Joseph Lieberman on Homeland Security Democratic Jr Senator (CT), ran for V.P. with Gore, ran for president 2004

Sub-sections under Homeland Security:
• Star Wars + Nukes
• Voting Record
• Other issues under Homeland Security

North Korea must know that we are prepared to use force

LAMONT: In each case, first and foremost, it's time for hard-headed direct negotiations--negotiations backed up by sanctions, and negotiations are always backed up by the threat of force. Negotiation is not a form of appeasement.

SCHLESINGER: North Korea can be dealt with either bilaterally or in 6-way talks. In Iran, Ahmadinejad has 18 nuclear facilities, 6 enriched nuclear warheads, and that's not for energy purposes.

LIEBERMAN: The nuclearization of North Korea & Iran remind us that we live in a dangerous world. With regards to both Iran & North Korea, we need to first use economic and diplomatic sanctions, as we're doing now, through the UN and other organizations. But they must know that in the final analysis, the US and our allies are prepared, though We do not want to use military power, To stop Iran from becoming nuclear, and to stop North Korea from selling any of its nuclear weapons to terrorists.

Iran: Sponsored resolution calling for regime change

SCHLESINGER: Haven't we learned anything from history? If you think you can negotiate with Ahmadinejad, no, our security is on the line. The guy's playing cat-and-mouse with us. One day he says he'll go with the incentives, and the next day not.

LIEBERMAN: I'm proud that I co-sponsored that bipartisan resolution calling for regime change in Iran because there are some leaders you can't negotiate with. Look at what Ahmadinejad has said. History reminds us in the case of Hitler and Osama bin Laden that they said exactly what they ultimately did. He wants to wipe out Israel and he has told thousands "Imagine a world without the USA; that is possible in our time." We need to be working with people in Iran, who hate this government, to help them overthrow it.

Last thing we want is to release dangerous Gitmo detainees

The Bush administration felt its way and pushed the envelope, and the Supreme Court last week, in what I thought was an extraordinary decision in the best tradition of America, said, Mr. President, no one in this country is above the law, not even the president in a time of war. That was the right decision, and now the president will have to do what he should have done earlier, come to Congress and negotiate a legal way to treat the detainees at Guantanamo.

Please understand that there's nothing in that court decision that orders us to release those detainees. They are dangerous. And the last thing we want to do is release them.

The president has the right to act alone

A: Yes, it is a legitimate position in the final analysis. Because in the end, if you still feel it is in the security interests of the US, as commander of chief, you will reserve the right to act alone to protect the security and freedom of the American people.

Unwavering support for our troops in battle

LIEBERMAN: It is not a blank check. I am the only person on this stage who has unwaveringly supported the removal of Saddam Hussein and our troops who are there carrying out that mission, which, yes, has made us a lot safer than we would be with Saddam in power. When it comes to supporting our troops in battle, I will never say no. Period. We owe them our lives and our liberties, and they deserve our unwavering support.

Intelligence system must be reformed

A: What I'm concerned about is what's behind the Bush administration color-coded system. They have still not reformed our intelligence system as they should have. They have still not coordinated watch lists. I'm the only one on this stage who drafted the original homeland security bill. We have something to fear, but if we pull together with tough leadership, we can give the American people a sense of confidence about their security.

Win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world

A: I'm the one, who together with a few other members of the Senate, wrote the homeland security bill, because we were disorganized before 9/11 and the terrorists took advantage of it. One of the ways you do it is not only to use American military to capture and/or kill Al Qaida, you win the larger battle for the hearts and minds of the great majority in the Muslim world who are living desperately poor lives in despotic countries.

Right-size the military with Servicemembers Bill of Rights

Lieberman has his own "help" plan, a document he has dubbed the "Servicemembers and Veterans Bill of Rights." Lieberman said he will champion strong leadership, predictable deployments, competitive pay, family care, quality health care, no barriers to service, quality education, affordable housing and job opportunities. Among the senator's promises are to "right size" the military, rationalize rotations and make deployments more predictable. Lieberman said he has not yet formulated the details of his right-sizing plan, but that "I don't exclude the possibility of increasing the number of active-duty" Army.

Go back to the UN and negotiate about Iraq

A: But here we are today, we've got 135,000 Americans there. I would go back to the UN, and I would come off the Bush high horse and negotiate and turn over the civilian administration of Iraq to the UN and the Iraqis. I didn't support the war in Iraq so that America could control Iraq. I supported it to get rid of a homicidal maniac named Saddam Hussein and to let the Iraqis control Iraq.

Reform America's intelligence system post-9-11

A: In an age of terrorism having the best intelligence in the world is critically important. Our intelligence agencies failed us prior to Sept. 11th. I look forward to the Sept. 11 investigation commission's recommendations on how to improve our nation's intelligence gathering because reforming America's intelligence system will be a priority for me as president.

Prosecute War on Terror, even if unpopular

LIEBERMAN: I'm going to prosecute the war against terrorism and win it even if it's unpopular because that's here our future security rests.

9/11 requires strength abroad to provide security at home

LIEBERMAN: I'd say how can we win this election if we send a message of weakness on defense and security after September 11, 2001? Protecting the American people's security, giving them a sense of safety, making sure people in this country are not worried when their loved ones go out to the mall, or take a train, go to a movie theater--that is the first goal of our government, and that means being strong on defense and homeland security.

American military is best in the world; and has proven it

LIEBERMAN: I want to assure the American people that the American military is the best-trained, best-equipped, most powerful force in the world, and that Al Gore and I will do whatever it takes to keep them that way. It’s not right and it’s not good for our military to run them down, essentially, in the midst of a partisan political debate. And judging by its results, from Desert Storm to Kosovo, the American military has performed brilliantly.

CHENEY: The facts are dramatically different. I’m not attacking the military, Joe. I have enormous regard for the men and women of the US military. But it’s irresponsible to suggest that we should not have this debate in a presidential campaign.

Don’t alarm America - the military is ready

LIEBERMAN: Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, will tell you that the military is ready. If you look at our budget, we commit more than twice as much as Governor Bush. I don’t want the American people to feel insecure. We have met our recruitment targets in each of the services this year. In fact, in the areas where our opponents have said we are overextended, such as the Balkans, the soldiers there have the highest rate of reenlistment than anywhere else. This administration has begun to transform the military to prepare it to meet the threats of weapons of mass destruction, of ballistic missiles, of terrorism.

CHENEY: Everybody wearing the uniform is a volunteer. When we don’t give them leadership, we undermine morale. There is no more important responsibility for a president than his role as commander in chief, and his decision when to send our men and women to war. When we send them without the right kind of training, we put their lives at risk.

Work with Iraqi opposition to overthrow Saddam

LIEBERMAN: It would be serious if we had evidence that Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. I don’t think a political campaign is the occasion to declare exactly what we would do. I think that’s a matter of such critical national security that it ought to be left to the commander in chief, the leaders of the military, the secretary of state. The Gulf War was a great victory. But the war did not end with a total victory. As a result, we have had almost 10 years of instability. There’s not going to be peace until he goes, and that’s why I was proud to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation Act, why I have kept in touch with the Iraqi opposition. Vice President Gore met with them earlier this year. We will continue to support them until the Iraqi people rise up and do what the people of Serbia have done in the last few days: get rid of a despot.

Supported use of force in Gulf War

Kuwait: Congressional authorization plus use of force

[At a Senate meeting in December 1990], I said, “I definitely think the President should come to Congress for authorization, but I want you to know that if he does, I will support him.”

Skipping generation of equipment will destroy readiness

LIEBERMAN: And the fact is that Governor Bush recommended in his major policy statement on the military earlier this year that we skip the next generation of military equipment: helicopters, submarines, tactical air fighters, all the rest. That would really cripple our readiness, exactly the readiness that Dick Cheney is talking about.

More $ for weapons; including SDI recently

Transform military for post-Cold War

SDI is no longer science fiction

More R&D & better development for future army

We must make two reforms a high priority. First, we should refine Joint Vision 2010 and accelerate its implementation. Second, we must modify our process for developing military requirements.

Supported Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Deploy limited SDI to defend against rogue states

Nuclear retaliation won’t stop rogue missile attacks

Voted against military pay increase

Lieberman’s voting record on defense-related issues:
• Voted NO to authorizing a military pay raise of 4.8% in 2000 and annual pay increases through 2006 of 0.5% above the inflation rate. (S.4, 2/24/1999)
• Voted YES to state it is the policy of the US to deploy a National Missile Defense system as soon as it is technologically possible. (S.257, 3/17/1999)

Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army.

Sen. CORNYN. The problem I have with this bill is that the US Treasury is not bottomless, and the funding that is being provided to create this new pension would literally be at the expense of US veterans. The $221 million that is addressed by Sen. Burr's amendment would actually go back in to supplement benefits for US veterans. And while we appreciate and honor all of our allies who fought alongside of us in WWII, certainly that doesn't mean we are going to grant pension benefits to all of our allies, [like] the British or the Australians. Vote for the Burr Amendment because certainly our American veterans should be our priority.

Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.

[The PAA allows] acquiring all the calls and e-mails between employees of a US company and a foreign company, with no requirement to get a warrant and no requirement that there be some link to terrorism. So any American who works at a company that does business overseas should think about that.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. BOND: The purpose of this bill is, and always has been, to enable the intelligence community to act to target foreign terrorists and spies overseas.

The amendment, as it is drafted, will have a totally unexpected impact. It is difficult to explain, in an unclassified session, why this amendment is unworkable. There are only certain communications which the intelligence community is lawfully permitted to acquire, and which it has any desire to acquire, because to acquire all the communications from all foreigners is an absolutely impossible task.

I cannot describe in a public setting how they go about ascertaining which collections are important. But to say that if Osama bin Laden calls somebody in the US, we cannot listen in to that communication, unless we have an independent means of verifying it has some impact or a terrorist threat--That is the most important communication we need to intercept.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment Rejected, 38-57

Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.

A modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or the surveillance device is located within the US.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. LEVIN: Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the major differences? Our bill (S2011) is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill (S1927), which does not have that key limitation and which very clearly applies to US citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to US citizens, we obviously will permit that. But the Bond bill goes beyond that, citing "any person." It does not say a "foreign person." We avoid getting to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LIEBERMAN: I will vote for the Bond proposal (S1927) because we are at war, & there is increased terrorist activity. We have a crisis. This proposal will allow us to gather intelligence information on that enemy we otherwise would not gather. This is not the time for striving for legislative perfection. Let us not strive for perfection. Let us put national security first. We are going to have 6 months to reason together to find something better.

Voted NO on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HAGEL: The war in Iraq has pushed the US Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops. Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80% of its recruiting goal for June. This is the second month in a row that the Army has failed to recruit the number of new soldiers needed to fill the ranks. And this is with $1 billion in large cash bonus incentives.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. KYL: Time in theater and dwell times should be a goal, rather than an absolute fixed requirement that becomes the policy of the US military determined by congressional action. By mandating a certain policy for deployment time or dwell time, the Congress is engaged in the most explicit micromanaging of what is obviously a function for the Commander in Chief and military commanders to perform. This is not something Members of Congress are knowledgeable about or would have the ability to dictate in any responsible fashion. It also would be unconstitutional. Clearly, the dwell times of troops or the amount of time in theater is an obligation of the Commander in Chief, not something for the Congress to determine.

Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report.

• I: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing within the Federal Government and with State, Local, and Tribal Governments
• II: Homeland Security Grants
• III: Communications Operability and Interoperability
• IV: Emergency Management Performance Grants Program
• V: Enhancing Security of International Travel
• VI: Privacy and Civil Liberties Matters
• VII: Enhanced Defenses Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
• VIII: Private Sector Preparedness
• IX: Transportation Security Planning and Information Sharing
• X: Incident Command System
• XI: Critical Infrastructure Protection
• XII: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence
• XIII: International Cooperation on Antiterrorism Technologies
• XIV: Transportation and Interoperable Communication
• XV: Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention
• XVII: 911 Modernization
• XIX: Advancement of Democratic Values

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

One of the authors of the 9/11 Commission report said, the President's announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. That is what I think we should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater, our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here, to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission.

Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

Sen. GRAHAM [recommending NO]: The fundamental question for the Senate to answer when it comes to determining enemy combatant status is, Who should make that determination? Should that be a military decision or should it be a judicial decision? That is something our military should do.

Sen. SPECTER [recommending YES]: My amendment would retain the constitutional right of habeas corpus for people detained at Guantanamo. The right of habeas corpus was established in the Magna Carta in 1215 when, in England, there was action taken against King John to establish a procedure to prevent illegal detention. What the bill seeks to do is to set back basic rights by some 900 years. This amendment would strike that provision and make certain that the constitutional right of habeas corpus is maintained.

GRAHAM: Do we really want enemy prisoners to bring every lawsuit known to man against the people fighting the war and protecting us? No enemy prisoner should have access to Federal courts--a noncitizen, enemy combatant terrorist--to bring a lawsuit against those fighting on our behalf. No judge should have the ability to make a decision that has been historically reserved to the military. That does not make us safer.

SPECTER: The US Constitution states that "Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We do not have either rebellion or invasion, so it is a little hard for me to see, as a basic principle of constitutional law, how the Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court does say in the next round of legal appeals there is a constitutional right to habeas corpus by those detained at Guantanamo Bay, then Sen. Specter is absolutely right.

Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

I question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. We will probably see those reports leaked to the press.

This amendment would spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used.

If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques.

We are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately this amendment would imperil it.

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act. Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

  Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.

  Vote to invoke cloture on a conference report that extends the authority of the FBI to conduct "roving wiretaps" and access business records. Voting YES would recommend, in effect, that the PATRIOT Act be extended through December 31, 2009, and would makes the provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent. Voting NO would extend debate further, which would have the effect of NOT extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. Reference: Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act; Bill HR 3199 ; vote number 2005-358 on Dec 16, 2005

  Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism.

  Vote to adopt an amendment that makes US businesses and their subsidiaries liable to prosecution for dealing with foreign businesses which have links to terrorism or whose parent country supports terrorism. Voting YES would:
  • Empower the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act to prohibit US businesses and their subsidiaries from transacting with foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism.
  • Forbid US businesses and their subsidiaries from engaging in transactions with any foreign business whose parent country has been identified as a supporter of international terrorism.
  • Require the President to publish a list of foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism, and bans US ownership or control of foreign businesses engaged in transactions with such businesses.
  • Call for US businesses to disclose in their annual reports any ownership stake of at least 10% in a foreign business that is itself engaging in transactions with a proscribed foreign business.
  Reference: Stop Business with Terrorists Act of 2005; Bill S AMDT 1351 to S 1042 ; vote number 2005-203 on Jul 26, 2005

  Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders.

  Amendment intended to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents. Reference: State Homeland Security Grant Program Amendment; Bill S AMDT 220 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-64 on Mar 17, 2005

  Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

  Adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would ban nuclear weapons testing six months after ratification by the 44 nations that have nuclear power plants or nucelar research reactors.
  Status: Resolution of Ratification Rejected Y)48; N)51; P)1 Reference: Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; Bill Treaty Document #105-28 ; vote number 1999-325 on Oct 13, 1999

  Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures.

  Vote on an amendment to allow one round of military base closures beginning in 2001 as determined by an independent panel. Reference: Bill S.1059 ; vote number 1999-147 on May 26, 1999

  Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels.

  The Kerrey (D-NE) amdt would strike bill language requiring that U.S. strategic nuclear forces remain at START I levels through the end of fiscal 2000 unless Russia ratified START II.
  Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)56; N)44 Reference: Motion to table Kerrey Amdt #395; Bill S. 1059 ; vote number 1999-149 on May 26, 1999

  Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP.

  Vote that the policy of the US is to deploy a National Missile Defense system capable of defending against limited ballistic missile attack as soon as it is technologically possible, and to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces. Reference: Bill S 257 ; vote number 1999-51 on Mar 17, 1999

  Voted NO on military pay raise of 4.8%.

  Vote to pass a bill to authorize a military pay raise of 4.8% in 2000 and annual pay increases through 2006 of 0.5% above the inflation rate. The bill would also provide additional incentives to certain enlisted personnel who remain on active duty. Reference: Bill S.4 ; vote number 1999-26 on Feb 24, 1999

  Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training.

  Byrd Amdt (D-WV) that would prohibit same-sex military barracks and basic training.
  Status: Amdt Rejected Y)39; N)53; NV)8 Reference: Byrd Amdt #3011; Bill S. 2057 ; vote number 1998-180 on Jun 25, 1998

  Voted NO on favoring 36 vetoed military projects.

  Overturning line-item vetoes of 36 military projects vetoed by President Clinton.
  Status: Bill Passed Y)69; N)30; NV)1 Reference: Line Item Veto Cancellation bill; Bill S. 1292 ; vote number 1997-287 on Oct 30, 1997

  Voted YES on banning chemical weapons.

  Approval of the chemical weapons ban.
  Status: Resolution of Ratification Agreed to Y)74; N)26 Reference: Resolution of ratification of the Chemical (Comprehensive) Weapons (Convention) Ban; Bill S. Res. 75 ; vote number 1997-51 on Apr 24, 1997

  Voted NO on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty.

  Vote to consider establishing a policy requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system by the end of 2003. The bill would also urge discussions with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow deployment of the system. Reference: Bill S 1635 ; vote number 1996-157 on Jun 4, 1996

  Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations.

  Approval of the 1996 Defense Appropriations bill.
  Status: Bill Passed Y)62; N)35; NV)3 Reference: Defense Approps Bill FY 96; Bill S. 1087 ; vote number 1995-397 on Sep 5, 1995

  Rated 10% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record.

  Lieberman scores 10% by SANE on peace issues

  Peace Action, the merger of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) and The Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for over forty years. As the nation's largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries. We are proof that ordinary people can change the world. At Peace Action we believe...

  • That every person has the right to live without the threat of nuclear weapons.
  • That war is not a suitable response to conflict.
  • That America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.
  As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. For what the US will spend on Missile Defense in one year we could: put over a million children through Head Start OR provide healthcare for over 3.5 million children OR create over 100,000 units of affordable housing OR hire over 160,000 elementary school teachers. At Peace Action our priorities are clear.

  The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

  Source: SANE website 03n-SANE on Dec 31, 2003

  Sponsored bill for Iraq budget to be part of defense budget.

  Lieberman introduced requiring Iraq War budget be part of regular defense budget

  OnTheIssues.org Explanation: Since the start of both the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war, expenditures for those war have been voted for in "emergency supplemental spending bills," instead of in the normal defense spending bill. That implies that the expenditures are unexpectedly high, which may have been true in the early years of the war. This amendment requires regular budgeting for the Afghanistan & Iraq wars.

  OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations.

  EXCERPTS OF BILL:

  • The President's budget for each fiscal year after 2007 shall include--
  • a request for funds for such fiscal year for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq;
  • an estimate of all funds expected to be required in that fiscal year for such operations; and
  • a detailed justification of the funds requested.

  LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote, 98-0, Vote Number: 170.

  Source: Defense Authorization Bill (S.AMDT.4242 to S.2766) 06-SP4242 on Jun 14, 2006

  Click here for definitions & background information on Homeland Security. Click here for policy papers on Homeland Security. Click here for a profile of Joseph Lieberman. Click here for Joseph Lieberman on all the issues. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Joseph Lieberman. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Homeland Security or about Joseph Lieberman in The Forum.
  Other candidates on Homeland Security:	Joseph Lieberman on other issues:
  Republican Presidential Nominee: Sen.John McCain Republican Veepstakes: Gov.Haley Barbour(MS) Sen. Sam Brownback(KS) Gov. Jeb Bush(FL) Gov.Charlie Crist(FL) Rep. Newt Gingrich(GA) Mayor Rudy Giuliani(NYC) Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR) Gov. Bobby Jindal(LA) Sen.Joe Lieberman(I,CT) Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN) Secy. Condi Rice(CA) Gov.Mitt Romney(MA) Gov. Mark Sanford(SC) Sen. Fred Thompson(TN) Secy. Tommy Thompson(WI) Democratic Presidential Contenders: Sen.Hillary Clinton Sen.Barack Obama Democratic Veepstakes: Gen.Wesley Clark(AR) Sen.John Edwards(NC) Gov.Bill Richardson(NM)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Jul 15, 2008