land. This is the fifth time I stand to do so, and on each occasion I am reminded of the remarkable character and quality of this generation of Americans; I would hope that their supreme sacrifice is noticed and remembered by their fellow citizens. But all too often the din of daily life in the 21st century threatens to drown out the news of the steady stream of allied casualties in Iraq. It is our duty to make sure that the rolls of the dead and wounded are read aloud: read, heard, and honored. Therefore, Mr. President, I wish today to fulfill a sacred obligation, and to honor United States Army Sergeant David Travis Friedrich, of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion out of Waterbury, CT. Sergeant Friedrich was killed when mortar fire struck the base he was stationed at near the Abu Ghraid prison to the west of Baghdad. He died a true soldier; he died at his post. Sergeant Friedrich was raised in upstate New York, he attended Brockport State University, and he was accepted into the forensics studies program at the University of New Haven in the Spring 2000. But while the Sergeant was a New Yorker by birth, his studies and work in Connecticut and his role in a Connecticut Battalion, the 325th to be precise, makes him an honorary son of our State. It is a sad thing indeed for parents to bury their child, and I imagine that few words of solace spoken in this Chamber by the representatives of New York and Connecticut will penetrate the shroud of grief that must surround the Sergeant's family. With that in mind, however, I say this: know that as you grieve, a grateful Nation grieves with you. You are not alone in this time of sorrow, and your son's sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I stand today in support of my colleague Senator Feinstein, and her amendment to strip the funding from the robust nuclear earth-penetrator and the advanced weapons concepts program, and to stop the enhancement of the time-to-test readiness at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site and the site selection of the modern pit facility. I fully support Senator Feinstein's efforts to attempt to put an end to nuclear proposals that have not yet been justified by hard arguments but would likely result in adverse consequences. Almost a decade ago, the United States, our allies, and the freedom- loving nations around the world rejoiced as the cold war ended peacefully and the threat of total nuclear annihilation was lifted. We dreamed then and we hope now that we will never again enter into a global struggle with thermonuclear consequences. Yet there are those in this world who would still do us harm, and they are armed with weapons of mass destruction. To pretend otherwise would be to pander to a most dangerous delusion. There is a real danger that they seek to secure those weapons in hardened or deeply buried bunkers. We must put our best scientists to work to learn how to neutralize this threat. At the same time, we must be careful that in seeking to neutralize this threat, we do not aggravate it by pursuing dangerously destabilizing policies and weapons programs. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have been briefed on our military's conventional and nuclear capabilities. Like most Americans, I have also watched with pride as our armed forces prove in Iraq and around the world that they are second to none. Based on these observations, I am convinced that we can and will meet the threat posed by our enemies without having to resort to developing nuclear weapons to destroy deeply buried or hardened targets at this time. To do so would be premature at best and dangerous and misguided at worst. I am further convinced by the testimony and writings of experts, both those who have worn our Nation's uniform and those who did not, that not only is the utility of these nuclear weapons questionable, but so is the very fact of whether or not they will work as hoped. Developing low-yield nuclear weapons at this time would also severely undermine our global nonproliferation efforts. I believe that at a time when the United States is seeking to convince the North Korean leadership that they do not need to engage in a brazen drive for a robust nuclear capability; at a time when our diplomats are trying to deescalate nuclear tensions along the Indian and Pakistani border; at a time when the International Atomic Energy Agency is presently engaged in negotiations with Iran over denuclearization and inspections, that we would be naive to think that we can coax these nations to drop their nuclear plans while we invest in pursuing our own new nuclear capabilities. In addition to undermining our international nonproliferation efforts, a new generation of nuclear weapons, especially the low-yield variety envisioned by the administration, will blur the bright lines between conventional and nuclear capabilities, and raise the likelihood of resorting to the latter. I am not alone in this concern. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili stated this concern clearly and persuasively: ``[a]ny activities that erode the firebreak between nuclear and conventional weapons or that encourage the use of nuclear weapons for purposes that are not strategic and deterrent in nature would undermine the advantage that we derive from overwhelming conventional superiority.'' The world we live in is indeed a dangerous place. In response to these dangers, however, we must guard against rash actions that undermine our ultimate security. The new nuclear weapons the administration advocates will not substantially increase our sense of security and may in fact detract from it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise, as a cosponsor, to express my support for the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to provide funding for a number of programs critical to Hispanic children around the Nation. Clearly, the programs identified in this amendment are vital to improving educational outcomes for Hispanic students. As a nation we have made a commitment to leave no child behind. Yet, too often, the needs of Hispanic children are overlooked, and Hispanic children are left behind. The U.S. Census Bureau recently indicated that Hispanics are the largest minority group in the country. The fact is, however, they often are among the most educationally disadvantaged students in the country. Hispanic students are less likely to complete high school and to enroll in or graduate from college. The amendment before us will help to address these issues in several ways. It includes $85 million for title III language instruction. Under this program, State and local schools implement programs that help limited English-proficient students learn English and keep up with their schoolwork. The Senate mark actually cuts this program from last year's level of $685 million. This is unacceptable. For Hispanic serving institutions, the Senate bill provides a small but inadequate increase above last year's level. This amendment includes $6.4 million in urgently needed funds for HSIs, which continue to receive significantly less Federal funding per student then other degree- granting institutions. My colleague's amendment also includes $4.6 million for migrant education, which was level funded in the committee mark, and $1 million for the College Assistance Migrant Program, which the committee cut from last year's level. These programs help to identify migrant students, provide health services, and provide counseling and other assistance for migrants who have dropped out of high school. In addition, the amendment includes $11 million for the High School Equivalency Program, $12.8 million for Local Family Information Centers, and $69 million for Head Start Migrant and Seasonal Programs. I commend the Senator from Nevada for offering this amendment, and urge my colleagues to support it. This is an investment in our Nation's future. The academic achievement gap between Latino students and the remaining student population is a national disgrace. I am informed that approximately one-third of new workers are Latino. Let us work together to invest in these youth, for the benefit of the Latino community and for the benefit of our Nation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if you should find yourself hankering for a hamburger, may I respectfully suggest that you go to Beijing? That's where you'll find the world's cheapest hamburgers. I have this useful information courtesy of the good people at The Economist magazine, who for over 15 years have periodically compiled their ``Big Mac'' index to chart the relative values of national currencies. The index is based on what it costs to buy one of the world's most ubiquitous commodities. Now the recipe for a Big Mac is pretty much the same everywhere, and in a perfect world it would presumably cost about the same everywhere. The Economist uses this observation to gain an insight into currency valuations. But we find that instead of costing about the same, as one would expect, in Chinese yuan a Big Mac costs about 56 percent less than it would in the average American city. This differential is greater than that for any other country in the most recent Big Mac index in April. Such a bargain. Why does this massive price differential exist? It exists because the yuan has been systematically kept at low value--an artificially low value--pursuant to intervention by the Chinese government in currency markets. The yuan been systematically undervalued by a lot. Fifty-six percent--the differential in the April index--is probably a bit high. Many experts put the figure at closer to 40 percent. That's plenty. That's why China has the world's cheapest hamburgers. The Chinese have held the yuan at a nearly fixed value relative to the dollar since 1994, and that value is about 40 percent lower than it should be in an unfettered currency market. How has China achieved this unnatural and non-market result? The Chinese maintain the yuan's low value through mandatory foreign- exchange purchases by their central bank, and since 1994 they have bought almost 300 billion U.S. dollars to keep the yuan's value low. What is so bad about cheap hamburgers in China and this intervention in the currency markets? If we were only dealing with hamburgers, I would not object, but the Big Mac Index explains a good deal about why we have seen a catastrophic and growing trade deficit with China and why this is causing massive layoffs in the U.S. manufacturing sector. The undervalued currency is driving the Chinese export machine and simultaneously smothering U.S. manufacturing. China has some very real competitive advantages in international trade, including a low-cost, hard-working labor force. But their exports start out with a 40 percent price advantage based purely on their artificially undervalued currency. This is artificial and unfair. To keep the yuan's value down China is buying dollars at a rate of about $120 billion a year, which happens to be about the same amount as our trade deficit with China. And we're seeing the results of this undervalued yuan on a daily basis here in the Untied States. The results are vanished jobs in our manufacturing industries, closed plants, a hollowing out of our manufacturing sector. Last week we learned of an additional 44,000 manufacturing jobs lost in August alone, and that was a continuation of a sad, sad trend. Manufacturing employment has fallen monthly for 37 consecutive months. Two point seven million manufacturing jobs have been lost since July 2000. Manufacturing job losses have accounted for as much as 90 percent of our total job losses in this so-called ``jobless recovery''. In Connecticut we've lost more than 14 out of every 100 manufacturing jobs that we had in July 2000. And it's clear that trade plays a major role in this. Manufacturing is deeply dependent on trade--manufactured goods make up 80 percent of all U.S. merchandise exports. Our manufacturing trade deficit with China is the worst bilateral manufacturing deficit in the world. Not surprisingly, when you consider that 40 percent price advantage, we have a trade deficit with China in every major manufacturing industry except aircraft, with electronics, machinery, textiles and apparel the worst. I've used China as an example of this pernicious manipulation of currency values, but it does not stand alone in this black art. Last month Japan outdid China in currency market intervention, spending $11 billion to defend the yen, which is estimated to be undervalued by approximately 20 percent. Central banks in Taiwan and South Korea have been purchasing dollars aggressively as well, holding down the values of their currencies. Together those four countries hold about $1.21 trillion in currency reserves, and the vast majority of these reserves, perhaps as high as 90 percent, are thought to be in dollars. Significantly, those same four countries--China, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea--account for about 60 percent of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods. To date the Bush Administration response to this assault on our manufacturing sector has been belated, tepid and ineffectual. It tried to ignore it. Lately, when it became clear even to the Administration that they could no longer ignore the depressing job losses, Treasury Secretary Snow traveled to Beijing to try his hand at persuading the Chinese to let their currency rise to its natural market level. He got the brush off. Why should the Chinese government take this Administration seriously about the currency issue when it is clear that the Administration isn't, in fact, serious about it? Why should this be a priority to China when it's not a priority of the United States? We can no longer afford to make gestures regarding these issues. We have to be serious to be taken seriously. To this end, I am today introducing legislation to require prompt and firm action against those nations that most egregiously manipulate their currencies to achieve an unfair trade advantage. The Bush Administration has options under the international trade laws to deal with this situation, options it is not yet willing to pursue. Under my legislation the Administration will be pressed to defend legitimate U.S. interests and avail ourselves of our rights and authority under a variety of international trade agreements. These options include taking action under the articles of the International Monetary Fund that prohibit currency manipulation by member states in order to achieve an unfair competitive advantage. They include action under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization that members will not use currency exchange rates to frustrate the organization goals of reciprocal and mutually advantageous trade. We also have rights under U.S. trade law and our bilateral agreements, including Section 301 and Section 406. I introduce this legislation knowing full well that these are complex issues and that trade policy decisions does occur in a vacuum. Certainly some in the U.S. receive benefits from cheaper imports. If not cheaper hamburgers than certainly cheaper electronics, cheaper clothing, and cheaper machinery are flooding our markets. What we gain at the checkout counter, however, we are losing at the payroll window. When some here gain from cheap imports because of illegal and unfair manipulation of currencies, the gains are not worth the price that they extract from U.S. companies seeking a fair opportunity to compete with these imports or to export U.S. products. They are not worth the price we pay in terms of U.S. credibility in standing up for our legitimate rights and interests. I am well aware that China, like Japan, deploys its massive currency reserves to buy up U.S. debt. This helps us finance the U.S. debt at low interest rates. Given the Bush Administration fiscal policy, we are now headed towards doubling the national debt, making us more dependent on foreign funding of our debts. This is a form of dependency that comes at a price, much like our dependency on foreign oil. If the Administration were to become serious about currency manipulation, it could strengthen its hand; it would adopt a fiscal policy that reduces our dependence on foreigners to finance our national debt. While I am concerned about our ability to finance our government debt, I believe that there are ample reasons why China, Japan and others will maintain these investments even if they abandon their intervention in the currency markets. I am also aware that the United States maintains a multifaceted strategic relationship with China and Japan. We and the rest of the world would benefit, for example, from China's assistance in negotiations with North Korea. But again, this is no reason not to be forceful with these countries when they transgress the international norms and laws for international trade. There are many vital and strategic issues at stake in our relationships with China and Japan, but when all is said and done we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to these illegal and unjustified currency manipulation games. We simply cannot give away our manufacturing sector and manufacturing jobs. If we tolerate these manipulations, we lose credibility in dealing with other policy issues that arise in these relationships. I believe that everyone in this chamber recognizes that I am strongly committed to free trade. But I cannot defend free trade unless it is also fair. And what we have today with these currency manipulations is not fair trade. It's manipulation, it confers an unfair competitive advantage, and it is hurting Americans. It is long past time to act, it is time to take this challenge seriously, and it is time to defend legitimate American interests. We are acting assertively in pursuit of our national interest in Iraq, and it is time to do the same with countries that seek to secure an unfair competitive advantage in international trade. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if you should find yourself hankering for a hamburger, may I respectfully suggest that you go to Beijing? That's where you'll find the world's cheapest hamburgers. I have this useful information courtesy of the good people at The Economist magazine, who for over 15 years have periodically compiled their ``Big Mac'' index to chart the relative values of national currencies. The index is based on what it costs to buy one of the world's most ubiquitous commodities. Now the recipe for a Big Mac is pretty much the same everywhere, and in a perfect world it would presumably cost about the same everywhere. The Economist uses this observation to gain an insight into currency valuations. But we find that instead of costing about the same, as one would expect, in Chinese yuan a Big Mac costs about 56 percent less than it would in the average American city. This differential is greater than that for any other country in the most recent Big Mac index in April. Such a bargain. Why does this massive price differential exist? It exists because the yuan has been systematically kept at low value--an artificially low value--pursuant to intervention by the Chinese government in currency markets. The yuan been systematically undervalued by a lot. Fifty-six percent--the differential in the April index--is probably a bit high. Many experts put the figure at closer to 40 percent. That's plenty. That's why China has the world's cheapest hamburgers. The Chinese have held the yuan at a nearly fixed value relative to the dollar since 1994, and that value is about 40 percent lower than it should be in an unfettered currency market. How has China achieved this unnatural and non-market result? The Chinese maintain the yuan's low value through mandatory foreign- exchange purchases by their central bank, and since 1994 they have bought almost 300 billion U.S. dollars to keep the yuan's value low. What is so bad about cheap hamburgers in China and this intervention in the currency markets? If we were only dealing with hamburgers, I would not object, but the Big Mac Index explains a good deal about why we have seen a catastrophic and growing trade deficit with China and why this is causing massive layoffs in the U.S. manufacturing sector. The undervalued currency is driving the Chinese export machine and simultaneously smothering U.S. manufacturing. China has some very real competitive advantages in international trade, including a low-cost, hard-working labor force. But their exports start out with a 40 percent price advantage based purely on their artificially undervalued currency. This is artificial and unfair. To keep the yuan's value down China is buying dollars at a rate of about $120 billion a year, which happens to be about the same amount as our trade deficit with China. And we're seeing the results of this undervalued yuan on a daily basis here in the Untied States. The results are vanished jobs in our manufacturing industries, closed plants, a hollowing out of our manufacturing sector. Last week we learned of an additional 44,000 manufacturing jobs lost in August alone, and that was a continuation of a sad, sad trend. Manufacturing employment has fallen monthly for 37 consecutive months. Two point seven million manufacturing jobs have been lost since July 2000. Manufacturing job losses have accounted for as much as 90 percent of our total job losses in this so-called ``jobless recovery''. In Connecticut we've lost more than 14 out of every 100 manufacturing jobs that we had in July 2000. And it's clear that trade plays a major role in this. Manufacturing is deeply dependent on trade--manufactured goods make up 80 percent of all U.S. merchandise exports. Our manufacturing trade deficit with China is the worst bilateral manufacturing deficit in the world. Not surprisingly, when you consider that 40 percent price advantage, we have a trade deficit with China in every major manufacturing industry except aircraft, with electronics, machinery, textiles and apparel the worst. I've used China as an example of this pernicious manipulation of currency values, but it does not stand alone in this black art. Last month Japan outdid China in currency market intervention, spending $11 billion to defend the yen, which is estimated to be undervalued by approximately 20 percent. Central banks in Taiwan and South Korea have been purchasing dollars aggressively as well, holding down the values of their currencies. Together those four countries hold about $1.21 trillion in currency reserves, and the vast majority of these reserves, perhaps as high as 90 percent, are thought to be in dollars. Significantly, those same four countries--China, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea--account for about 60 percent of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods. To date the Bush Administration response to this assault on our manufacturing sector has been belated, tepid and ineffectual. It tried to ignore it. Lately, when it became clear even to the Administration that they could no longer ignore the depressing job losses, Treasury Secretary Snow traveled to Beijing to try his hand at persuading the Chinese to let their currency rise to its natural market level. He got the brush off. Why should the Chinese government take this Administration seriously about the currency issue when it is clear that the Administration isn't, in fact, serious about it? Why should this be a priority to China when it's not a priority of the United States? We can no longer afford to make gestures regarding these issues. We have to be serious to be taken seriously. To this end, I am today introducing legislation to require prompt and firm action against those nations that most egregiously manipulate their currencies to achieve an unfair trade advantage. The Bush Administration has options under the international trade laws to deal with this situation, options it is not yet willing to pursue. Under my legislation the Administration will be pressed to defend legitimate U.S. interests and avail ourselves of our rights and authority under a variety of international trade agreements. These options include taking action under the articles of the International Monetary Fund that prohibit currency manipulation by member states in order to achieve an unfair competitive advantage. They include action under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization that members will not use currency exchange rates to frustrate the organization goals of reciprocal and mutually advantageous trade. We also have rights under U.S. trade law and our bilateral agreements, including Section 301 and Section 406. I introduce this legislation knowing full well that these are complex issues and that trade policy decisions does occur in a vacuum. Certainly some in the U.S. receive benefits from cheaper imports. If not cheaper hamburgers than certainly cheaper electronics, cheaper clothing, and cheaper machinery are flooding our markets. What we gain at the checkout counter, however, we are losing at the payroll window. When some here gain from cheap imports because of illegal and unfair manipulation of currencies, the gains are not worth the price that they extract from U.S. companies seeking a fair opportunity to compete with these imports or to export U.S. products. They are not worth the price we pay in terms of U.S. credibility in standing up for our legitimate rights and interests. I am well aware that China, like Japan, deploys its massive currency reserves to buy up U.S. debt. This helps us finance the U.S. debt at low interest rates. Given the Bush Administration fiscal policy, we are now headed towards doubling the national debt, making us more dependent on foreign funding of our debts. This is a form of dependency that comes at a price, much like our dependency on foreign oil. If the Administration were to become serious about currency manipulation, it could strengthen its hand; it would adopt a fiscal policy that reduces our dependence on foreigners to finance our national debt. While I am concerned about our ability to finance our government debt, I believe that there are ample reasons why China, Japan and others will maintain these investments even if they abandon their intervention in the currency markets. I am also aware that the United States maintains a multifaceted strategic relationship with China and Japan. We and the rest of the world would benefit, for example, from China's assistance in negotiations with North Korea. But again, this is no reason not to be forceful with these countries when they transgress the international norms and laws for international trade. There are many vital and strategic issues at stake in our relationships with China and Japan, but when all is said and done we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to these illegal and unjustified currency manipulation games. We simply cannot give away our manufacturing sector and manufacturing jobs. If we tolerate these manipulations, we lose credibility in dealing with other policy issues that arise in these relationships. I believe that everyone in this chamber recognizes that I am strongly committed to free trade. But I cannot defend free trade unless it is also fair. And what we have today with these currency manipulations is not fair trade. It's manipulation, it confers an unfair competitive advantage, and it is hurting Americans. It is long past time to act, it is time to take this challenge seriously, and it is time to defend legitimate American interests. We are acting assertively in pursuit of our national interest in Iraq, and it is time to do the same with countries that seek to secure an unfair competitive advantage in international trade. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, at a time when our country's security is challenged on so many fronts, there are those among us who lament that this generation is too inward looking and too selfish to stand up to the task that has befallen them. But they are wrong. There are Americans, who, raised in a cold conflict with a foe now long past and used to the privilege of liberty and justice, still choose to define themselves by their service to their countrymen and to men and women the world over whom they have never met but for whose freedom they would lay down their lives in sacrifice. Army SSG Richard S. Eaton Jr. of Guilford, CT, was one such man, and it is in his honor that I rise to speak today. Sergeant Eaton, who was assigned to the Army's 323rd Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Meade, was a mere 37 years old when he died in Ramadi, Iraq, on August 12 of this year. Of poor consolation to his family and friends is that Sergeant Eaton died while doing what he loved--soldiering in the service of his Nation. Soldiering and service defined this young man's life and were in his blood; he had many relatives who had served in the U.S. military, including Civil War GEN Amos Eaton, William Eaton, who helped reinstate the deposed leader of Tripoli and rescue American captives in the early 1800s, and both of Sergeant Eaton's grandfathers, who were veterans of World War I and World War II, respectively. Sergeant Eaton learned about a soldier's life from the stories that his grandfathers told about their own service and the service of their ancestors, and in that retelling, a young Richard Eaton Jr. found something that transfixed him, some quality of honor, of humility, of service. He decided he wanted to be a soldier. In this goal, Sergeant Eaton succeeded like few soldiers ever do, and for his valor he will be posthumously awarded the Bronze Star for Valor. According to his friends, family, and colleagues, Sergeant Eaton served capably, honorably, and humbly. He never bragged about his numerous citations and commendations, which he only accidentally unveiled to his family when on leave from active duty in Honduras. When his nearly decade-long tour of duty with the Army was over, Sergeant Eaton went to work at the Pentagon for a military contractor. Still a member of the Army Reserves, he was activated for service this winter and reported for duty to Iraq. Through his service, Sergeant Eaton demonstrated the best ideals of the American people: service in the face of adversity, a striking unselflessness, and sacrifice not only for his own countrymen, but also for a people whom he had never met. And so today, I join the senior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, Governor Rowland, and the people of a grateful State and Nation in paying my most sincere condolences to Sergeant Eaton's family, and my deepest respects to the departed sergeant himself. Our hearts and prayers go out to his parents in their time of grief. Know that your son's contributions and ultimate sacrifice will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Private First Class Wilfredo Perez, Jr., United States Army, of Norwalk, CT. Private Perez's loyalty, patriotism, and selflessness has served to further the legacy of our great Nation's principles of freedom and justice. His service to our Nation is an example of the powerful spirit that permeates American history. His country, his family, his Army, his brothers-in-arms, and his friends from home will keenly miss Private Perez. A mortarman in the 1st Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, PVT Perez and members of his unit were guarding a hospital where wounded comrades were being treated. In a contemptible and cowardly act, a grenade was lobbed from the upper floors of the hospital, killing PVT Perez and two other gallant soldiers. PVT Perez, or ``Junior,'' as his family called him, was an outgoing and charming person, well liked and remembered fondly by both staff and classmates of Norwalk High School as someone who had found focus and was pursuing his dreams. He cared about his family, and had a propensity for the simple things in life, like playing golf with his dad, working on his car or skiing. He worked with his dad as a remodeling contractor prior to going into the Army and his family had high hopes for him as he started to plan for his future. I am both proud and grateful that our military is made up of young men and women whose values are exemplified by PVT Perez's service to the United States Army and his country. PVT Perez was a messenger of high justice and idealism in the best tradition of American principles and patriotism. I join a grateful Nation in extending my heartfelt condolences to his family. Thank you for sharing this outstanding soldier with us. His country, his Army, his brothers-in-arms and his friends at home will keenly miss PVT Perez. You may be justifiably proud of his contributions to a noble cause and a people in need.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Dodd to add $15 billion in funding for our first responders and first preventers. I commend my friend for his strong leadership, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. One of the Federal Government's primary responsibilities under the Constitution is to provide for a common defense. Today, in the face of the terrorist threat, that means more than building a mighty, well- equipped and well-trained Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. It means strengthening the shared security of our 50 States and their cities and towns, as well as our territories. Today, the readiness of our firefighters and police officers and public health professionals is every bit as important to our national security as the readiness of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Homeland security is expensive. It can't be accomplished on the cheap. And because the war against terrorism is a national fight, a substantial portion of the responsibility falls to the Federal Government. It takes serious money to make the necessary changes to our services and infrastructure. To employ, train and equip top-flight first responders. To buy biometric security systems, hire more border personnel, install information sharing networks and develop biological and chemical testing and treatment capabilities. Securing the Nation's ports, as well as chemical and nuclear plants must become a top priority. In transportation, we must move beyond aviation and also secure mass transit, rails, air cargo, pipelines, tunnels, and bridges. These tough jobs and countless others can't be accomplished with wishful thinking or a magic wand. And they cannot be accomplished by placing an unfair share of the burden on State and local governments who are already facing the worst fiscal crises in decades. Ever since before we established the Department of Homeland Security, many of us were asking this administration to provide adequate resources, to provide them quickly and to target them more effectively. But unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Across the country, states and localities are being spread thinner than ever at the moment they can least afford it. Homeland security and healthcare costs are rising. Deficits are rising. But the economy isn't. Only our firefighters can protect against chemical weapons or rescue families trapped in buildings. But in some cities and States around the country today, our first preventers and responders are actually being laid off because of budget cutbacks. That is like reducing your troop force in a time of conventional warfare. It is crazy and it must stop and only more money from Washington can make it stop. Yet this administration's indifference is undermining the men and women who are our first line of defense in the war against terrorism. The American people expect and believe that we are doing our utmost to ensure that sufficient funds are provided, but in too many communities, the reality is unlikely to meet the expectation. The administration has failed to make sure that the necessary funds go to those who need it most: the local firefighters, police officers, emergency technicians, and public health workers who protect and serve us every day. In February, I proposed spending an additional $16 billion on homeland security above the President's fiscal year 2004 budget--$7.5 billion of which was for first responders. In June, I offered an amendment at the Governmental Affairs Committee markup to add $10 billion to Senator Collins' legislation authorizing grant programs for our first responders, but my amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. During the markup, it was suggested that we should not authorize that amount of funding without an independent assessment of what the real needs are. Well, now that rationale, which I believe failed to consider the testimony, public statements, and other assessments which already existed, no longer can be made. That is because on June 29th a report by an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations--composed of distinguished former government officials, including a director of the CIA and the FBI, our colleague Senator Rudman, a White House terrorism adviser and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--corroborated the conclusions I and others reached months ago. The report, entitled, ``Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' determined that ``the United States has not reached a sufficient national level of emergency preparedness and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil. . . . If the nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could have an even more devastating impact than the 9/11 attacks.'' Indeed, the task force report found that the U.S. is on track to fall nearly $100 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs over the next 5 years. This estimate does not even include some known needs--such as detection or protection gear for police--because the task force could not obtain reliable estimates for those areas. The administration's response to the warning from this respected commission? It brushed off the report's spending recommendation as ``grossly inflated.'' The task force report listed a number of urgent needs left unmet due to lack of funding. They point out that funds are urgently needed, among other things, to: provide interoperable communications equipment for all emergency responder groups across the country so that those on the front lines can communicate with one another while on the scene of an attack; enhance urban search and rescue capabilities of major cities; extend the emergency 911 system nationally; provide protective gear and weapons of mass destruction remediation equipment to first responders; and increase public health preparedness and develop surge capacity on the Nation's hospitals. The report's findings are sobering. For example, the report noted: ``On average, fire departments across the country only have enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatus for only one third. Only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse.'' The report found cities without the means to determine whether terrorists had struck with dangerous chemicals or pathogens, and public health labs incapable of responding to a chemical or biological attack. Earlier today, yet another report was issued--this one by the Progressive Policy Institute--which noted that the Bush administration has failed to adequately address critical homeland security needs, including: improving intelligence gathering and analysis; improving security at the state and local level; controlling our national borders; protecting against bio terror attacks; and protecting critical facilities. The report graded the administration's overall efforts to protect the homeland as ``D.'' It acknowledged that some progress has been made in a few areas, but added ``we find that the Bush administration has not brought the same energy and attention to homeland security that it has brought to overseas military efforts. The administration has failed to adequately fund a number of essential homeland security functions. In the absence of presenting a compelling vision of the changes necessary to protect the homeland, the Bush administration has failed to push back on the government bureaucracies that have resisted meaningful change. In short the President has failed to make homeland security his top priority.'' The PPI report and the Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations Report follow a series of assessments that have raised serious questions about the extent and effectiveness of the administration's homeland security efforts. The administration must stop ignoring the evidence that, with respect to homeland security, almost 2 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, we remain ``drastically underfunded, dangerously unprepared.'' These reports have simply confirmed what we the Governmental Affairs Committee and others in Congress have been told for many months: The reality is that left without sufficient resources, State and local governments and first responder organizations are struggling--and failing--to keep up with their day-to-day critical services to their communities as their homeland security obligations take an increasing toll. At a hearing of the Governmental Affairs Committee this spring, one police chief told us that he had to eliminate or cut back community police, drug enforcement, traffic enforcement and programs in schools in order to station most of his force at the airport. Even as they are forced to abandon more and more of their traditional work to serve as the front line in the war on terrorism here at home, these first responder groups are unable to work effectively because they are lacking sufficient funds. Ed Plaugher, Fire Chief of Arlington, VA told the Governmental Affairs Committee that the stress of protecting the homeland without adequate resources is affecting the morale of first responders. Captain Chauncey Bowers of the Prince Georges County, MD Fire Department testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee on behalf of the International Association of Firefighters and told us that we need a national commitment to homeland security preparedness; he urged us to work to ensure that every fire department in America has the resources to protect our citizens. First responders need equipment such as personal protective clothing, respirators, and devices for detection of chemical, biological and radiological hazards. They need training in using such equipment, and training in how in general to respond in an attack. Nevertheless, local fire and police officials at our hearings told us at the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings they do not have the resources to pay for training or equipment that they need to prepare for a possible attack. Indeed, most emergency workers still do not have the training or the equipment they require. The December 2002 needs assessment of the U.S. Fire Service conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in conjunction with the National Fire Protection Association found that about one-third of firefighters per shift are not equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus, and nearly half of all fire departments have no map coordinate system. And with respect to training, another study by FEMA found that 27 percent of fire department personnel involved in providing emergency medical services lacked any formal training even in those duties, and incredibly, 73 percent of fire departments failed to meet regulations for hazardous materials response training. The administration's own budget documents estimate that only about 80,000 first responders were trained and equipped in 2002 with funding at the Federal level of $750 million. Unless this administration provides significantly more funding, it will take us decades to train our first responders to cope with weapons of mass destruction. We do not have that kind of time. Even if we could supply training and equipment to all of our first responders, there are simply not enough of them. A survey by the Progressive Policy Institute of 44 of the largest police departments found that 27 of them--nearly two-thirds--are experiencing personnel shortfalls as a result of inadequate budgets and problems attracting new recruits. According to the report, the city of Chicago, as a result of increased overtime costs, has delayed hiring new officers and thus has seen its ranks decline between 2000 and 2002. Detroit's experience has been similar, with a 50 percent increase in overtime costs while its ranks thinned by 5.3 percent between 2000 and 2002. This report is shocking and sad at a time when we should be enhancing our first line of defense. It highlights the need to provide adequate funding to hire additional police officers and firefighters. Yet the Bush administration has steadfastly opposed the efforts of the sponsor of this amendment to support the SAFER Act, which would authorize over $1 billion per year for 7 years to hire 10,0000 additional firefighters per year. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation and the amendment to the DOD bill which would partially fund those firefighters; and I was proud that the homeland security bill which I authored last Congress included funding to hire firefighters, but that provision was defeated by Republicans on the Senate floor. The PPI survey also makes clear the need for adequate funding for overtime related to training. Indeed, according to the Conference of Mayors, cities across America spent $70 million per week when the homeland security alert was raised to orange--much of it for overtime expenses. Finally, even if local police and fire departments had sufficient personnel, they lack the ability to communicate effectively in a time of emergency. In most areas of the U.S., the police, firefighters and emergency technicians in the same jurisdiction have no way to communicate in the field because their equipment is not compatible. Lack of interoperability in communications systems has been cited as a cause of the deaths of 343 firefighters in New York City on September 11, 2001, because police could not reach them prior to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Achieving this goal, however, will be expensive, and the administration's funding commitment is wholly insufficient. The Public Safety Wireless Network, a joint Treasury and Justice Department policy group, estimates it could cost up to $18 billion. According to the National Task Force on Interoperability, at the State level, replacing basic radio systems for a single public safety agency can cost between $100 million and $300 million. Meanwhile, Secretary Ridge testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee on May 1, 2003 that $40 million had been appropriated to run ``some demonstrations projects with regard to interoperable communications.'' This is an inadequate response to a long-standing and expensive problem, and will leave our first line of defense without the basic equipment they need. Our police officers, firefighters, emergency management officials, and public health officials--those we call first responders and first preventers in the fight against terrorism--are struggling to protect us from unprecedented dangers. Those funds must come from Washington because this is a national fight, and budgets are tight and getting tighter in state and local governments across our Nation. Unfortunately, most of my pleas and those of my colleagues--along with those of independent, bipartisan experts and State and local governments--have fallen on deaf ears within this administration. Senator Dodd has chosen the exact opposite route, and the route we urgently need to pursue. His amendment embraces the recommendations of the expert task force of the Council of Foreign Relations. I strongly urge support of the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Dodd.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this first appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security should have been a highpoint in our shared quest to secure the homeland. In the anguished days after September 11, Members of both parties were able to unite around our commitment to fight for a different, more secure future. The new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, should be a monument to that commitment. But the Department and its partners cannot make a difference without real resources to fight terrorism here at home. This bill does not provide those resources, and it does not provide them because the President has refused to lead on this issue. We are fighting a war on terrorism that demands our full energy and determination. It must be waged not only overseas, but also at home. Yet President Bush has repeatedly balked at carrying out a serious effort at homeland defense. In the face of numerous expert reports chronicling the terrorist threat to U.S. citizens and property here at home--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. Recall that President Bush had to be dragged to the table to consider a Department of Homeland Security. For months, President Bush rejected calls by myself and others to create a Cabinet-level department that could robustly tackle the daunting challenge of homeland security. Critical time was lost as the administration continued to insist that the monumental task of securing our homeland could be handled by a policy advisor in the White House without budget or line authority over any of the Federal workers tasked with our homeland security. But when the administration changed tacks and signed onto the idea of a new department last summer, I welcomed them to the cause. And when the legislation was passed to create the department, I held out hope that the administration would now vigorously address the vulnerabilities in our homeland defenses. Sadly, that trust was misplaced. Having belatedly agreed to create the Department of Homeland Security, the President now refuses to seek the resources DHS--and its partners at the State and local level--must have in order to succeed. Even before the legislation to create the department went through, I had urged the White House to boost spending on critical homeland security programs. Yet throughout the last appropriations cycle, the administration resisted repeated Democratic attempts to obtain more resources for first responders and other critical homeland security accounts. Whether the question was equipping our first responders, bolstering our border personnel or money for transit security--to cite just a few items--the administration kept saying no. Then, in February, with the Department of Homeland Security nearly launched, the President sent the Congress a status quo budget for homeland security for fiscal year 2004--requesting only $300 million more than it planned to spend on homeland defense activities in the preceding year. Incredibly, the President's request included no new money for first responders, no new money to equip our hospitals and public health clinics to combat bioterrorism, and no money at all for port security grants. The President's proposed budget actually cut funds for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, an agency whose urgent work is just beginning. It provided almost no money to assess and help protect our Nation's critical infrastructure. It was a business-as-usual budget, when we needed a call to arms to address the dire new threats confronting us. And that timid request drove the budget debate this spring and shaped the broad contours of the appropriations bill before us. I can hardly overstate the gravity of this failure to lead. The Federal Government may have no more fundamental obligation than to provide for the common defense. Today, as September 11 so painfully showed us, that means more than building a strong military and deploying our outstanding servicemen and women in hot spots around the world. Now, it also means securing our borders and, within the country, building a network of shared security with our State and local governments. We must equip and empower our frontline homeland defense workers--be they Customs inspectors, baggage screeners, local police and firefighters or public health professionals--just as robustly as we have readied our soldiers, sailors, and airmen for combat overseas. Homeland security is expensive. We must invest in the people and the technologies that can prevent or help respond to terrorism, and that means making substantial new investments in our services and infrastructure. We must employ, train and equip top-flight first responders. We must hire more border personnel, create biometric security systems, install information sharing networks and develop biological and chemical testing and treatment capabilities. Securing the Nation's ports, as well as chemical and nuclear plants, must become a top priority. In transportation, we must move beyond aviation and also secure mass transit, highways, rails, air cargo, container shipments, pipelines, tunnels, and bridges. Dollars alone will not solve these challenges, but they certainly cannot be conquered without more resources. Nor should we ask State and local governments, who are already facing the worst fiscal crises in decades, to shoulder an unfair portion of the burden. The war against terrorism is a national fight, and a substantial portion of the financial responsibility falls to the Federal Government. That is why, in February, I called for an additional $16 billion for homeland security in fiscal year 2004, including an additional $7.5 billion for grants for first responders. My proposal advocated significant new resources for port security grants, public health preparedness, heightened security in all modes of transportation, critical infrastructure protection, and more. I argued that we must approach homeland security with the same urgency, and resources, that we would deploy against terrorists overseas. In the same vein, last month I sought to authorize $10 billion for first responders in fiscal year 2004 during consideration of S. 1245, a bill to improve the process for distributing first responder grants to State and local governments, in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, my amendment was rejected on a party-line vote. An expert task force has recently delivered the same message about the urgent needs of our first responders. An Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, led by former Senator Warren Rudman and former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, called for billions more to equip and train the Nation's first responders. The report's title says it all: ``Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.'' The task force, which included a former Director of the FBI and CIA as well as a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, found a nation still ``dangerously ill-prepared to handle catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.'' It found fire departments without proper breathing apparatuses and interoperable radios, cities without the means to determine whether terrorists had struck with dangerous chemicals or other hazardous materials, and public health labs incapable of responding to a chemical or biological attack. This expert task force concluded that government would need to spend an additional $98.4 billion over 5 years to prepare the Nation's first responders. The administration's response to the warning from this respected commission? The administration brushed off the report's spending recommendation as ``grossly inflated.'' The administration simply cannot be listening to our first responders. Far from seeming inflated, the funding recommendations of the task force report only corroborated what I have heard from first responders around the country, including testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee. First responders need equipment such as personal protective clothing, respirators, and devices for detection of chemical, biological, and radiological hazards. They need training to use such equipment effectively and to learn how to respond to a serious terrorist attack. However, local fire and police officials at our hearings told the committee that they do not have the resources to pay for training or equipment that they need to prepare for a possible attack. For instance, Captain Bowers of Prince Georges County, MD, told the Governmental Affairs Committee that approximately 57,000 firefighters lack personal protective clothing and many fire departments do not have enough portable radios to equip more than half of the firefighters on shift. Indeed, most emergency workers still do not have the training or the equipment they require. State and local governments and first responder organizations cannot train and equip these personnel on their own, and they are not getting the help they need from the Federal Government. The administration's own budget documents estimate that only about 80,000 first responders were trained and equipped in 2002 with funding at the Federal level of $750 million. Unless this administration provides significantly more funding, it will take us decades to train our first responders to cope with weapons of mass destruction. That is time we do not have. First responders are not the only homeland workers left in the lurch by this administration. Independent experts and the General Accounting Office, GAO, have cited substantial shortfalls in other areas of homeland security as well. Transportation security is one glaring example. 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. 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. 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. Stephen Flynn, a homeland security specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, summed it up this way in the June 21 Boston Globe: A government that is wringing its hands over 1 or 2 million-dollar grants is still a nation that hasn't come to grips with the fact that the threat has changed. I was more forgiving in the first 18 months, but when you pass an act and you make sure there is no money to execute it, that goes beyond being slow to not taking this seriously. Mass transit systems are another grave source of concern. According to a December 2002 GAO report, mass transit systems are frequent targets for terrorists. 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. The GAO report concluded that ``insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making . . . transit systems as safe and secure as possible.'' Yet the administration is not seeking any significant resources to secure our Nation's transit systems--a project that could run into billions of dollars. Nor do we see a commitment to improve rail security, although vast quantities of hazardous materials are shipped by rail. Even in the area of passenger aviation, where TSA has focused virtually all its resources, troubling gaps remain. Officials have made strides in screening passengers themselves and their baggage, yet they have not developed a reliable system to screen commercial cargo loaded onto the very same planes. Look in almost any direction, and you will find pressing, unmet security needs. The administration's budget will not fulfill existing congressional mandates to secure the borders with more personnel and better, biometric identification systems. Our Nation's critical infrastructure--chemical and nuclear plants, energy grids, water systems and more--remain dangerously exposed, yet the administration seems content to continue studying these vulnerabilities rather than move aggressively towards creating greater protections. In March, I wrote to Secretary Ridge seeking firm timetables for completing inventories, risk assessments and protective measures for a wide array of critical infrastructure segments. The Secretary has yet to provide these timetables. These shortfalls are disturbing enough when taken in isolation. Seen together, they form a shockingly dismal picture of our homeland security. That is why former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, who were the first to call for a Department of Homeland Security and who warned of terrorist attacks within the United States even before the September 11 tragedy, last fall issued a new report warning that: ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.'' They concluded the Federal Government must invest more to equip and train first responders, to boost the health community's capacity to prepare for and respond to chemical or biological attacks, and to improve transportation security beyond commercial aviation. Several months later, an expert study by the Brookings Institute came to a similar conclusion: The Administration was shortchanging key homeland security accounts such as port security and critical infrastructure protection. Even Republicans here in Congress have called for more. Indeed, this bill does go beyond the President's request to provide some additional funds for certain homeland security accounts. But the appropriators do not go nearly far enough. So, as our firefighters and police officers face layoffs due to tight budgets, this bill would offer even less assistance to first responders than in fiscal year 2003. And as the Coast Guard predicts it will cost $1 billion this year to conduct the most basic port security assessments and improvements, this bill provides only $150 million for port security grants and would not give Coast Guard the personnel it needs to carry out its statutory mandate to review port security plans. It makes no sense to me that the Bush administration is willing to shortchange homeland security. This is a profound failure of leadership that threatens to undermine our promise to the American people to do all we can to ensure this country never again suffers the tragic loss and disruption experienced on September 11 and its aftermath.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today proudly to introduce legislation to rename the postal facility at 141 Weston Street in Hartford, CT, as the ``Barbara B. Kennelly Post Office Building.'' Barbara Kennelly is a dear friend, a former member of the House of Representatives, and an outstanding citizen of Connecticut who has dedicated her life to public service on behalf of the citizens of our great State. It is long past time, and the very least that we can do to pay tribute to her in this small but lasting way. Barbara's life of public service came as no surprise to those of us who knew her and her family--the first family of Connecticut politics, I might add. Her father, John M. Bailey, was one of the all time great political legends of our State--a powerful political leader, confidante of John F. Kennedy, and Democratic Party chairman under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. I devoted the better half of my senior year at Yale to the study of Bailey and wrote my senior thesis, later turned into a book, on his brilliant and sophisticated use of political power. Barbara's mother was active in Democratic politics long after the death of her husband in 1975, her brother Jack served as the chief state attorney in Connecticut, and her late husband Jim was a Speaker of the Connecticut House. Politics has been in Barbara's bones practically from the time she was born. She once told a newspaper that politics didn't ``come naturally, but certainly it's a lot easier when you see members of your family doing it. Obviously I was watching my father all the time and learning through osmosis.'' She had good instructors and she learned well. After serving on the Hartford City Council and as Connecticut's Secretary of State, Barbara was elected to Congress in 1982 and served with distinction until 1999, when she answered her party's call to run for governor. Like her father, she was a hard-driving and skilled tactician in the House, working the back corridors of politics and shunning the bright lights of the modern media ever in search of a nine-second sound bite. She was an insider, a loyal Member of the House leadership, and a golf partner to the likes of Danny Rostenkowski. She rose in through the party ranks making few enemies, seeking consensus, playing fair, and gathering strength one vote at a time. Through the 1980s and 1990s, she was one of the more powerful women in the Congress--part feminist hero, part backroom pol. She had a knack for getting along with the good old boys even as she pushed the boundaries for women's rights. In 1984, she was thrilled to be chosen to nominate Geraldine Ferraro as the first woman Vice Presidential candidate on a Democratic ticket. Years afterward, Barbara said that moment was one of the high points of her career. But there would be many others. In her second term, House Speaker Tip O'Neill recognized her ability and appointed her to serve on the prestigious tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, a committee most members wait years to join. She also became the first woman member of the House Intelligence Committee. And in 1991, she became the first woman to join the House leadership as a chief deputy whip. We miss her strong presence and her wise counsel here in Congress but are grateful for her continuing work on behalf of seniors as the President of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I appreciate the opportunity to help honor a great woman in this way. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today proudly to introduce legislation to rename the postal facility at 141 Weston Street in Hartford, CT, as the ``Barbara B. Kennelly Post Office Building.'' Barbara Kennelly is a dear friend, a former member of the House of Representatives, and an outstanding citizen of Connecticut who has dedicated her life to public service on behalf of the citizens of our great State. It is long past time, and the very least that we can do to pay tribute to her in this small but lasting way. Barbara's life of public service came as no surprise to those of us who knew her and her family--the first family of Connecticut politics, I might add. Her father, John M. Bailey, was one of the all time great political legends of our State--a powerful political leader, confidante of John F. Kennedy, and Democratic Party chairman under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. I devoted the better half of my senior year at Yale to the study of Bailey and wrote my senior thesis, later turned into a book, on his brilliant and sophisticated use of political power. Barbara's mother was active in Democratic politics long after the death of her husband in 1975, her brother Jack served as the chief state attorney in Connecticut, and her late husband Jim was a Speaker of the Connecticut House. Politics has been in Barbara's bones practically from the time she was born. She once told a newspaper that politics didn't ``come naturally, but certainly it's a lot easier when you see members of your family doing it. Obviously I was watching my father all the time and learning through osmosis.'' She had good instructors and she learned well. After serving on the Hartford City Council and as Connecticut's Secretary of State, Barbara was elected to Congress in 1982 and served with distinction until 1999, when she answered her party's call to run for governor. Like her father, she was a hard-driving and skilled tactician in the House, working the back corridors of politics and shunning the bright lights of the modern media ever in search of a nine-second sound bite. She was an insider, a loyal Member of the House leadership, and a golf partner to the likes of Danny Rostenkowski. She rose in through the party ranks making few enemies, seeking consensus, playing fair, and gathering strength one vote at a time. Through the 1980s and 1990s, she was one of the more powerful women in the Congress--part feminist hero, part backroom pol. She had a knack for getting along with the good old boys even as she pushed the boundaries for women's rights. In 1984, she was thrilled to be chosen to nominate Geraldine Ferraro as the first woman Vice Presidential candidate on a Democratic ticket. Years afterward, Barbara said that moment was one of the high points of her career. But there would be many others. In her second term, House Speaker Tip O'Neill recognized her ability and appointed her to serve on the prestigious tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, a committee most members wait years to join. She also became the first woman member of the House Intelligence Committee. And in 1991, she became the first woman to join the House leadership as a chief deputy whip. We miss her strong presence and her wise counsel here in Congress but are grateful for her continuing work on behalf of seniors as the President of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I appreciate the opportunity to help honor a great woman in this way. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I want to state my support for the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, S. 1, and my reasons for doing so. I believe that by passing this legislation, we begin to answer the prayers of many seniors who are struggling to cover the rising costs of the prescription drugs they need to live longer and healthier lives. I commend the bipartisan Congressional effort to beat back the worst pieces of the President's initial proposal--which would have forced seniors out of Medicare en masse and paved the road to privatizing the system--and forged this more sensible compromise. But my support is not an enthusiastic endorsement. We cannot ignore the substantial weaknesses in this proposal. For one, the bill does not take effect until 2006--seniors have waited long enough. More specifically, this bill has an enormous gap in coverage--the so-called ``doughnut hole''--that leaves millions of seniors without the assistance they need. Premiums may vary from plan to plan. Some seniors may be forced to go round and round in a revolving door, changing plans as private plans come and go. And seniors covered under employer-based retiree plans would not get the catastrophic benefit they need. Unfortunately, Republicans defeated Democratic amendments to remedy these shortcomings. Nevertheless, the bill represents a dramatic improvement in prescription drug coverage for our nation's seniors. It would provide comprehensive prescription drug coverage for our lowest income elderly with no or minimal premiums. It also guarantees that a drug benefit is available to all Medicare beneficiaries by giving them a ``fallback'' traditional government plan when there is a lack of private plans in their area. Even with the existing gap, 80 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will get back more in benefits than they pay in premiums. Both problems and advantages to the bill are summarized in more detail below. All in all, this is a foundation upon which to build in the months and years ahead. Senator Kennedy is right. Seniors deserve the basic coverage this plan will provide--and an end to the political stalemate that has blocked action for the last several years. Thanks to the persistent, principled, and passionate advocacy of him and other Democrats--and the strength of Republicans who resisted President Bush's divisive prescription--that's precisely what they're getting. But I do think we can and should do more to improve this plan, and there are several specific areas we should focus on as we go forward. First, we must fill the doughnut hole I described above. This gap in coverage will hurt our seniors at their time of greatest need-- financially and physically. The gap occurs because after a senior's drug spending reaches a certain amount, the benefit ends. The benefit doesn't start again until there is a significant out of pocket payment, at which time catastrophic coverage kicks in. Many of the beneficiaries who fall into that gap are likely to be seriously ill and financially strapped, and therefore faced with the same awful choice between medicines and necessities that too many seniors face today. That's not the only problem with this bill. Another is that the drug benefits paid by employer-based retiree plans would not count toward the catastrophic benefit promised to seniors. Therefore, seniors covered under these plans would not gain from this new benefit. In fact, these seniors may get less Medicare coverage than other beneficiaries. Also, CBO estimates that as many as 37 percent of employers may drop their retiree drug coverage, which is the last thing we want to happen as a result of this bill. In addition, there is no set premium for seniors under this plan. Many seniors will enroll in private drug-only plans because that will be their only option. The premiums for these plans may vary significantly and may be quite high in certain parts of the country. This is clearly unfair and will hurt those seniors in locations where premiums are high. Moreover, the drug coverage approach in the bill relies on uncertain and historically unstable private health insurance plans. In fact, there will not be a guaranteed ``fallback'' option for coverage in a traditional Medicare plan. This fallback will only occur when there are less than two private plans in any region. Seniors may be pushed from plan to plan as the private plans come and go. But on balance, this bill has more strengths than weaknesses, starting with the fact that it commits $400 billion to help reduce the costs of prescription drugs for America's senior citizens. This is a historic breakthrough, and we should not minimize that. One of the most encouraging parts of this bill is that it provides comprehensive coverage for low income seniors up to 160 percent of poverty with no or minimal premiums and cost sharing--40 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries. There is no ``doughnut hole'' for this group. Although I wish that there were better coverage for the remaining 60 percent of beneficiaries, there is at least strong, reliable coverage for the lowest income group. Another positive aspect of the current bill is that all Medicare beneficiaries are provided a ``fallback'' traditional government plan when there are not two private plans in their area. This means that all Medicare beneficiaries are guaranteed that a drug benefit is available. I co-sponsored Senator Stabenow's amendment to guarantee this fallback without regard to the presence or absence of private plans to increase the stability of coverage and decrease the risk of needing to move from plan to plan. That amendment failed. There were other important amendments that I did not have the opportunity to vote on. I would like to note my position on them for the record. Stabenow Amendment No. 931 to Bill S. 1: I was a co-sponsor of this amendment that would have ensured the availability of the traditional Medicare plan in all areas. Bill S. 1 guarantees a ``fallback'' plan only when there are not two private plans in any region. This amendment would have guaranteed the availability of a Medicare-administered drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries in all regions and this ``fallback'' would not be dependent on the presence or absence of private insurers. This would have avoided the revolving door of drug insurance we may face with the enactment of the underlying bill. As discussed, seniors could be forced to change insurers and drug formularies from year to year. This amendment would have provided stability, by allowing seniors access to the federal fallback plan at all times. It is important that seniors don't just have drug coverage, but have coverage they can trust. For this reason, I was a co-sponsor of this amendment and would have voted for it. Daschle Amendment No. 939 to Bill S. 1: This amendment would have ensured that an affordable plan would have been available to all Medicare beneficiaries by limiting the variations in the amount beneficiaries have to pay in premiums to only 10 percent above the national average, no matter where they live. Currently, premiums for Medicare HMO plans with drug coverage vary from $99/month in Connecticut to $16/month in Florida. Similarly, the premiums in Medicare PPO plans vary from $166/month in New York to $39/month in Alabama. This amendment would have limited these types of inequities. For this reason, I would have voted for this amendment. Gregg Amendment No. 945 to Bill S. 1: This bipartisan amendment attempts to help ensure that Americans have access to generic drugs in a timely fashion. This amendment speeds the market entry of generic drugs by eliminating some patent extension practices used by brand name manufacturers. I voted for similar generic drug legislation in the last Congress, which passed the Senate. I would have voted for this amendment. Dayton Amendment No. 957 to Bill S. 1: This amendment would require that Members of Congress receive prescription reimbursements at the same level as Medicare beneficiaries. I believe that that this it is appropriate and fair for us to be subject to the same problems to which our constituents will be subject. For these reasons, I would have voted for this amendment. Dodd Amendment No. 969 to Bill S. 1: This amendment would have allowed an ongoing open enrollment period for two years so that beneficiaries could enroll and disenroll in Medicare Prescription Drug Plans and Medicare Advantage plans during 2006 and 2007. Medicare beneficiaries would have been able to choose which plan they wanted as they gathered more information about each plan during the first two years of this benefit. For this reason, I was a co-sponsor of this amendment and would have voted in favor. Dodd Amendment No. 970 to Bill S. 1: This amendment would have provided 50 percent cost sharing through the ``donut hole'' for seniors between 160 percent and 250 percent of poverty. Beneficiaries who have an income of only $15,000/year (or $20,000/year for a couple) are just over the 160 percent cut-off. This amendment would have helped these beneficiaries who have reached the initial coverage gap and before these beneficiaries have reached the annual out-of pocket limit. I am greatly concerned that the bill voted out of the Finance Committee will hurt these beneficiaries. For these reasons, I would have voted for this amendment. Harkin Amendment No. 991 to Bill S. 1: I was a co-sponsor of this amendment to have a demonstration project through the Medicaid program to encourage community-based services for individuals with disabilities. I believe that it is important that we treat disabled and challenged individuals in their communities to try and decrease the institutionalization of this population. We need demonstration projects to establish cost effectiveness and quality. For these reasons, I co- sponsored this amendment and would have voted for it. Dodd Amendment No. 998 to Bill S. 1: This amendment would have increased the amount of the direct subsidy to employers who provide retiree prescription coverage. It would have encouraged retiree benefit plans to continue to exist as an alternative to Medicare. I am deeply concerned that the bill voted out of the Finance Committee will hurt seniors who currently have employer prescription drug coverage. Seniors who have worked hard all of their lives and earned drug insurance from their former employers should not lose this coverage and this bill could, according to CBO estimates, eliminate over a third of these benefits. For these reasons, I would have voted for this amendment. This provision needs to be corrected. Clinton Amendment No. 1000 to Bill S. 1: I was proud to cosponsor Senator Clinton's amendment to ensure that seniors get the information that they need to make informed choices about which medication they should take for a given medical condition. Often, there is more than one medication that is available for treatment. This measure would have supported research to determine which of these drugs is most effective and would have ensured that this information would be made available to patients and their physicians. I believe that it is important to support these studies as a means of improving the quality of prescribing practices and make certain that patients get the best possible care. For these reasons, I co-sponsored this amendment and would have voted for it. Boxer Amendment No. 1001 to Bill S. 1: This amendment would have filled the coverage gap or ``doughnut'' for beneficiaries who are ill and who have drug expenditures that exceed $4500. Bill S. 1 contains a provision that after Medicare beneficiaries' drug expenditures reach $4500, there is no more coverage until the total drug expenditures reach at least $5813 (unless beneficiaries qualify for low-income protections). No other private or public health insurance policy has this kind of coverage gap. In addition, S. 1 requires that during this coverage gap, Medicare beneficiaries would be required to pay their monthly premium. This is unfair. This amendment would have ensured that Medicare beneficiaries continue to receive the same drug coverage even after drug costs reach $4500 and before they reach $5800. They are paying their premiums and should continue to receive benefits. For these reasons, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. Sessions Amendment No. 1011 to Bill S. 1: I support the Senate's vote to defeat Senator Sessions' amendment. The Senate Finance committee included provisions in S. 1 to extend Medicaid and S-CHIP coverage to legal immigrants. These benefits would aid tax-paying residents who have come to this country for a better future. It is only right that hard working newcomers who play by the rules receive our help when needed. Senator Sessions' amendment would have eliminated these provisions. For these reasons, I would have voted to oppose the Sessions amendment. I attempted to cast as many votes as possible during the Senate Medicare debate. I did not miss any votes for which my vote would have changed the outcome, including the vote for Senator Harkin's amendment. Although I missed this vote and the count was 50-48 in favor of a motion to table the amendment, even if both I and another Senate absentee had cast our votes, Vice President Cheney would have cast the deciding vote. Most of the amendments passed or failed by wide margins, as did the final bill. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to reiterate that on balance I view this bill as real progress, despite its flaws. But I also want to make clear that I will oppose any effort to tip that balance against senior citizens in conference. I am troubled by provisions in the House bill that would undermine traditional Medicare and force seniors into private plans. And I will not support any effort to include these provisions or ones like them into the conference report and make the bill weaker instead of stronger.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, a great thinker once said that there is no more lovely, friendly, and charming relationship, communion, or company than a good marriage. Judge Lee and Harry First of Riverdale, New York, have certainly demonstrated the truth of those stirring words. For 50 years, they have set an example of commitment, faith, and values. They have been blessed with a strong and happy marriage and a loving family. I am delighted to wish our very good friends, Lee and Harry, a happy 50th wedding anniversary and a joyous celebration.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President. I rise to support the nomination of Mark Kravitz, whose nomination to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut the Senate is currently considering. Mr. Kravitz's confirmation will be good for Connecticut and for the Federal bench. Connecticut isn't the biggest State in the Union, but we are blessed to have countless principled and professional lawyers, judges, and legal scholars. Maybe that is because we were the first State to have a written constitution; maybe it is due to the gravitational tug of fine law schools like UConn and my own alma mater, Yale. Regardless, in a State filled with lawyers, it is no exaggeration to say that Mark Kravitz has proven himself among the best. And I have no doubt he will uphold the highest standards of jurisprudence on the Federal bench. Mark graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1972 from Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. He later graduated from Georgetown Law School, where he was managing editor of the Law Review. Out of law school, Mark clerked for Judge James Hunter of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. He is currently a partner at Wiggin and Dana in New Haven, where he has worked since 1976. He has served as lead counsel on more than 60 appeals in State and Federal courts, and has argued before the United States Supreme Court. Mark has been listed as one of the Best Lawyers in America since 1991. He was endorsed by the Connecticut Bar Association as exceptionally well qualified to be a District Judge, and has been unanimously rated as Well Qualified by the American Bar Association. Forgive the pun, but this is an open and shut case. Mark Kravitz has the intellect, the independence, and the integrity to do this job and do it well. I am confident he will carefully read and apply the laws of the United States in Federal court, abiding only by the law-not by any ideology, passion, or prejudice. He will be an exemplary judge. I urge my colleagues to confirm him today.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a life spent in pursuit of the highest American ideals. Burke Marshall, a wonderful man, a frontline soldier in the battle for civil rights, and a deeply respected resident of Connecticut, died Monday, June 2 at the age of 80. I am honored to have known him and occasionally benefited from his wise counsel. Burke became assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Kennedy Administration in 1961, just 7 years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision had declared ``separate but equal'' schools to be unconstitutional. On paper, in the annals of the law, things were changing. But in practice, on the streets and in the schools, those who suffered under Jim Crow knew that America was still defaulting on its promissory note. Segregation was still fierce. America was still failing to live up to its founding principles. During his tenure, Burke worked tirelessly to desegregate public facilities in the South. In 1961, he helped craft the Government's ban on segregation in interstate travel. In 1962, he played a central role in the maneuvering that led to the admission of James Meredith to the University of Mississippi, the first black student to pass through the gates of that school. In Birmingham in 1963, he negotiated a settlement between civil rights activists and the city's business community that helped bring the city back from the brink of violence. And in 1964, he helped shape the landmark Civil Rights Act, which would outlaw discrimination in public accommodations nationwide. During his tenure, Burke Marshall traveled throughout the South, persuading local authorities to desegregate bus stations, train stations, airports. This wasn't glamorous work. It took patience and persistence, clarity and courage. But without that patience, persistence, clarity, and courage, America would have stalled. America would have regressed. America would not have grown into the great Nation, full of hope and opportunity for people of all races and backgrounds, that it increasingly is today. Looking back, reading history books, some might think the civil rights movement was inexorable or its outcome inevitable. After all, the justice of the cause now seems so obvious. But in those days, nothing was for granted. Advancing civil rights was a struggle. Young people were being beaten by mobs; fire hoses and dogs were being turned on peaceful protestors. Many defenders of segregation would stop at nothing to stop the march of social progress. The only reason we were able to build a better country was because of the extraordinary heroism of ordinary people, and because of the difficult decisions made every day by people like Burke Marshall. He chipped away at the evil of Jim Crow and helped open the floodgates so that, as the Bible said, justice could begin to flow like water, and righteousness, like a mighty stream. Justice isn't yet flowing like a mighty river in America, nor is righteousness flowing like a mighty stream. We still have hills to climb, as Dr. King might say, before we reach the mountaintop. But thanks to the foothold that people like Burke Marshall have given us, we have the ability to keep climbing. We can see the summit. And we have the strength and the inspiration to never give up until we reach it. I got to know Burke Marshall because, in 1970, he moved to Connecticut and joined the faculty of Yale Law School, my alma mater, where he served as deputy dean and professor. I unfortunately had already graduated, but I was lucky to befriend Professor Marshall around New Haven. He was a warm, kind, decent man, who believed that the fight for justice was never-ending. The dean of Yale's Law School, Tony Kronman, put it well. He said, ``His goodness was so large that I half believed and fully wished he would live forever. Burke's generosity brought out the best in others. His love of justice helped change a nation.'' Burke Marshall was a quiet man. In fact, his wife Violet once said that, because he said so few words, she wasn't sure whether he liked her or not until he proposed. But he wasn't quiet when it counted. On matters of principle, on questions of justice, he heeded the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said: ``Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.'' Burke Marshall always spoke when it mattered, and that is why his legacy will live on forever in the hearts he touched and in the country he helped change for the better. My condolences to his wife Violet, his daughters Katie, Josie, and Jane, and his grandchildren. May God bless them and the memory of Burke Marshall.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about the loss to the U.S. economy of most of our high-end semiconductor chip manufacturing sector, the threat of the subsequent loss of the semiconductor research and design sectors, and the resulting serious national security implications. The composition of the global semiconductor industry has changed dramatically in recent years. East Asian countries are leveraging these changing market forces through their national trade and industrial policies to drive a migration of semiconductor manufacturing to that region, particularly China, through a large array of direct and indirect subsidies to their domestic semiconductor industry. If this accelerating shift in manufacturing overseas continues, the U.S. will lose the ability over time to reliably obtain high-end semiconductor integrated circuits from trusted sources, at a time when these advanced processing components are becoming a crucial defense technology advantage to the U.S. Experts in the military and intelligence sectors have made clear that relying on semiconductor integrated circuits fabricated outside the U.S., e.g. in China, Taiwan and Singapore, is not an acceptable national security option. The economic impact in the U.S. of the loss of manufacturing, research and design has equally serious implications. I would like to direct my colleagues' attention to a White Paper, that I am asking to be included in the Congressional Record, which outlines the fact that this off-shore migration of high-end semiconductor chip manufacturing is a result of concerted foreign government action, through an effective combination of government trade and industrial policies which have taken advantage of opportunities resulting from market forces and changes in the semiconductor industry. This White Paper lists a number of possible actions the defense and intelligence communities should consider to prevent this serious loss of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and design capability. I have also requested that the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office submit reports and plans of action to respond to this impending national security threat. I have asked that these reports provide an analysis of the semiconductor manufacturing issues that relate to defense and national security, as well as an analysis of the potential solutions that are discussed in the White Paper. I hope these reports will detail the steps that will be taken to counteract this loss of critical components for U.S. defense needs, as well as a timetable for the implementation of such steps. I note that the Armed Services Committee report on the bill we passed yesterday requests similar information. I hope we can act promptly to avoid a potential national security crisis in terms of reliable access to cutting-edge technology necessary to the critical defense needs of our country. The loss goes beyond economics and security. What is at stake here is our ability to be preeminent in the world of ideas on which the semiconductor industry is based. A prompt, concerted effort by the defense and intelligence community in cooperation with industry can reverse this trend of off- shore migration of manufacturing, research and design that is now under way and that will become essentially irreversible if no action is taken in the next few months. I ask consent that my ``White Paper on National Security Aspects of the Global Migration of the U.S. Semiconductor Industry'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I pay tribute to Jerry Berlin--a friend, an American patriot, and a principled and passionate man. On April 29, in a shocking tragedy, Jerry was shot and killed by his business partner at the Signature Grand banquet hall, which they had worked so hard to build together. It is always difficult to know what to say when people we care about are taken from us before their time. Even more difficult when the death is so sudden, so horrific, as this one was. But let me take a moment to pay tribute to the great American life that Jerry lived. Jerry was born in New York. His family, like many others, moved down to Miami when he was a boy. In high school at Miami Beach High, Jerry acted and danced in school productions. Those who knew him might have guessed it because he always had a spark in his eye and a spring in his step. Jerry's hard work quickly established him as a stellar lawyer, and one of the best Democratic fundraisers in the country. He believed in what our party believes: that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to go as far in America as your talents will take you. And he didn't just talk about those ideals. He lived by them. In the mid-1980s, Jerry's boundless energy led him to team with his business partner to create Signature Gardens, a banquet hall that catered literally and figuratively to the middle class. It was a place for weddings, proms, sweet sixteens, Bar and Bat Mitzvahs. You name it. It was a place where the community came together. And it was a wonderful success. All who knew Jerry are still in disbelief that his life could be taken, and in such a horrible way. In recent years, I am told, Jerry was becoming more religious. He was exploring his faith. He even went to study in Jerusalem. I have no doubt he is with God, in peace, now. We mourn for him and pray for his children, Ashley, Bret and Sharon, his ex-wife Gwen, and his fiancee, Marna Ross.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the historic vote last week in this Chamber to recommend the ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Protocols of Accession. I add my belated support to the protocols which serve to broaden the world's greatest alliance and, in the process, strengthen it to confront the new dangers of this new century. It is said that the poppies in the fields of Europe are red with the blood of millions of Europeans and Americans who gave their lives so that millions more could live in peace. Such is the legacy of the 20th century. And from that same period, that same struggle, emerged the most successful strategic alliance the world has ever known--the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For nearly half a century, that alliance manned the ramparts of a Europe that was divided and was still, truly, at war with itself. The fact that the war was a cold one, was itself cold comfort to the countless thousands trapped behind what came to be known as the `iron curtain.' When framed against the circumstances of NATO's birth and the fact that for so long the alliance's purpose was to keep the peace in a divided continent, the event that we gathered for last week was truly awesome indeed. Last week, we welcomed many of the nations of Europe once held captive by Communism into the partnership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The vote gave us the opportunity to affirm the place that NATO holds in the constellation of American security. Our fate is bound up with Europe's--to deny this is to overlook the lessons of history and the signposts of the future. Within Europe we find many of our closest and our oldest allies. For over 50 years, we have drawn strength from NATO, and for over 50 years we have, through NATO, worked hard for the security of our partners. We cannot, will not, must not stop now. Let us not forget, in times of crisis NATO has worked for American security as well. In the wake of September 11, 2001, the alliance invoked Article V of its charter for the first time in its history, calling the attack on one member an attack on all. European aircraft helped secure the skies over the eastern seaboard of the United States. Our NATO partners and our partnerships with them continue to be crucial to our Nation's security: the challenges we face as a nation are formidable--terrorism, tyrants, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among them--and we cannot, we must not, face them alone. But the world has changed, and so, too, must the alliance. The issues raised by Senators Levin and Warner address some critical questions. As the number of alliance members increases, the ability of the council to act quickly may become harder and harder to realize. That is especially true because every NATO action requires unanimous consent. In addition, we must acknowledge the possibility that with 26 alliance members, the chances that one of them may someday cease to uphold the basic values that the treaty organization is based on also becomes--mathematically speaking, at least--more likely. The amendments request that the North Atlantic Council study how to deal with both eventualities, and I believe these requests to study are both appropriate and timely. However, while I support these amendments, I am mindful of NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson's recent warnings that developing procedures to suspend members or changing the decisionmaking apparatus of the alliance would be ill-advised at this juncture. Lord Robertson has navigated the Alliance through some perilous waters during his tenure at the helm of NATO, and I see no reason to distrust his counsel now. The expansion of NATO makes clear that, despite the claims of alarmists, this great alliance is not stumbling into irrelevance. We have had differences with some of our partners, and we will continue to. But with our commitment, the alliance can once again prove its resilience. It can once again demonstrate that common values between nations are the strongest bonds of all. We must not forget that enemies of America are also enemies of NATO, and they see the democratic diversity of our nations as a weakness. They think they can divide us. They are wrong. In our diversity, we find a wellspring of great strength. Standing in the Chamber today speaking for Senate approval of these protocols, I am reminded of the words of the Great Seal of the United States: e pluribus unum: ``from many, one.'' I welcome our new European allies into the alliance structure; they will add their strength to ours, and their addition will make us all more secure. There are those in this country and in Europe who question the value of strong trans-Atlantic ties; they cite recent disagreements between some European nations and our own government as a rationale for the United States to stride alone into whatever fate holds in store for us all. By way of rejoinder, I offer President John F. Kennedy's words in 1962, when he urged his fellow Americans to ``think intercontinentally.'' President Kennedy continued, ``acting on our own, by ourselves, we cannot establish justice throughout the world; we cannot insure its domestic tranquility, nor provide for its common defense, or promote its general welfare, or secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. But joined with other free nations, we can do all this and more. We can assist the developing nations to throw off the yoke of poverty. . . We can mount a deterrent powerful enough to deter any aggression. And ultimately we can help to achieve a world of law and free choice, banishing the world of war and coercion.'' President Kennedy called for a trans-Atlantic partnership based on common values and concerns, one that looked outward as well as inward, one that would ``serve as a nucleus for the eventual union of all free men--those who are now free and those who are vowing that some day they will be free.'' The truth in President Kennedy's words in 1963 has not diminished in 40 years. Although we may disagree with our partners and brothers in peace, our paths have not diverged, and our concerns are tied together still. I applaud my colleagues for their overwhelming vote for the ratification of the Protocols of Ascension that which, once ratified by all 19 NATO members, will allow these 7 nations, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, to become parties to the North Atlantic Treaty, and full members of the treaty organization.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, with Senators Christopher J. Dodd, Edward M. Kennedy, and John F. Kerry, to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This new heritage area would encompass the part of the Housatonic River watershed that extends 60 miles from Lanesboro, MA to Kent, CT, and includes 29 towns in Connecticut and Massachusetts, five National Historic Landmarks, and four National Natural Landmarks. The upper Housatonic Valley is a unique cultural and geographical region. The region has made significant national contributions through literary, artistic, musical, and architectural achievements; post-Industrial Age environmental conservation and beautification efforts; and service as the backdrop for important Revolutionary War era events and the cradle of the iron, paper, and electrical industries and the Civil Rights Movement. National heritage area designation will encourage preservation and interpretation of important historical and cultural themes and sites. The designation will enhance and foster public-private partnerships to educate residents and visitors about the region; improve the area's economy through business investment, job expansion, and tourism; and protect the area's natural and cultural heritage. In introducing this bill, we recognize the widespread support for the national heritage area designation within Connecticut and Massachusetts, and, in particular, the large membership and extensive activities of the non- profit organization Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area, Inc. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, with Senators Christopher J. Dodd, Edward M. Kennedy, and John F. Kerry, to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This new heritage area would encompass the part of the Housatonic River watershed that extends 60 miles from Lanesboro, MA to Kent, CT, and includes 29 towns in Connecticut and Massachusetts, five National Historic Landmarks, and four National Natural Landmarks. The upper Housatonic Valley is a unique cultural and geographical region. The region has made significant national contributions through literary, artistic, musical, and architectural achievements; post-Industrial Age environmental conservation and beautification efforts; and service as the backdrop for important Revolutionary War era events and the cradle of the iron, paper, and electrical industries and the Civil Rights Movement. National heritage area designation will encourage preservation and interpretation of important historical and cultural themes and sites. The designation will enhance and foster public-private partnerships to educate residents and visitors about the region; improve the area's economy through business investment, job expansion, and tourism; and protect the area's natural and cultural heritage. In introducing this bill, we recognize the widespread support for the national heritage area designation within Connecticut and Massachusetts, and, in particular, the large membership and extensive activities of the non- profit organization Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area, Inc. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I unfortunately had to miss the vote yesterday on the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, but I would like to explain why, had I been here, I would have voted against the nomination. I take very seriously the Senate's constitutional duty to review Presidential nominees, especially those to the Federal bench. Once confirmed by the Senate, judges have lifetime tenure, meaning that there is no real opportunity to correct poor choices for judicial positions. Given the nature of a judge's job--they hold power not only over the liberty, but in many cases, the lives of those before them-- Members of the Senate must be convinced that the nominee is right for the job before offering our consent to their nominations. This does not mean that we should confirm only those whose views comport precisely or even largely with their own; indeed, the President must be given broad leeway to nominate those who he believes are right for the job, which is why I have supported most of this President's nominees, to the bench or otherwise, regardless of whether I would consider them the best candidates for the job. But the Senate has a constitutional obligation to review, and, when necessary, serve as a check on the President's choices, and when a nominee's views and positions lie far from the mainstream or are so at odds with what I consider to be needed for the job, I must respectfully withhold my consent from their nomination, especially when the stakes are as high as they are for the bench. After reviewing Mr. Sutton's record, I have concluded that I cannot support his nomination. Although his professional credentials are impressive and I have little doubt that he is a good lawyer, I believe that his legal views lie far out of the mainstream and that his presence on the Federal bench could do serious harm to the values about which our Nation cares deeply, particularly when it comes to our national desire to fight discrimination and protect individual rights. Mr. Sutton has devoted a significant part of his legal career to advancing an extreme vision of federalism that restricts both the power of Congress to pass civil rights laws and the ability of individuals who have been harmed by discriminatory acts of State governments to seek redress. He has used that vision of federalism to convince activist judges to restrict congressional enactments. He has argued against the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Violence Against Women Act. These were laws with strong, mainstream support, and the records justifying them were strong. I have deep concern that when future civil rights and similar laws come before him, he will argue against them on federalism grounds as well. I cannot in good conscience support putting him in a position where he will be able to further restrict these good laws.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we are all so proud of the American men and women in uniform who risked and gave their lives to liberate the Iraqi people. They performed bravely and brilliantly, proving once again that there has never been a fighting force in the history of the world as well trained, well equipped, and well motivated as the United States of America's. Of course, their work is not done. Far from it: serious danger remains. Winning the peace will take a sustained commitment. But we can already look back with so much gratitude at the sacrifices the men and women of our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard have made for our security and the security of the world. In my service in the Senate and on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have heard countless stories of the heroism of those who protect us. But just when you think nothing can deepen your conviction about the extraordinary character of these men and women, something does. Two proud parents from Bristol, CT, passed on to me a letter written on February 15, 2003, by their daughter, Barbara. She is an Operations Specialist Second Class in the U.S. Navy she was Third Class when she wrote it--serving aboard the U.S.S. Pearl Harbor, which was then on deployment to the Middle East. The letter was sent to a newspaper in reaction to some coverage that Barbara had read about war protests here at home. In it, Barbara explains, more eloquently than I ever could, what drives those who risk their lives for our freedom, and she reminds us of the unbreakable bonds between those serving half a world away and our communities here at home. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the second fallen son of Connecticut in the war against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq: Marine CPL Kemaphoom ``Ahn'' Chanawongse, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, United States Marine Corps, who was killed in an ambush outside of Nasiriyah, Iraq, on March 23rd, 2003. This brave young man was just 22 when he lost his life. Corporal Chanawongse had been listed as missing in action for 3 weeks: three weeks of what I can only imagine was, for his family, a time of unimaginable uncertainty and trepidation. We can only hope that the news of their son's death has given the Corporal's family some sense of closure, and an opportunity to come to terms with his passing with God's help and the help of their friends. Corporal Chanawongse was not the first to fall for his country in Iraq, and sadly, it is safe to say that his death will not be the last. Nonetheless it is important for us to honor each of the fallen in their own right: to say, ``these few gave their lives so that many could live without fear.'' There is no greater measure of compassion than the sacrifice that Corporal Chanawongse and his fallen brothers- and sisters-in-arms made. In the stories of the fallen soldiers we will learn more about the stuff that this country is made of and the values on which it is built. It is our duty as Americans, and as citizens of the world who believe in freedom, to always remember their names, their faces, and their stories. This young man and his family came to the United States when he was 8 years old, and they settled in the wonderful town of Waterford, CT. Ahn graduated from Waterford High School in 1999 and joined the Marines shortly thereafter. It is a story similar to the stories of countless other young men and women who choose to serve their country for the chance to be a part of something greater than themselves; for a chance to build a noble life for themselves and the children they might someday have; for a chance to join a select brotherhood and sisterhood that has, throughout history, responded to our country's call and the call of others in danger and distress around the world. I extend my deepest condolences to Corporal Chanawongse's mother, Tan Patchem, his stepfather, Paul Patchem, and his older brother, Awe. I tell you plainly that I am humbled by your family's sacrifice, and I am honored to pay tribute to your son in this Chamber today. Paul, Tan, and Awe, our prayers are with you in this difficult time.