Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Collins, Akaka, and Voinovich today to introduce the bipartisan SECURE Facilities Act of 2010--legislation that would modernize and reform an important but often overlooked agency within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS: the Federal Protective Service, FPS.

FPS--with just 1,200 full time employees and approximately 15,000 contract guards--is responsible for security at 9,000 Federal buildings across the land. That mission, unfortunately, is in grave peril--due to severe budget shortfalls, mismanagement, and multiple operational challenges. That is why we are introducing legislation today to reform the agency, provide it with adequate resources, strengthen its management capabilities, and help it function at a higher level so it can protect visitors and employees at Federal buildings across this country more effectively.

Let me provide some background. When FPS was folded into DHS in 2003, it lost access to supplemental funding from its previous parent agency--the General Services Administration. FPS immediately ran into trouble. It had

difficulty paying its bills, budget cuts hurt employee training and other important functions, and personnel cuts negatively affected the agency's performance. All this occurred even as the agency was given more responsibilities, and the Administration was trying to downsize the FPS workforce by one-third.

To assist us in our oversight of the agency, Senators Collins, Akaka, Voinovich, and I asked the Government Accountability Office, GAO, in February 2007 to initiate a comprehensive review of the FPS. GAO reported to Congress 8 times between 2004 and 2010 on the financial and management challenges at FPS, and made 32 recommendations for improvement, some of which FPS adopted.

What did GAO find? Unfortunately, it found a seriously dysfunctional agency that lacked much, if any, focus or strategy for accomplishing its mission--where guards were caught sleeping on the job, and GAO investigators were able to successfully smuggle bomb-making ingredients past security to build an explosive device in a restroom and then stroll around the building undetected. GAO's review concluded that contract guards lacked adequate training, FPS personnel suffered from low morale, oversight of the contract guards was poor, and that many of the standards that guide Federal building security and guard behavior are outdated.

The SECURE Facilities Act of 2010 addresses these shortcomings and incorporates recommendations from GAO. For the first time, we would formally authorize the Federal Protective Service and the interagency government body responsible for establishing security standards for all Federal facilities, the Interagency Security Committee. Our legislation also addresses four major challenges.

First, the bill ensures that FPS has sufficient personnel to carry out its mission. Though the agency has assumed increased responsibilities since it joined DHS, it has done so with fewer personnel.

Second, our legislation tackles deficiencies within the contract guard program. FPS contract guards are the first line of defense at Federal facilities, so we must ensure they are held to a high standard and are prepared and equipped to face the many different kinds of threats Federal buildings are vulnerable to.

Third, the bill ensures the FPS is focused and prepared to address the threat of explosives. The 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City drew our attention to this threat, but FPS has been slow to deploy sufficient countermeasures to detect and deter this type of attack.

Fourth, our bill is mindful of the delicate balance between public access and security. We have worked to ensure that the emphasis on securing Federal facilities remains on security but we also support avenues of appeal if a building tenant believes a security countermeasure unduly hinders public access. If the Federal Protective Service is to be held accountable--by Congress, the administration, and the American people--it should no longer be forced to defend Federal agencies that choose to implement less costly and potentially less effective security countermeasures for buildings.

Our bill would provide additional funding for the agency by directing OMB to adjust the building security fees paid by other agencies to ensure adequate funding for FPS. We would provide sufficient resources so that FPS can hire 500 full time employees over the next 4 years. We would also ensure that FPS never employs fewer than 1,200 full time employees at any point--a conservative number that may well require an increase over time.

While many of those additional 500 new employees will be law enforcement officers, the legislation also provides FPS with the flexibility to hire additional administrative and support personnel, allowing it to improve its overall management, strengthen its oversight of contract guards, monitor contractor performance, and share contract assessments throughout the agency. The legislation also provides Federal law enforcement retirement benefits to FPS officers, to help the agency recruit and retain quality personnel.

The bill further would require the FPS to maintain overt and covert testing programs to assess the training of guards, the security of Federal facilities, and to establish procedures for retraining or terminating ineffective guards. The bill ensures the basic documents outlining a security guard's general and specific responsibilities, the Security Guard Information Manual, and their post orders, are up to date and periodically reviewed.

We would require DHS to establish performance-based standards for checkpoint detection technologies for explosives and other threats at Federal facilities. It would allow FPS officers to carry firearms off duty, as most other Federal law enforcement officers can, allowing them to respond to incidents more quickly. Finally, the bill includes several reporting requirements, including one on agency personnel needs, one on retention rates of contract guards, and another looking at the feasibility of federalizing the contract guard workforce.

We are deeply indebted to the excellent work of GAO which we highlighted in a July 8, 2009, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing. At the hearing, GAO unveiled the results of its year-long investigation conducted at the Committee's request. GAO visited 6 of 11 FPS regions throughout the country and observed the guard inspection process; interviewed regional managers, inspectors, guards and contract guard managers; met with representatives from security guard companies; analyzed guard contract requirements, guard training and certification requirements, and guard instruction documents.

GAO found that the security provided at Federal buildings by FPS personnel and contract security guards fell well short of what we expect of them. Some guards lacked basic security or x-ray machine training. The FPS was hard pressed to identify which guards were qualified or effective, leading to several embarrassing incidents. One guard used a government computer to run an adult website during his shift, while another inattentive guard allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an X-ray machine. A third guard was photographed asleep at his station.

GAO's special investigations unit conducted its own covert tests at ten high security Federal facilities in several different cities. Using readily available components to make a liquid-based improvised explosive device, they smuggled the components through security, manufactured a bomb in a public restroom, and then moved throughout the Federal building undetected. Some of the buildings tested by GAO investigators house district offices for our colleagues right here in the House and Senate. I note, however, that while the components were real, the actual explosive liquids were diluted to ensure the bomb was not functional.

Based on the Committee's and GAO's oversight work over the past several years, it is clear that Congress must move quickly to address the remaining security vulnerabilities associated with our Federal buildings.

I am confident that this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation will foster meaningful reform, modernize the Federal Protective Service, and improve the security of our Federal facilities across the country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I thank Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, Senator Voinovich and their hardworking staffs for all that they have done on this issue so we could introduce this bill today.

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

Mr. President, I supported cloture this morning on the bill to extend and phase out increases in the Medicaid funding for States, including Connecticut, and to provide additional money to help local school districts in Connecticut keep teachers in the classroom during the upcoming school year. This funding, which was fully offset, is necessary as we continue to recover from the recession that began in 2007.

However, I do have concerns with some of the rescissions from the Department of Defense budget that were used to pay for this funding, and I plan to work with Senator Reid and others to ensure that, as this bill moves forward, none of the offsets affects the ability of our men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan from carrying out their mission.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of our Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The power the Constitution gives the Senate to advise and consent to Presidential nominations is a very important one but never more significant than when we are called upon to respond to a President's nomination of a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court because this nomination is for a lifetime to the Court, from which there is no appeal. It is the final arbiter of justice in our system of justice, in our system of government. So these are important moments, when we are called upon to respond to a President's nomination to the Supreme Court.

I remember once, early on, after I came to the Senate, during a controversial nomination to the Supreme Court, and our late and truly great colleague, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, said something I will never forget. He said that, normally, when we consider whether to advise and consent to a President's nomination to a Federal position, we give, understandably, the benefit of the doubt to the nominee, the person whom the President has nominated; when it comes to the Supreme Court--Senator Byrd said and counseled--the benefit of the doubt should go to the Supreme Court because of the lifetime tenure of Justices of the Supreme Court and their beyond-appeal role in our system of government.

I have that in mind by way of saying, beyond any doubt, I feel certain Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, will serve the cause of justice and our Nation very well as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Those either in the galleries or watching the debate on C-SPAN may wonder, occasionally, when they hear us refer to the nominee as ``general''--General Kagan. It reminds me of when I was privileged to be elected attorney general of Connecticut. I went to an orientation for new attorneys general and I walked in and somebody said, ``Hello, General.'' I turned around, thinking somebody was behind me. It was the first time I had been addressed that way. Solicitors General are referred to as ``general'' as well.

So establishing the standard as I have, I would say General Elena Kagan possesses impressive academic and professional qualifications, with her broad range of experiences as a clerk for a Supreme Court Justice, a lawyer in private practice, a legal and policy adviser to President Clinton, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and then at Harvard, where she ultimately became dean, and most recently as Solicitor General of the United States, which will enable her to serve our Nation and the cause of justice well if--and I hope when--she is confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

General Kagan showed, on the day the President nominated her, that she understands the importance and unique importance of the Supreme Court. She said:

The Court is an extraordinary institution in the work it

does and in the work it can do for the American people by

advancing the tenets of our Constitution, by upholding the

rule of law, and by enabling all Americans, regardless of

their background or their beliefs, to get a fair hearing and

an equal chance at justice.

General Kagan then continued by complimenting retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, whose seat she will fill if confirmed to this position, for the ``distinguished and exemplary role'' Justice Stevens has played on the Supreme Court for the last 35 years.

I wish to say that, in my opinion, the most significant thing about Justice Stevens' service has been his independence of mind, his single- minded focus and commitment to the cause of justice because this is the branch of our government that must be beyond politics and even rigid ideology.

The Founders, in all their genius, when they put together the form of the American Government, coming from England as so many of them did, worried about the autocratic power of the King, wanted to create a democracy and yet wanted to make sure there were checks and balances. The Supreme Court was set up as one of the three branches of our government that was not accountable to the people; its accountability was solely to the Constitution. I think Justice Stevens, whether you agreed with every decision he wrote or not--and I agreed with some but not others--always demonstrated an ability to transcend politics and ideology and put the requirements of justice and the law, as he saw them, above all else.

I am confident General Kagan, as a Supreme Court Justice, will follow Justice Stevens' example. I predict today that, in the years ahead, if and when confirmed, Justice Kagan will surprise many people, including Senators who on this vote will vote for her and those who will vote against her. She will not be predictable. That is one of the best things I think we can say about a Supreme Court nominee. She will be judicial and independent-minded. She will serve the Constitution and the national interest, not any party or people or rigid ideology.

I must say I have been encouraged in this view by the way in which General Kagan has carried out her duties as Solicitor General of the United States. She has consistently demonstrated her commitment to upholding the Constitution, as well as her understanding of and respect for the appropriate roles of Congress, the executive branch, and the courts. She has not shied away from difficult cases or taking difficult positions when she has come to the conclusion that those positions were demanded by the Nation's needs and by the law's requirements.

I wish to cite one powerful example, to me, which I discussed with her when I met her on her rounds in the Senate; that is, her case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in the case of Al Maqaleh v. Gates. It was a Federal district court judgment, where the court ruled it had jurisdiction to consider the habeas petitions of prisoners of war being held by the U.S. military at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. In other words, the court said that if we captured an enemy terrorist or soldier in Afghanistan and put them in the U.S. prison facility or detention facility at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, that individual could file a habeas petition before the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington to have his or her detention reviewed by our highest Court. To me it is an unbelievable decision and a harmful decision.

The Solicitor General typically represents our government only in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. I asked General Kagan why she got involved in this case. She told me that she felt so strongly about how harmful the District Court decision would be to our Nation's ability to succeed in the wars against radical Islamist extremism we are involved in now that she made this case the exception in which she felt it appropriate and necessary for her as Solicitor General to argue on behalf of the United States in the Court of Appeals, not just in the U.S. Supreme Court.

I could not agree more with General Kagan's assessment of the importance of the case and wrongness of the District Court decision. I agree with her assessment of the merits of the case. I appreciate that she chose to get involved. And I was extremely pleased when the DC Court of Appeals agreed with the position argued by General Kagan and reversed the decision of the District Court. That, I think, tells us a

lot about the independence of mind and commitment to the higher national interests of General Elena Kagan.

In reviewing the respective backgrounds of Justice Stevens and General Kagan as his proposed replacement, I was pleased to see some similarities in their careers. I suppose it is true of many nominated to the Supreme Court. They both have impeccable academic credentials. They both clerked for Supreme Court Justices at the beginning of their legal careers. They both then served in private practice, followed by times in academia and then the government.

The important point I am making and what I believe would be a similarity between these two great Americans is that General Kagan, like the jurist she will be replacing, will be viewed at the end of her career as a Justice who put partisanship, politics, and ideology aside and put justice first.

I, therefore, say in conclusion that I support Elena Kagan. I urge my colleagues to give her a strong vote of confirmation to be our next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rachel Fleischer, Marcus Lucero, and Megan Fenton of Senator Bingaman's office be given the privilege of the floor for this day, August 3, 2010.

Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications network for our nation's first responders that is secure, robust and resilient.

As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has more capability than those of the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us each and every day and that's just wrong.

Today we introduce the First Responders Protection Act of 2010, which will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate effectively in an emergency.

I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40 organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big 7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.

Today public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions, and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for granted in today's commercial communications.

Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina.

But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it.

I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission has proposed, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications that are not disrupted by commercial traffic.

The First Responders Protection Act of 2010 will ensure that the D Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist with the costs of constructing networks and up to $5.5 billion for an operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance of networks. These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of a different band of spectrum to commercial carriers.

Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. I urge my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by promptly passing the First Responders Protection Act of 2010.

Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications network for our nation's first responders that is secure, robust and resilient.

As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has more capability than those of the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us each and every day and that's just wrong.

Today we introduce the First Responders Protection Act of 2010, which will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate effectively in an emergency.

I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40 organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big 7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.

Today public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions, and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for granted in today's commercial communications.

Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina.

But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it.

I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission has proposed, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications that are not disrupted by commercial traffic.

The First Responders Protection Act of 2010 will ensure that the D Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist with the costs of constructing networks and up to $5.5 billion for an operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance of networks. These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of a different band of spectrum to commercial carriers.

Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. I urge my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by promptly passing the First Responders Protection Act of 2010.

Mr. President, the Senate has now turned its attention to the conference report on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010.

It is a very significant piece of legislation, an excellent conference report that holds some hope of being effective and as important as anything. It is totally bipartisan which, as we know, does not happen here every day. It speaks to the unity of Members of Congress and the American people on the threat represented by the nuclear weapons development program of Iran.

More than a year ago, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, Senator Evan Bayh, and I joined to introduce the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. Over the course of last year, more than three-quarters of the Members of the Senate decided to cosponsor our bill. The core provisions of that legislation have now been incorporated into this conference report. To me that means that today, as a body, we have the opportunity to reaffirm the overwhelming bipartisan support for Iran sanctions that exists in Congress and, by doing so, send an unambiguous and united message of determination and strength to the fanatical anti-American regime in Tehran.

It was my privilege to serve on the conference committee that produced the legislation that is before us. This bill, when enacted, will be the most powerful and comprehensive package of sanctions against the current regime in Iran that has ever been passed by Congress. I am tremendously grateful to the leadership of the conference cochairs, beginning with my senior colleague and dear friend for so long, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and, on the House side, a great legislator and leader, Congressman Howard Berman of California. These two guided this critically important legislation to the point we are at now, which is the verge of passage by both Houses of Congress.

I also want to say how grateful I am to the majority and Republican leaders of the Senate, Senators Reid and McConnell, for their steadfast bipartisan leadership in ensuring we adopt this time-sensitive legislation as soon as possible. Particularly, the goal was before July 4. I hope and believe the Senate will pass this legislation today, and the House of Representatives will do the same shortly thereafter, maybe even before. I also hope and believe President Obama will then sign the bill into law.

Just as importantly, it is critical that the Obama administration forcefully and proactively implement the provisions of this legislation once it becomes law. The measures imposed by

this conference report, together with the sanctions adopted at the United Nations and by like-minded nations, including particularly our allies in Europe and around the world, offer our last best hope of peacefully preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and thereby making our world much more dangerous than it is today. The stakes for our security are great, and time is of the essence.

It is also critical that the Obama administration quickly makes use of these new authorities provided by this legislation, particularly the new authority to cut off foreign banks from the U.S. financial system, if they continue doing business with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, its front companies, and designated Iranian banks. We are, in this legislation, when implemented, giving foreign banks a choice. Do they want to do business in the United States or do they want to continue to do business with the fanatical regime in Iran? Our government must investigate and then impose sanctions--and I will use Secretary Clinton's words, ``crippling sanctions''--on those foreign companies that prop up the Iranian regime by continuing to invest in its energy sector or by exporting refined petroleum products to Iran.

This legislation gives the administration a strong new opportunity to make clear also that America is on the side of the Iranian people, the brave Iranian people who are struggling against the repressive regime in Tehran. What the administration can do is use the new authority it is given in this legislation to publicly identify those individuals in the Iranian Government responsible for perpetrating human rights violations in Iran since the June 12, 2009 election and holding those people accountable for those abuses through targeted sanctions.

It is always important to remember--and we have seen this throughout history--that a nation that represses the rights of its own people is much more likely to be a nation that will be a danger to the people and countries in its neighborhood and, with modern weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, ultimately, the people of the entire world.

I am pleased that this provision on human rights in Iran is in this sanctions legislation, because I believe history has shown that America's foreign policy is always at its best and most effective when we are true to the fundamental human values that defined our Nation at its birth and at our best ever since--the self-evident truth that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with those equal rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The people of Iran are denied those rights by their own government. We are saying in this legislation that that ought to be also, as well as the support of their nuclear weapons program, a sanctionable offense.

I hope and pray the combined sanctions--U.N., EU, and now U.S.--will change the mindset, the calculations of the Iranian regime. But we must also recognize that every day that passes brings Iran closer to the point of nuclear no return and greatly increases the danger and insecurity throughout the Middle East and throughout the world. With every day that passes, the Iranians enrich more uranium and their stockpile of fissile material grows. Ultimately, we must do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.

Almost everybody--really everybody I have heard speak on this subject--regardless of party or position in the American Government, makes that statement. It is unacceptable to the United States and the world for Iran--this fanatical state, this rogue state--to acquire nuclear weapons capability, and we must do whatever is necessary to prevent this from happening--through peaceful and diplomatic means, if we possibly can; through military force, if we absolutely must.

Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power. That is the bottom line. That is precisely why I am so grateful and proud and hopeful, as we take up and--I am confident--adopt this conference report and this legislation today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, that will strengthen the content knowledge and instructional skills of our present K-12 teacher workforce and thus ultimately raise student achievement.

The Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act would establish eight new Teachers Professional Development Institutes throughout the nation each year over the next 5 years based on the model which has been operating at Yale University for over 30 years. Every Teachers Institute would consist of a partnership between an institution of higher education and the local public school system in which a significant proportion of the students come from low-income households. These Institutes will strengthen the present teacher workforce by giving each participant an opportunity to gain more sophisticated content knowledge and a chance to develop curriculum units with other colleagues that can be directly applied in their classrooms. We know that teachers gain confidence and enthusiasm when they have a deeper understanding of the subject matter that they teach and this translates into higher expectations for their students and an increase in student achievement.

The Teachers Professional Development Institutes are based on the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model that has been in existence since 1978. For over 30 years, the Institute has offered, 5 or 6 13- session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics that teachers have selected to enhance their mastery of the specific subject area that they teach. The subject selection process begins with representatives from the Institutes soliciting ideas from teachers throughout the school district for topics on which teachers feel they need to have additional preparation, topics that will assist them in preparing materials they need for their students, and topics that will assist them in addressing the standards that the school district requires. As a consensus emerges about desired seminar subjects, the Institute director identifies university faculty members with the appropriate expertise, interest and desire to lead the seminar. University faculty members, especially those who have led Institute seminars before, may sometimes suggest seminars they would like to lead, and these ideas are circulated by the representatives as well. The final decisions on which seminar topics are offered are ultimately made by the teachers who participate. In this way, the offerings are designed to respond to what teachers believe is needed and useful for both themselves and their students.

The cooperative nature of the Institute seminar planning process ensures

its success. Institutes offer seminars and relevant materials on topics teachers have identified and feel are needed for their own preparation, as well as what they know will motivate and engage their students. Teachers enthusiastically take part in rigorous seminars they have requested, and practice using the materials they have obtained and developed. This helps ensure that the experience not only increases their preparation in the subjects they are assigned to teach, but also their participation in an Institute seminar gives them immediate hands- on active learning materials that can be used in the classroom. In short, by allowing teachers to determine the seminar subjects and providing them the resources to develop relevant curricula for their classroom and their students, the Institutes empower teachers.

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute conducted a National Demonstration Project from 1999-2002 that showed that similar Institutes could be created rapidly at diverse sites with large concentrations of disadvantaged students. After 2 years of research and planning, and based on the success of that Project, the Institute in 2005 launched the Yale National Initiative to strengthen teaching in public schools, a long-term endeavor to assist with the establishment of Teachers Institutes of this specific type in most states. As a result, new Institutes already have been established in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Charlotte, North Carolina; and Institutes are currently being planned for New Castle County, Delaware, and San Francisco, California.

The teachers surveyed for the National Demonstration Project reported that student motivation, student interest, and student mastery were higher during the Institute-developed unit than during other work. Subsequently, the findings of a 2009 Report on Teachers Institute Experiences found that teachers participated out of desires to obtain curricula which suited their needs, increased subject mastery, and motivated students. Mr. President, 96 percent of the teachers rated the Institute seminars as useful, partly due to the reported increase in knowledge and in raising expectations of their students.

A retrospective study showed that over a 5-year period Teachers Institute participants were almost twice as likely as non-participants to remain teaching in the district five years later. Research has shown that longevity in a district is associated with teaching effectiveness.

Many agree that teacher quality is the single most important school- related factor in determining student achievement. High-quality teacher professional development programs that focus on subject and pedagogy knowledge are a proven method for enhancing the effectiveness of a teacher in the classroom. A recent review of professional development studies by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences found that ``teachers who receive substantial professional development--an average of 49 hours in the nine studies--can boost their students' achievement by about 21 percentile points.''

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model enhances teachers' basic writing, math, and presentation skills. It increases expectations of student achievement and enthusiasm for teaching while developing skills for motivating students. These are key features that research suggests are effective in producing gains in both teacher knowledge and practice and student achievement. The Teachers Institutes accomplish student achievement gains through a proven approach distinguished from both conventional professional development offerings of school districts and from traditional continuing education and outreach programs of colleges and universities.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said recently, ``The more we can provide high-quality professional development, so that teachers have deep content knowledge, there are huge benefits. . . . So whether it's partnerships with universities and higher ed institutions, to create those meaningful professional development opportunities and really create those content-rich environments that students desperately need, that is absolutely critically important.''

This is precisely what the Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act strives to accomplish. The need for effective teachers with deep content knowledge is most apparent and urgent in schools and school districts that enroll a high proportion of students from low- income families, exactly the schools and school districts that Teachers Institutes serve.

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute has already proven to be a successful model for teacher professional development as demonstrated by the high caliber curriculum unit plans that teacher participants have developed and placed on the web, and by the evaluations that support the conclusion that virtually all the teacher participants felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and their teaching skills. The finding that Institute participants were almost twice as likely as non-participants to remain in teaching in high-need schools is especially encouraging. Our proposal would open this opportunity to many more teachers in high-need schools throughout the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, that will strengthen the content knowledge and instructional skills of our present K-12 teacher workforce and thus ultimately raise student achievement.

The Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act would establish eight new Teachers Professional Development Institutes throughout the nation each year over the next 5 years based on the model which has been operating at Yale University for over 30 years. Every Teachers Institute would consist of a partnership between an institution of higher education and the local public school system in which a significant proportion of the students come from low-income households. These Institutes will strengthen the present teacher workforce by giving each participant an opportunity to gain more sophisticated content knowledge and a chance to develop curriculum units with other colleagues that can be directly applied in their classrooms. We know that teachers gain confidence and enthusiasm when they have a deeper understanding of the subject matter that they teach and this translates into higher expectations for their students and an increase in student achievement.

The Teachers Professional Development Institutes are based on the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model that has been in existence since 1978. For over 30 years, the Institute has offered, 5 or 6 13- session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics that teachers have selected to enhance their mastery of the specific subject area that they teach. The subject selection process begins with representatives from the Institutes soliciting ideas from teachers throughout the school district for topics on which teachers feel they need to have additional preparation, topics that will assist them in preparing materials they need for their students, and topics that will assist them in addressing the standards that the school district requires. As a consensus emerges about desired seminar subjects, the Institute director identifies university faculty members with the appropriate expertise, interest and desire to lead the seminar. University faculty members, especially those who have led Institute seminars before, may sometimes suggest seminars they would like to lead, and these ideas are circulated by the representatives as well. The final decisions on which seminar topics are offered are ultimately made by the teachers who participate. In this way, the offerings are designed to respond to what teachers believe is needed and useful for both themselves and their students.

The cooperative nature of the Institute seminar planning process ensures

its success. Institutes offer seminars and relevant materials on topics teachers have identified and feel are needed for their own preparation, as well as what they know will motivate and engage their students. Teachers enthusiastically take part in rigorous seminars they have requested, and practice using the materials they have obtained and developed. This helps ensure that the experience not only increases their preparation in the subjects they are assigned to teach, but also their participation in an Institute seminar gives them immediate hands- on active learning materials that can be used in the classroom. In short, by allowing teachers to determine the seminar subjects and providing them the resources to develop relevant curricula for their classroom and their students, the Institutes empower teachers.

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute conducted a National Demonstration Project from 1999-2002 that showed that similar Institutes could be created rapidly at diverse sites with large concentrations of disadvantaged students. After 2 years of research and planning, and based on the success of that Project, the Institute in 2005 launched the Yale National Initiative to strengthen teaching in public schools, a long-term endeavor to assist with the establishment of Teachers Institutes of this specific type in most states. As a result, new Institutes already have been established in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Charlotte, North Carolina; and Institutes are currently being planned for New Castle County, Delaware, and San Francisco, California.

The teachers surveyed for the National Demonstration Project reported that student motivation, student interest, and student mastery were higher during the Institute-developed unit than during other work. Subsequently, the findings of a 2009 Report on Teachers Institute Experiences found that teachers participated out of desires to obtain curricula which suited their needs, increased subject mastery, and motivated students. Mr. President, 96 percent of the teachers rated the Institute seminars as useful, partly due to the reported increase in knowledge and in raising expectations of their students.

A retrospective study showed that over a 5-year period Teachers Institute participants were almost twice as likely as non-participants to remain teaching in the district five years later. Research has shown that longevity in a district is associated with teaching effectiveness.

Many agree that teacher quality is the single most important school- related factor in determining student achievement. High-quality teacher professional development programs that focus on subject and pedagogy knowledge are a proven method for enhancing the effectiveness of a teacher in the classroom. A recent review of professional development studies by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences found that ``teachers who receive substantial professional development--an average of 49 hours in the nine studies--can boost their students' achievement by about 21 percentile points.''

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model enhances teachers' basic writing, math, and presentation skills. It increases expectations of student achievement and enthusiasm for teaching while developing skills for motivating students. These are key features that research suggests are effective in producing gains in both teacher knowledge and practice and student achievement. The Teachers Institutes accomplish student achievement gains through a proven approach distinguished from both conventional professional development offerings of school districts and from traditional continuing education and outreach programs of colleges and universities.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said recently, ``The more we can provide high-quality professional development, so that teachers have deep content knowledge, there are huge benefits. . . . So whether it's partnerships with universities and higher ed institutions, to create those meaningful professional development opportunities and really create those content-rich environments that students desperately need, that is absolutely critically important.''

This is precisely what the Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act strives to accomplish. The need for effective teachers with deep content knowledge is most apparent and urgent in schools and school districts that enroll a high proportion of students from low- income families, exactly the schools and school districts that Teachers Institutes serve.

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute has already proven to be a successful model for teacher professional development as demonstrated by the high caliber curriculum unit plans that teacher participants have developed and placed on the web, and by the evaluations that support the conclusion that virtually all the teacher participants felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and their teaching skills. The finding that Institute participants were almost twice as likely as non-participants to remain in teaching in high-need schools is especially encouraging. Our proposal would open this opportunity to many more teachers in high-need schools throughout the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for her leadership in this matter.

I rise to oppose the resolution offered by my friend from Alaska, and she is my friend. I rise to say that I think, though I oppose the resolution, that debate on the resolution has clarified the choices Members of the Senate have on this matter. I think it has illuminated the scientific consensus, and

in the end, the defeat of this resolution, which I hope for and support, will actually increase momentum to adopt comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year which is the real alternative to executive action by EPA next January.

I know several of my colleagues have argued today that this resolution is about stopping EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and preserving that role for Congress. But the resolution does, of course, much more than just offer an opinion about who should regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It rejects EPA's finding that ``six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations'' of Americans. It would also prevent EPA from reaching a similar conclusion in the future.

To me, that means this resolution looks an awful lot like an attempt to impose political judgments on scientific judgments. That is wrong.

There has been a lot of talk over the years of basing what we do on sound science. This resolution would lead us in exactly the opposite direction. Should the resolution become law, Congress would in effect be saying EPA was wrong when it reached its conclusion that global warming emissions harmed public health. Since that finding was the basis for EPA's tailpipe emissions standards, the Murkowski resolution would send EPA back to the drawing board on those rules, which are broadly supported by the business and environmental communities and significantly increase both our dependence on foreign oil and air pollution.

Regardless of whether my colleagues believe Congress or the EPA should determine our national strategy for addressing the threat of global warming, I hope they can agree that unchecked carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health and welfare. Frankly, I thought that debate was over. Climate change is happening. The science is convincing. The current pattern of energy consumption is just making a bad problem worse. It is time to move past the debate about climate science and engage in an honest, productive, bipartisan conversation about what we can do as a nation, as a people privileged to be leaders of this Nation, to combat the problem, the challenge that science tells us is happening.

The solution we come up with can and will create good jobs. It can and will ensure our role as a leader in the global clean energy economy. It can and will safeguard our national security by safeguarding our energy security. Last month, Senator Kerry and I presented the American Power Act, which I think achieves all of those goals I have stated and more. It is the product of months of discussions with Republicans and Democrats, the business community, and the environmental community. Together I think we came up with an innovative approach to addressing both our energy and climate challenges. It enjoys broader support than any similar proposal I have ever been involved in from the business and environmental communities. It is a coming together of the work of the Environment and Public Works Committee under Chairman Boxer and the Energy Committee under Chairman Bingaman.

I would say, finally, there is a path forward that allows Congress to act but does not reject the science of climate change. That path forward is a ``no'' vote on the resolution and a ``yes'' vote on comprehensive energy and climate legislation like the American Power Act.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, which I believe would help secure the Nation's cyber networks against attack.

The Internet may have started out as a communications oddity some 40 years ago but it is now a necessity of modern life and, sadly, one that is under constant attack. Today, Senators Collins, Carper, and I are introducing legislation which we believe would help secure the most critical cyber networks and therefore all Americans.

For all of its ``user-friendly'' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets. Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies--cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyberterrorists and cyber- criminals. That risk may be as serious to our homeland security as anything we face today.

Computer networks at the Departments of Defense are being probed hundreds of thousands of times a day, and networks at the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Commerce, as well as NASA and the National Defense University, have all suffered ``major intrusions by unknown foreign entities,'' according to reports.

Key networks that control vital infrastructure, like the electric grid, have been probed, possibly giving our enemies information that could be used to plunge us into darkness at the press of a button from across an ocean. Banks have had millions and millions of dollars stolen from accounts by cyber-bandits who have never been anywhere near the banks themselves.

In a report by McAfee--a computer security company, about 54 percent of the executives of critical infrastructure companies surveyed said their companies had been the victims of denial of service attacks or network infiltration by organized crime groups, terrorists, and other nation-states. The downtime to recover from these attacks can cost $6 million to $8 million a day.

Our present efforts at securing these vital but sprawling government and private sector networks have been disjointed, understaffed and underfinanced. We have not operated with the sense of urgency that is necessary to protect Americans' cyberspace, which the President has correctly described as a ``strategic national asset.''

Our bill would bring these disjointed efforts together so that the federal government and the private sector can coordinate their activities and work off the same playbook.

While President Obama's creation of a cyber-security coordinator inside the White House was a step in the right direction, we need to make that position permanent, transparent and accountable to Congress and the American people.

So, our proposal would create a Senate-confirmed White House cyber- security coordinator whose job would be to lead all federal cyber- security efforts; develop a national strategy--that incorporates all elements of cyberspace policy, including military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic; give policy advice to the President; and resolve interagency disputes.

The Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy would oversee all related federal cyberspace activities to ensure efficiency and coordination and would report regularly to Congress to ensure transparency and oversight.

Our legislation also would create a National Center for Cybersecurity an Communications, NCCC, within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to elevate and strengthen the Department's cyber security capabilities and authorities. The NCCC would be run by a Senate- confirmed Director who would have the authority and resources to work with the rest of the Federal Government to protect public and private sector cyber networks.

DHS has shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks-- like utilities and communications systems--could bring our economy to its knees if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber- terrorists. But other than pointing out a vulnerability, DHS has lacked the power to do anything about it. Our legislation would give DHS the authority to ensure that our nation's most critical infrastructure is protected from cyber attack.

Defense of our cyber networks will only be successful if industry and government work together, so this legislation sets up a collaborative process where the best ideas of the private sector and the government can be used to meet a baseline set of security requirements that DHS would oversee.

Specifically, the NCCC would work with the private sector to establish risk-based security requirements that strengthen the cyber security for the nation's most critical infrastructure, such as vital components of the electric grid, telecommunications networks, and financial sector that, if disrupted, would result in a national or regional catastrophe. Owners and operators of critical infrastructure covered under the act could choose which security measures to implement to meet these risk-based performance requirements. The act would provide some liability protections to owners/operators who demonstrate compliance with the new risk-based security requirements.

Covered critical infrastructure must also report significant breaches to the NCCC to ensure the federal government has a complete picture of the security of these networks. In return, the NCCC would share information, including threat analysis, with owners and operators regarding risks to their networks. The NCCC would also produce and

share useful warning, analysis, and threat information with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and international partners.

To increase security across the private sector more broadly, the NCCC would collaborate with the private sector to develop best practices for cyber security. By promoting best practices and providing voluntary technical assistance as resources permit, the NCCC would help improve cyber security across the Nation. Information the private sector shares with the NCCC would be protected from public disclosure, and private sector owners and operators may obtain security clearances to access information necessary to protect the IT networks the American people depend upon.

Thanks to great work by Senator Carper, our legislation would update the Federal Information Security Management Act--or FISMA--to require continuous monitoring and protection of our federal networks and do away with the paper-based reporting system that currently exists. The act also would codify and strengthen DHS authorities to establish 0 complete situational awareness for Federal networks and develop tools to improve resilience of Federal Government systems and networks.

In the event of an attack--or threat of an attack--that could have catastrophic consequences to our economy, national security or public safety, our bill would give the President the authority to impose emergency measures on a select group of the most critical infrastructure to preserve their cyber networks and assets and protect our country and the American people. These emergency measures would automatically expire within 30 days unless the President ordered an extension.

These measures would be developed in consultation with the private sector and would apply if the President has credible evidence a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited. If possible, the President must notify Congress in advance about the threat and the emergency measures that would be taken to mitigate it. Any emergency measures imposed must be the least disruptive necessary to respond to the threat. The bill does not authorize any new surveillance authorities, or permit the government to ``take over'' private networks.

Of course, DHS would need a lot of talented people to accomplish these missions, and our bill gives it the flexibility to recruit, hire, and retain the experts it would need to be successful. Our bill would require the Office of Personal Management to reform the way cyber security personnel are recruited, hired, and trained and would provide DHS with temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the quick establishment of the NCCC.

Finally, our legislation would require the Federal Government to develop and implement a strategy to ensure that almost $80 billion of the information technology products and services it purchases each year are secure and do not provide our adversaries with a backdoor into our networks.

More specifically, the act would require development of a comprehensive supply chain risk management strategy to address risks and threats to the information technology products and services the federal government relies upon. This strategy would allow agencies to make informed decisions when purchasing IT products and services. This provision would be implemented through the Federal Acquisition Regulation, requiring contracting officers to consider the security risks inherent in agency IT procurements. The value of this approach is that once security features are developed to protect federal networks, private sector customers may be able to purchase that same level of security in the products they buy.

The need for this legislation is both obvious and urgent.

A report by the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, concluded that ``we face a long-term challenge in cyberspace from foreign intelligence agencies and militaries, criminals and others, and losing this struggle would wreak serious damage on the economic health and national security of the United States.''

Given these stakes, Senators Collins, Carper, and I are confident our colleagues will join with us and pass the ``Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act'' in the 110th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, which I believe would help secure the Nation's cyber networks against attack.

The Internet may have started out as a communications oddity some 40 years ago but it is now a necessity of modern life and, sadly, one that is under constant attack. Today, Senators Collins, Carper, and I are introducing legislation which we believe would help secure the most critical cyber networks and therefore all Americans.

For all of its ``user-friendly'' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets. Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies--cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyberterrorists and cyber- criminals. That risk may be as serious to our homeland security as anything we face today.

Computer networks at the Departments of Defense are being probed hundreds of thousands of times a day, and networks at the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Commerce, as well as NASA and the National Defense University, have all suffered ``major intrusions by unknown foreign entities,'' according to reports.

Key networks that control vital infrastructure, like the electric grid, have been probed, possibly giving our enemies information that could be used to plunge us into darkness at the press of a button from across an ocean. Banks have had millions and millions of dollars stolen from accounts by cyber-bandits who have never been anywhere near the banks themselves.

In a report by McAfee--a computer security company, about 54 percent of the executives of critical infrastructure companies surveyed said their companies had been the victims of denial of service attacks or network infiltration by organized crime groups, terrorists, and other nation-states. The downtime to recover from these attacks can cost $6 million to $8 million a day.

Our present efforts at securing these vital but sprawling government and private sector networks have been disjointed, understaffed and underfinanced. We have not operated with the sense of urgency that is necessary to protect Americans' cyberspace, which the President has correctly described as a ``strategic national asset.''

Our bill would bring these disjointed efforts together so that the federal government and the private sector can coordinate their activities and work off the same playbook.

While President Obama's creation of a cyber-security coordinator inside the White House was a step in the right direction, we need to make that position permanent, transparent and accountable to Congress and the American people.

So, our proposal would create a Senate-confirmed White House cyber- security coordinator whose job would be to lead all federal cyber- security efforts; develop a national strategy--that incorporates all elements of cyberspace policy, including military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic; give policy advice to the President; and resolve interagency disputes.

The Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy would oversee all related federal cyberspace activities to ensure efficiency and coordination and would report regularly to Congress to ensure transparency and oversight.

Our legislation also would create a National Center for Cybersecurity an Communications, NCCC, within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to elevate and strengthen the Department's cyber security capabilities and authorities. The NCCC would be run by a Senate- confirmed Director who would have the authority and resources to work with the rest of the Federal Government to protect public and private sector cyber networks.

DHS has shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks-- like utilities and communications systems--could bring our economy to its knees if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber- terrorists. But other than pointing out a vulnerability, DHS has lacked the power to do anything about it. Our legislation would give DHS the authority to ensure that our nation's most critical infrastructure is protected from cyber attack.

Defense of our cyber networks will only be successful if industry and government work together, so this legislation sets up a collaborative process where the best ideas of the private sector and the government can be used to meet a baseline set of security requirements that DHS would oversee.

Specifically, the NCCC would work with the private sector to establish risk-based security requirements that strengthen the cyber security for the nation's most critical infrastructure, such as vital components of the electric grid, telecommunications networks, and financial sector that, if disrupted, would result in a national or regional catastrophe. Owners and operators of critical infrastructure covered under the act could choose which security measures to implement to meet these risk-based performance requirements. The act would provide some liability protections to owners/operators who demonstrate compliance with the new risk-based security requirements.

Covered critical infrastructure must also report significant breaches to the NCCC to ensure the federal government has a complete picture of the security of these networks. In return, the NCCC would share information, including threat analysis, with owners and operators regarding risks to their networks. The NCCC would also produce and

share useful warning, analysis, and threat information with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and international partners.

To increase security across the private sector more broadly, the NCCC would collaborate with the private sector to develop best practices for cyber security. By promoting best practices and providing voluntary technical assistance as resources permit, the NCCC would help improve cyber security across the Nation. Information the private sector shares with the NCCC would be protected from public disclosure, and private sector owners and operators may obtain security clearances to access information necessary to protect the IT networks the American people depend upon.

Thanks to great work by Senator Carper, our legislation would update the Federal Information Security Management Act--or FISMA--to require continuous monitoring and protection of our federal networks and do away with the paper-based reporting system that currently exists. The act also would codify and strengthen DHS authorities to establish 0 complete situational awareness for Federal networks and develop tools to improve resilience of Federal Government systems and networks.

In the event of an attack--or threat of an attack--that could have catastrophic consequences to our economy, national security or public safety, our bill would give the President the authority to impose emergency measures on a select group of the most critical infrastructure to preserve their cyber networks and assets and protect our country and the American people. These emergency measures would automatically expire within 30 days unless the President ordered an extension.

These measures would be developed in consultation with the private sector and would apply if the President has credible evidence a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited. If possible, the President must notify Congress in advance about the threat and the emergency measures that would be taken to mitigate it. Any emergency measures imposed must be the least disruptive necessary to respond to the threat. The bill does not authorize any new surveillance authorities, or permit the government to ``take over'' private networks.

Of course, DHS would need a lot of talented people to accomplish these missions, and our bill gives it the flexibility to recruit, hire, and retain the experts it would need to be successful. Our bill would require the Office of Personal Management to reform the way cyber security personnel are recruited, hired, and trained and would provide DHS with temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the quick establishment of the NCCC.

Finally, our legislation would require the Federal Government to develop and implement a strategy to ensure that almost $80 billion of the information technology products and services it purchases each year are secure and do not provide our adversaries with a backdoor into our networks.

More specifically, the act would require development of a comprehensive supply chain risk management strategy to address risks and threats to the information technology products and services the federal government relies upon. This strategy would allow agencies to make informed decisions when purchasing IT products and services. This provision would be implemented through the Federal Acquisition Regulation, requiring contracting officers to consider the security risks inherent in agency IT procurements. The value of this approach is that once security features are developed to protect federal networks, private sector customers may be able to purchase that same level of security in the products they buy.

The need for this legislation is both obvious and urgent.

A report by the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, concluded that ``we face a long-term challenge in cyberspace from foreign intelligence agencies and militaries, criminals and others, and losing this struggle would wreak serious damage on the economic health and national security of the United States.''

Given these stakes, Senators Collins, Carper, and I are confident our colleagues will join with us and pass the ``Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act'' in the 110th Congress.

Madam President, recently the Obama administration asked the National Archives to speed up its already planned release of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's records from her time in the Clinton administration.

I applaud the administration's openness. But this speedy release of documents is not required by the current Presidential Records Act and might have been impossible under an Executive order issued by former President George W. Bush. That order allowed former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and their heirs to withhold the release of documents indefinitely by claiming Executive privilege.

On his first day in office, President Obama repealed the Bush Executive order, but a future President could just as easily change it back or add new impediments to the timely release of an administration's records.

I have long championed legislation to make it clear that these documents are the property of the American people and therefore should be subject to timely release.

But we cannot move forward with this legislation because my friend, colleague, and ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Jeff Sessions, has placed a hold on it.

Regarding the release of the Kagan documents, Senator Sessions recently told the Washington Post:

I think all the documents that are producible should be

produced. The American people are entitled to know what kind

of positions she took, and what kind of issues she was

involved with during her past public service.

I agree with Senator Sessions and hope he will now release his hold on my legislation so this kind of speedy release of documents and the right of the American people to view them will be the legal standard for all future Presidents.

A little history will help explain how we got to where we are today.

Securing Presidential documents is a problem as old as the Republic. George Washington had planned to build a library on his estate at Mount Vernon to house his Presidential papers. But Washington died before he could get his plan underway and his heirs were not always careful stewards of our Founding President's legacy.

Some of the documents were so badly stored they were eaten by mice. Others were sold off or given away haphazardly. One of Washington's heirs even took to cutting the signature from Washington's correspondence and sending it to collectors.

In a letter, this heir wrote:

I am now cutting up fragments from old letters and

accounts, some of 1760 . . . to supply the call for anything

that bears the impress of his venerated hand. One of my

correspondents says, ``Send me only the dot of an i or the

cross of a t, made by his hand, and I will be content.''

Despite this inauspicious beginning in preserving our Nation's history, for nearly two centuries it was presumed that the papers of former Presidents were their personal property to be disposed of however they or their heirs saw fit.

Think of all our national history that has been lost, destroyed or kept locked away far too long.

The bulk of Andrew Jackson's papers were scattered among at least 100 collections. Jackson's successor, Martin Van Buren, destroyed correspondence he decided was--I quote--``of little value.''

The papers of Presidents Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Arthur, and Harding were destroyed in fires--sometimes by accident, sometimes intentional.

President Lincoln's son Todd burned his father's Civil War correspondence and threatened to burn all of his father's Presidential papers until a compromise was reached with the Library of Congress that kept most of the papers sealed until 1947. This delay helped fuel conspiracy theories that the papers were kept hidden because they would show that members of Lincoln's Cabinet were part of the assassination plot--in effect, that Lincoln died in a coup.

Of course, when the papers were finally released, they showed that wasn't true, but it took 82 unnecessary years to put the rumor to rest.

These historical records are too valuable to be left to the judgment of former Presidents, the whims of their heirs, the caprice of nature or--as in George Washington's case--the appetite of rodents.

This situation finally began to change under President Franklin Roosevelt who, on December 10, 1938, announced he would build a library on his estate in Hyde Park, NY, to house the papers and collections of his public life that stretched back to 1910, when he was elected to the State Senate of New York.

Roosevelt set a standard for openness, asking his aides and Cabinet Secretaries to contribute to the collection, and almost every President who followed carried on in the spirit of Roosevelt--also building libraries to house their papers.

But this system was voluntary and began to crumble with the resignation of our 37th President, Richard Nixon.

Nixon had an agreement with the General Services Administration, GSA, which would have allowed him to keep all his records locked away, including the infamous Watergate tapes, and mandated many of them be destroyed.

This put us right back where we started, with a former President choosing what historical records the public was entitled to. Congress passed legislation in 1974 specifically ordering that the Federal Government take control of Nixon's records and then in 1978 passed legislation declaring that Presidential papers were public property that must be turned over to the National Archives at the end of an administration and be open to the public after 5 years.

Systems, however, were put in place to allow a former President to review documents--and challenge their release on the grounds of Executive privilege. But the presumption was in favor of openness unless the former President could show the court a compelling reason to withhold the documents.

But then, as mentioned, President Bush weakened the law with Executive Order No. 13233, issued on November 1, 2001. Just to repeat, under this order, not only former Presidents and their heirs, but Vice Presidents and their heirs as well, could withhold the release of documents by claiming Executive privilege.

The order also required those challenging claims of Executive privilege to prove in court that they have a ``demonstrated, specific need'' for the documents--an impossibly high standard since only the document's author can know precisely what a document contains.

And since the Executive order also allowed for an indefinite review period, these records--housed in Presidential libraries maintained by the taxpayers--could be locked away for indefinite periods of time, making them about as useful as the ashes of Lincoln's letters.

In reversing Bush's Executive order, President Obama made clear that only the sitting President can claim Executive privilege--not their heirs, and not their Vice Presidents or the Vice Presidents' heirs.

In signing the new Executive order, President Obama said:

Going forward, anytime the American people want to know

something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we

will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White

House Counsel, whose business

it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information

will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be

withheld because a separate authority believes my request is

well grounded in the Constitution.

This is wise public policy and should be the law of the land--subject to repeal only by Congress, not by Executive order.

When President Roosevelt dedicated his library and began opening up his records and other artifacts to public view, he made it clear that this kind of openness is good for a democracy. ``The dedication of a library,'' Roosevelt said, ``is in itself an act of faith. To bring together the records of the past and to house them in buildings where they will be preserved for the use of men and women in the future, a Nation must believe in three things. It must believe in the past. It must believe in the future. It must, above all, believe in the capacity of its own people so to learn from the past that they can gain in judgment in creating their own future.''

This Congress can now reassert Roosevelt's faith in our democracy. That is why I urge my colleague, Senator Sessions, to release his hold on H.R. 35 so we can pass it, get it to the President, and make history now by preserving Presidential history as an open resource for Americans to learn from in the future.

Mr. President, yesterday Senators Dodd, Collins, Carper, McCain, and I introduced the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2010.

The bill we presented to the Senate is a bipartisan piece of legislation that provides support to our Nation's firefighters and emergency medical service responders. It reauthorizes the Assistance to Firefighters, AFG, program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response program, SAFER--two highly successful programs I worked to establish in 2000 and 2003, respectively.

I think we are all aware of the great sacrifices first responders make for us. Since September 11 and the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, firefighters in communities large and small have assumed a greater role in overall national emergency preparedness. They are now the frontline of defense in most communities for disasters of all

types. More than ever, firefighters need the training and equipment to deal not only with fires but also with hazardous materials, nuclear, radioactive and explosive devices, and other potential threats.

The demands on firefighters have increased in other ways as well. As the New York Times reported last year, firefighters are responding more and more to medical emergencies--15.8 million in 2008, a 213 percent increase from 1980. Right here in Washington, DC, at Fire Engine Company 10--known as the ``House of Pain'' for its grueling schedule-- 80 percent of the calls are for medical emergencies. Our Nation's firefighters--like other first responders are the first to arrive and the last to leave whenever trouble hits. They deserve all the support we can give them.

Regrettably, they do not always get it. Firefighters often lack the equipment and vehicles they need to do their jobs safely and effectively. The U.S. Fire Administration reported in 2006 that 60 percent of fire departments did not have enough breathing apparatuses to equip all firefighters on a shift, 65 percent did not have enough portable radios, and 49 percent of all fire engines were at least 15 years old.

We can and should do more so that these brave men and women have what they need to protect their communities and themselves as they perform a very dangerous job. Our bill takes much-needed steps to ensure that they do.

To start with, because career, volunteer, and combination fire departments all suffer from shortages in equipment, vehicles, and training, our bill requires that each type receives at least 25 percent of the available AFG grant funding. The remaining funds will be allocated based on factors such as risk and the needs of individual communities and the country as a whole. This creates an appropriate balance, ensuring that funds are directed at departments facing the most significant risks while guaranteeing that no department is left out.

We have also taken a number of steps in our bill to help fire departments recover from the recession. Faced with economic difficulties, local governments have reduced spending on vital services, including fire departments. Among other things, these cuts have prevented many departments from replacing old equipment and forced them to lay off needed firefighters. To help departments rebuild, we have lowered the matching requirements for AFG and SAFER. Departments are still required to match some of their grant awards with funds of their own--ensuring they have some skin in the game--but the reduced amount will make it easier for them to accept awards.

We have also created an economic hardship waiver for both grant programs that will allow FEMA to waive certain requirements, such as requiring that grantees provide matching funds, for departments in communities that have been especially hard hit by tough economic times.

Our bill contains a number of other important provisions. It raises the maximum grant amounts available under AFG. As common sense would suggest, large communities often require a substantial amount of equipment, and they will now be able to apply for funding in amounts more in line with what they need.

We also would provide funding for national fire safety organizations and institutions of higher education that wish to create joint programs establishing fire safety research centers. There is a great need for research devoted to fire safety and prevention and improved technology. The work these centers do will help us reduce fire casualties among firefighters and civilians and make communities safer.

As important as it is to help our firefighters, we must also demand accountability when we spend taxpayer dollars. For this reason, we require that FEMA create performance management systems for these programs, complete with quantifiable metrics that will allow us to see how well they perform. Going forward, this will allow us to see what works in these programs and what does not so that we can make needed improvements when required.

We have also included provisions to prevent earmarks from being attached to these programs. AFG and SAFER have never been earmarked--an impressive accomplishment--and we want to keep it that way. The funding for these programs needs to go to firefighters, not pet projects.

Finally, this legislation authorizes $950 million each for these vital programs. This is actually less than what was authorized in the past. We believe that supporting our nation's firefighters and emergency medical service responders ought to be a priority, but we recognize that these tough fiscal times require some belt-tightening. Authorizing funding for AFG and SAFER at these amounts sends the message that Congress can direct funding where it is needed while also showing discipline.

These programs address a vital national need. Our legislation ensures that fire departments get the support they need to protect their communities while also protecting taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of these important programs.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize one of my State's great companies on the occasion of its 90th birthday. On April 23, 1920, Arthur Pitney and Walter Bowes officially formed the Pitney Bowes Company with its headquarters in Stamford, CT. Today the company is still headquartered in Stamford, and employs 33,000 individuals worldwide.

In 1912, Arthur Pitney introduced the postage meter in the United States. This device, which is used to create and apply physical evidence of postage to pieces of mail, has allowed postal officials and offices throughout the United States to process mail more efficiently. In 1920, he partnered with Walter Bowes, a successful entrepreneur, to form the Pitney Bowes Postage Meter Company. In order for the postage meter to be sold in the U.S., Congress had to act to permit the meter indicia to be recognized as postage.

Since its founding, Pitney Bowes has been at the forefront of technological innovation. It has added vastly to the intellectual capital of this country and currently manages an active patent portfolio of more than 3,000 inventions. Quite simply, it is a company that has been the source of many, many good ideas. Many of its scientists are based in its R&D facility in Shelton, CT. In addition, the company actually had one of the first ``e-commerce'' applications, with its meters able to download postage electronically since 1979.

Pitney Bowes continues to innovate and grow. Last year its R&D investment was $182 million. It recently launched its newest mailing system. It also has become one of the world's largest software companies, helping its customers more accurately address their mail, deliver smarter marketing, provide more efficient government services, or locate their stores in the most promising location. The company also is a leader in the field of document management, helping government agencies, large companies and law firms manage their critical documents.

For more than 20 years, Pitney Bowes Financial Services International, a wholly-owned subsidiary, has been providing high- quality financial services for Pitney Bowes customers throughout the international marketplace. For example, Pitney Bowes finances the purchase of postage in its meters for over 1 million customers.

Pitney Bowes has operated globally for decades, and currently generates almost 30 percent of its revenue outside of the United States. At its manufacturing facility in Danbury, the company assembles large-scale mailing machines for export to many countries. I have had the privilege of touring the facility and have enjoyed seeing the flags of the destination countries hung over the machines they will be receiving.

Pitney Bowes has a large and diverse customer base with 2 million customers worldwide, many of which are small businesses. It has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 1950, has been a component of the S&P 500 Stock Index continually since 1957, and first joined the Fortune 500 in 1962.

Over the years, I know that Pitney Bowes has also been a good partner to the Postal Service and cares passionately about maintaining a mail service that not only survives but thrives. Pitney Bowes took the lead in creating the Mailing Industry CEO Council, which for the last several years has been at the forefront of educating policymakers about the mailing industry. There was a time when many of us in Congress failed to appreciate the extent of the importance and impact of the mailing industry. But thanks to their efforts, we know that it is a big trillion dollar industry employing more than 8 million workers. The company and the CEO Council played important roles in helping us enact postal reform legislation after a decade of effort. The company's chairman and CEO, Murray Martin, continues to regularly visit us in Washington to share his insights on how Congress can help the Postal Service adjust in a rapidly changing world.

On behalf of the people of Connecticut and the rest of the Nation, I would like to honor Pitney Bowes on the occasion of its 90th birthday. I am certain that the company and its employees will continue to pioneer new technologies and services that will contribute to economic growth in the U.S. and abroad.