[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16235-16237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to be 
present and cast votes the week of June 27. My mother, Marcia 
Lieberman, passed away on June 27 and her funeral was June 28, and I 
observed a period of mourning in Connecticut for the remainder of that 
week. While, as I stated to Senator Reid, I would have returned to the 
Capitol and voted had my vote been determinative of the outcome, that 
did not become an issue regarding votes that week. Before I address the 
various pieces of legislation

[[Page 16236]]

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

[[Page 16237]]

order to garner support of Congress, at a minimum, future trade 
agreements must include strong enforcement provisions that would 
prevent countries from backsliding or ignoring labor and environmental 
standards.
  As to my second concern, while we now focus on DR-CAFTA, our 
constituents continue to be concerned about China. They are right to do 
so since China is a country with almost ten times the gross domestic 
product of the Dominican Republic and Central American countries 
combined. Trade with, and support for, the democracies in Latin and 
Central America is important. That said, we must focus on the growing 
need to address trade pressures from China, including China's approach 
to manipulating its currency and subsidizing its manufacturing sector, 
as well as its failure to enact strong labor standards. The lack of a 
comprehensive U.S. trade policy results in a reactive, muddled trade 
agenda, rather than a focus on issues that will grow our economy, lower 
the trade deficit, and create jobs.
  On Friday, July 1, the Senate voted on H.R. 2419, The Department of 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Here are my positions 
on the amendment that was offered and on the vote on final passage of 
the bill.
  I would have supported Senator Boxer's amendment No. 1085 because the 
administration has failed to make the case for why the mission of this 
potential weapon can not be achieved by current weapon systems and 
America's nuclear arsenal already serves as an effective deterrent. We 
do not need to launch a new nuclear weapons program at this time.
  I would have supported final passage of the bill, which includes 
support for some important programs in my State.

                          ____________________