[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 59 (Thursday, April 12, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4413-S4428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 372, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to S. 372, a bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 20, S. 372, Intelligence
Authorization.
Harry Reid, Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Jack Reed,
Jon Tester, Patty Murray, Jeff Bingaman, Amy Klobuchar,
Blanche L. Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Benjamin L. Cardin, Max
Baucus, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, Byron L. Dorgan, Ken
Salazar, Dick Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to consideration of S. 372, a bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the
Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence
Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, shall
be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--3
Coburn
Grassley
Kyl
NOT VOTING--3
Biden
Dodd
Johnson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 3.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed in
morning business and that I be followed by the Senator from North
Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. I also ask unanimous consent that the time be charged to
the postcloture time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Iraq
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the situation in
Iraq, notwithstanding that the headlines and the television shows over
the last days have been consumed by discussions about what happened
with the Duke lacrosse team and comments made by Don Imus and other
things.
Yesterday, I attended another funeral for a young soldier, a sergeant
in the U.S. Army, 10th Mountain Division, Chris Wilson, at Arlington.
That is where the real focus of our country ought to be right now, on
the war in Iraq, about which yesterday the Senator from Arizona gave a
speech that I thought was divisive, a speech that was more political
than one that offered a solution, because the solution is not more of
the same. The solution is not to characterize the war as it has been
characterized over the course of the last 4\1/2\ years, as a do-or-die
fight against al-Qaida over there or it is going to be over here. This
is the most amazing scare tactic we have seen employed over the last
years. It avoids reality, and it draws the United States deeper and
deeper into a position of loss of credibility and loss of leverage in
our ability to do what we need to do.
I don't know one person in the Senate who cheers for surrender or
cheers for loss or for chaos in Iraq. To suggest that is an insult to
the Members of the Senate. It is an insult to those of us who care as
much about victory and as much about success and as much about the
lives and support of our troops as anybody in public life today. The
devastating attack in Baghdad yesterday, the lack of any real political
progress as a result of the President's escalation, and the incredible
toll this is taking on our Armed Forces deserves a real debate, not a
polarized, divisive appeal to the lowest common denominator of fear in
American politics.
It also deserves a debate about what this administration could learn
if it listened to our generals. We are now more than 4 years into the
war in Iraq and, tragically, it is only now that the administration
suddenly realizes: Wow, maybe we ought to find one individual who can
coordinate the war efforts between Afghanistan and Iraq and have the
authority to coordinate the military efforts and civilian efforts. But
they are doing it at a time where apparently no one wants the job, and
no one wants the job in the most extraordinary way. It says a lot, when
the President finally decides to appoint a war czar in order to get
everybody on the same page, that the situation in Iraq is actually so
bad and the administration's stubborn willingness to change course so
persistent that they can't, at least as of now, find anybody to take
the job.
I read yesterday's articles on the front pages of our paper in
Washington. I was really stunned. This administration has approached
three retired four-star generals about taking on this task. Maybe
Senator McCain ought to stop and think about why those generals
resisted an appeal to their patriotism, to their sense of duty, to
their service to country after years of a career in the U.S. military.
What did Marine GEN Jack Sheehan say? He is not an opponent of this
administration, nor is Army GEN Jack Keane, nor retired Air Force GEN
Joseph Ralston. All three declined. None of them are opponents of this
administration. In fact, they all have established ties with this
administration. Why would our top military commanders decline such a
high-level position?
[[Page S4414]]
General Sheehan, a 35-year marine who once served as the top NATO
commander, summed it up pretty well in what I thought was an
extraordinary statement.
He said:
The very fundamental issue is they [the administration]
don't know where the hell they're going.
That is a 35-year retired Marine general:
. . . they don't know where the hell they're going.
Then he said:
So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and
eventually leave, I said no thanks.
It is pretty incredible that three retired four-star generals, whose
careers, whose service to the Nation, whose understanding of the
military is a lifetime of experience, all said no to the Commander in
Chief.
The President insists he listens to the generals, not the
politicians. He ought to heed his own advice and end the disgraceful
record of ignoring the very military administration he professes to
believe in. Again and again this administration has turned its back on
the best advice of the military. Each time they have done so at our
peril. Start with General Shinseki, who we all now agree was right when
he said we needed a lot more troops and was met with dismissal. As the
former top operating officer at the Pentagon, a different Marine
lieutenant general put it:
The commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a
casualness and swagger that are the special province of those
who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the
results.
Instead of listening to General Shinseki, the administration decided
to push him aside, give him the cold shoulder, and eventually
retirement.
Last year, retired high-ranking military leaders, many of whom played
key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, came forward and
publicly called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. Across the administration, the warnings of those who wore the
uniform of their country all their lives and who, retired or not, did
not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country all were
dismissed as acts of disloyalty or as threats to civilian control of
the Armed Forces. Think about that. A retired military officer who
isn't wearing the uniform, earned their retirement, speaks out about a
war they were personally involved in helping to plan, saying: We have
to change course. They are somehow called unpatriotic and disloyal, and
somehow that threatens the civilian control of the Armed Forces. How
does an ex-military officer who has the right to speak out threaten
civilian control of the Armed Forces? It is the scare tactic, the usual
approach of this administration--try to throw out a big red herring,
put the straw man out there and debate the straw man instead of
debating the real strategy of the war.
In the end, it took an election. The American people spoke out. That
is what replaced Secretary Rumsfeld, not the advice of the men and
women who had seen him nearly break the military they had served for
decades. That was the administration's choice. But it didn't stop
there. Ask General Casey or General Abizaid, who warned that more U.S.
troops would not solve Iraq's security problem and could actually slow
the process of getting Iraqi security forces to assume more
responsibility. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who unanimously opposed this
escalation--what happened to listening to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
their recommendation? General Abizaid was replaced. General Casey was
reassigned. The Joint Chiefs were overruled. Yesterday, we learned that
the Pentagon is going to stretch our overextended military even further
by extending combat tours and reducing the time between rotations to
provide the additional troops necessary for the President's misguided
escalation. What do our military leaders have to say about that? Robert
Scales, a retired Army two-star general, said that to sustain this
deployment while giving soldiers the training and the rest they need
would require twice as many Army and Marine Corps brigades as we have
today. Then he warned, this two-star Army general, that the Army is
about to be ``broken.''
We are hearing our own generals talk to us again about what is
happening to our military that is overstretched and about to be broken.
Those are not our words; those are the words of military personnel.
Barry McCaffrey, retired Army four-star general, who recently returned
from another factfinding trip to Iraq, tells us that combat equipment
for both the Active and Reserve components ``is shot.'' His conclusion
was simple:
There is no argument of whether the U.S. Army is rapidly
unravelling.
At a time when mistake after mistake is being compounded by the very
civilian leadership that ignored expert military advice in the invasion
and occupation of Iraq, those who understand that the price for each
mistake is being paid by our troops must be heard. The message from the
generals who were offered the war czar position has been crystal clear.
If they really thought the administration had a strategy that could
succeed in Iraq, why would they turn down the job? There is a very good
reason for their skepticism. This administration simply refuses to
accept the reality of how you change course or even that you must
fundamentally change course in Iraq.
We keep hearing that the escalation is showing progress. While the
level of Iraqi civilian casualties may have gone down in Baghdad, it
has gone up in other parts of the country. Why? For the obvious reason
that they have the flexibility of choosing where they will engage.
Almost a certainty, some came to the floor and predicted: Put more
troops into Baghdad, they will retreat into the shadows, into other
communities. They will probe, they will find the weaknesses, and that
is where they will reengage. That is precisely what has happened. The
overall casualty rate in Iraq has remained essentially the same.
Just today we learned of a devastating suicide bombing in the Iraqi
Parliament, right in the heart of the heavily fortified Green Zone. Ten
people died, including two Iraqi lawmakers, along with any sense of
personal security in what is supposed to be the safest part of Baghdad.
It is a strange definition of the progress we have been hearing about.
How are more American troops going to stop a single fanatic with
explosives strapped to his or her chest?
One thing we do know is American troops are paying the ultimate price
for this escalation. In the first 7 weeks, the number of U.S. troops
who died in Baghdad doubled. On Monday alone, we learned of two more
soldiers from Massachusetts who died in Iraq, CAPT Anthony Palermo, age
26, of Boston, MA, and SGT Adam P. Kennedy, 25, of Norfolk, MA. The
administration says that these men and women are giving their lives
because the purpose of this escalation is to allow the Iraqis space to
make the political deals that we all agree are the only hope for ending
the civil war. But if the violence is going down in Baghdad, where is
the political progress? We keep hearing that the Iraqis are getting
closer to a deal on sharing oil revenues. I think we have had the
Secretary of State in front of the Foreign Relations Committee at least
twice that I can think of in which she has said: We are almost there,
we are nearing a deal. The last time was a month and a half ago, maybe
2 months ago. Where is the deal? Every time, hopes for a final deal
turn out to be an illusion. Where is the rapidity of the Iraqi response
to the political compromises that need to be made to resolve this?
The de-Baathification law that is a key part of the national
reconciliation process was recently denounced by Ayatollah Sistani and
is nowhere near completion. The Iraqis are still at square one when it
comes to amending the Constitution and disarming the militias. Still
the President refuses to impose any meaningful consequences on the
Iraqis for failure to meet these benchmarks.
Now, again, I listened to the speech of the Senator from Arizona
yesterday in which he talked about those who advocate surrender and
those who cheer for the potential of loss. Again and again, our
military leaders have said there is no military solution in Iraq.
General Abizaid said it. General Casey said it. Most recently, General
Petraeus--new on the job--reiterated there is no military solution. The
President has said it. The Secretary of State has said it. Donald
Rumsfeld said it.
But where is the diplomatic effort necessary within the whole Middle
[[Page S4415]]
East, let alone in Iraq alone, to leverage the kind of transformation
that is necessary to end the civil war? And how dare the Senator from
Arizona only talk about the fundamentals of al-Qaida and how if we
don't fight them over there we will fight them over here, when the
fight is really one between civil parties in Iraq?
Yes, al-Qaida is in Iraq. We understand that. Yes, al-Qaida has the
ability to be able to bomb something and create trouble as a
consequence of that. But the real violence, the fundamental divisions,
the piece of this which is extending the stalemate and the American
presence at the same time is the unwillingness of the Shia and Sunni
and the politicians who are fighting for position and for the future
spoils of Iraq itself--their unwillingness to resolve those
differences.
The longer the U.S. military stays there saying: We are here, we are
going to do this, we are going to go out and do the pacification, we
will do the military backup--as long as that security blanket is there,
those politicians know they can take as long as they want to come to
any compromise.
I have heard some of our own diplomats in the region express their
concern about the open-endedness and express the lack of leverage over
the Iraqis themselves that helps us bring a resolution here.
The only way in which you can change the dynamic on the ground is
when the administration accepts the simple reality that this Congress
has now voted on, that the Iraqi politicians have repeatedly shown they
only respond to a deadline, a deadline to transfer the authority.
Remember that, back when Ambassador Bremer was there and we said: ``We
are going to change the provisional government. We are going to
transfer authority to Iraq,'' and they said: ``Oh, no, we're not ready.
Don't do this.''? But we said: ``It is going to happen. It is going to
happen on this date. Get ready.'' And it did, and we did transfer the
authority. The same thing for the two elections and the referendum. I
remember them saying: ``We have to push this off. We are not ready for
the election. Can't participate.'' We said: ``No. We're going to have
this firm date. We're going to have an election.'' And guess what. We
had the two elections. We had the referendum. We got the Constitution,
flawed as it is. But we pushed people to understand this was not open-
ended and interminable.
The fact is, I do not believe young Americans ought to be dying or
maimed to provide a window of opportunity for Iraqi politicians to
continue to procrastinate, to give them the cover they need and want to
be able to manipulate and maneuver and position themselves for power.
That is not what our troops went over there to do. If you go back and
reread the resolution we voted on here, it was to deal with Saddam
Hussein, it was to deal with the weapons of mass destruction; it was
not to put our troops in the middle of a civil war and engage in the
kind of struggle we are involved in today.
Mr. President, another thought about this issue. Again, there are
those running for President on the Republican side who I guess have
found that the orthodoxy of their primaries requires them to go out and
suggest that Democrats want something they do not want. So maybe we
have not learned anything about the truth in American politics. But the
fact is, no Democrat whom I know of has suggested abandoning Iraq. No
Democrat has suggested inviting chaos--more than the chaos that exists
today.
In fact, we have what we believe is a plan for success, and it does
not leave Iraq without the presence of American troops--I might add, to
the chagrin of some people in this country who think it ought to. It
leaves the President the discretion to finish the training of Iraqis.
That is the principal thing we ought to be there to do. And it leaves
the President the ability to be able to decide how many troops are
necessary to complete the task of training the Iraqis. It also leaves
the President the discretion to decide what the President needs in
order to prosecute al-Qaida. It does not walk away from the battle
against al-Qaida. It leaves those special forces and special operations
and intelligence-gathering and other operations necessary to continue
to prosecute al-Qaida. Finally, it leaves the President the discretion
to be able to leave such forces as are necessary to protect American
facilities and personnel.
Now, how much more discretion, at this point in time, after 4-plus
years of war, when they have made every decision wrong, should we allow
the President? People say: Don't micromanage the war. Somebody has to
manage this war because the folks who are in there, obviously, are not
doing it effectively. When you have your own generals coming back and
telling you the troops still do not have the armor, they still do not
have the level of up-armored Humvees, they are still going out on
patrols in ways that are, in many cases, provocatively dangerous and
invite the kinds of injuries they are getting, without the gain on the
back end as a consequence of the risk they have taken, I think that is
unacceptable.
Last month, Iraq's neighbors and key players from the international
community finally got together at a conference in Baghdad. Guess what.
Nothing tangible came out of the conference. There is no sense of
urgency about the upcoming meeting in Egypt, which is why a deadline is
so essential. The countries in the region need to know this dynamic is
going to change.
To the degree they are concerned about Iran, to the degree they are
concerned about their Sunni brothers--and they are; Saudi Arabians,
Jordanians, Egyptians are predominantly Sunni, and they are deeply
concerned about the Sunni minority in Iraq. But they need to translate
that concern into a regional security plan where there is a greater
level of assistance in order to force the kinds of compromises
necessary between the parties. Absent that, this is just going to go
on.
We owe it to our troops and to our country to have an honest debate
and to try to work together to find the way forward in Iraq. I think
the speech Senator McCain gave yesterday, in which he said Democrats
were cheering for defeat and surrender in Iraq, does a disservice to
the Senator from Arizona as well as to the U.S. Senate. I think he
knows better. And he knows full well that no one here wants to see Iraq
fall apart. But we have a different plan for how you prevent it. We
have a different plan for how you achieve success.
It seems to me that a plan that says the President has the discretion
to leave troops that are necessary to complete the training is not, on
its face, an abandonment of Iraq. It is an alternative way of achieving
the leverage necessary to be able to get the responses we have not
gotten over the last 4 years.
So, Mr. President, we disagree on the strategy, but we do not
disagree on the stakes. The Vice President hides behind similar
rhetoric. He dares to claim that those who offer a new way forward are
``undermining'' our troops. Well, I have had enough of that rhetoric. I
have had enough. And I think most of my colleagues have.
Undermining our troops? Let's have that debate, Mr. Vice President.
This is a Vice President who helped send them into combat without
adequate protection, without adequate numbers of troops, without an
adequate plan, without the guarding of the ammo dumps, without the kind
of engagement diplomatically that helps them, without the humvees that
were up-armored, without the armor--that's why parents in America are
going out and buying the state-of-the-art armor for those troops. And
this President and Vice President want to talk about undermining the
troops?
Let's have a debate with an administration that sent them into battle
in Iraq with serious injuries and other medical problems, including
some whose doctors said they were too injured to even wear their body
armor. You want to have a debate about undermining the troops? Then how
about failing to provide them with the proper medical care when they
come home with broken bodies and minds, with a VA budget that is
inadequate, with a hospital situation that does not follow up and honor
the sacrifice they have made? How about the extended tours in Iraq,
where people have given up their jobs and their livelihoods because
they are in the National Guard and they have been called up repeatedly,
and they are the sole proprietor of a business? How about that?
It seems to me Congress has done what the President and this
administration have stubbornly refused to do.
[[Page S4416]]
We have recognized the best way you support the troops is to change a
failed policy. The best way you support the troops is to implement a
strategy that works for those troops. The best way you support the
troops is to guarantee we put in place a strategy that honors their
sacrifice and really leverages the real interests and real stakes of
the United States in the region.
I think we ought to honor the lives lost, not with words and not with
divisive speeches, but we ought to honor them with lives saved. That
starts by putting aside the hollow rhetoric and the straw men that have
undermined a real debate for far too long and by supporting an exit
strategy that preserves our core interests in Iraq, a strategy that
negotiates a new security arrangement for the region; helps to leverage
the kind of participation of other countries that have an interest in
standing up to Iran; and regains our credibility in the region, which
has been tattered with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, not to mention the
policies in Iraq themselves.
Our own CIA has told us the current strategy is creating more
terrorists, that it is emboldening the radical Islam extremists. What
we are offering is a strategy that we believe better speaks to
America's values, to America's interests, and, most of all, to our
obligation to the troops.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
American Workers
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is a poignant story about the days
following the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As his body lie in
state here in the U.S. Capitol, long lines of people formed in order to
file past the body of the dead President. A journalist interviewed a
worker who was standing there, with his hat in his hand held in front
of him, with tears in his eyes. The journalist asked this working man,
who had been standing in line for some long while: Did you know
Franklin Delano Roosevelt? The working man looked back at him and said:
No, I didn't. But he knew me.
The question is, Who knows American workers today? I ask that
question because I read in the paper that Circuit City, a pretty well-
known corporation in this country, has decided it wants to lay off
3,400 workers. Here is what Circuit City said about those workers:
It had nothing to do with their skills or whether they were
a good worker or not.
That is according to a Circuit City spokesperson.
Now, this sort of thing follows on the heels of the offshore
outsourcing of many other American jobs, American companies shutting
down. There is no more Fruit of the Loom underwear made in America, no
more Levi's made in America, no more Huffy bicycles made here, no more
Fig Newton cookies made here. There are no more Radio Flyer little red
wagons made in America. It is all gone. It is all outsourced. Those
workers all got fired. Pennsylvania House Furniture. I could go through
the long list.
We understand that even as companies outsource jobs to China in
search of 30-cents-an-hour labor, other companies that keep their jobs
here have decided to put downward pressure on wages to be competitive,
so we see the announcement of Circuit City. Three thousand four hundred
workers need to be laid off because they are paid an average of $10 to
$11 an hour; they are firing workers making 50 cents above the average.
They plan to replace them with new workers who will work for
substantially less, and they say they are going to save $110 million
through these firings and replacements.
But Circuit City executives actually seem to be doing a little better
than the workers. The employees are losing their jobs, but the CEO gets
$10 million a year. The chairman gets $10 million, the CEO gets $10
million, the executive VP gets $6 million. This is from a company that
lost money. I don't know. Maybe in some towns that seems to work. In my
hometown, it wouldn't work very long.
It seems to me we are becoming a society of disposable workers, run
by those who don't think workers make much of a difference in this
country. Circuit City said they will start hiring replacements
immediately. Anybody can apply for the jobs except for the Circuit City
workers who were fired. They have to wait 10 weeks, and then they can
reapply for the job at a lower salary.
So let's put some names to these 3,400 workers. I pulled some out of
the newspaper.
Bobby Young worked 20 years for Circuit City. He got a letter from
his boss saying he was fired. It was addressed ``To Whom It May
Concern.'' It is unbelievable. He said he is 47 years old. ``What they
did as a company to me, it's not the American way,'' he says. To Whom
It May Concern: You are fired. It tells you a little something about
the concern about the workers, doesn't it?
Alan Hartley, Charlotte, NC. He thought he and other top employees
were being called into a special meeting because he thought they were
going to be recognized for outstanding performance, but it wasn't quite
that way. They decided they were going to be recognized to be laid off
because they should be replaced with lower paid workers. Now he says
they are going to hire people who aren't properly trained for the jobs
to help take care of the customers.
I haven't told my kids yet. They don't know I just got
fired for doing a good job.
Steven Rash made $11.59 an hour; worked for the company 7 years. He
was working another full-time job as well--two jobs to pay off his
student debt.
It is not just Circuit City. There are other companies. I will not go
through the whole list of companies. David Leonhart of the New York
Times said that companies are wringing out what they see as
inefficiencies. The inefficiency of paying $11.50 an hour; God forbid
we should overpay people by $11.50 an hour, plus give them a little
health insurance and retirement as part of their compensation. Well,
when pensions and health insurance and $11.50-an-hour salary is viewed
as an inefficiency, there is something wrong in this country. He also
says this is a corporate safety net that is being taken away. There is
no corporate safety net. It is a basic American standard of living that
workers have bargained for.
Let me ask the question whether this applies to everybody. No, it
doesn't. It just applies to workers, the people who take a shower after
work. It just applies to those people. Top executives--in 2006 there
were 35 chief executives who were fired for poor performance and,
combined, they got $799 million payment as they went out the door.
Pfizer's chairman, he got $200 million when he bailed out of that
company, despite the fact the company had lost more than $130 billion
in value. Home Depot chairman, he got fired on the very first day of
2007. He got $210 million as he went out the door. United Health Group,
he somehow ended up with $1.1 billion in stock options as he went out
the door. I don't quite understand all these things.
Jack Welch, a celebrated CEO, wrote the book ``Winning,'' and after
he retired from General Electric, he got a package he was sufficiently
embarrassed about, once it was disclosed, that he decided to give some
of it back.
His package included an $80,000-a-month Central Park apartment during
his retirement, lifetime use of the company jet, membership at an array
of country clubs, maid service at multiple homes, limousines and prime
tickets and several homes.
I don't understand how we have come to the point where the average
CEO in this country, the average CEO of Standard & Poor's 500
companies, made $14.7 million. CEOs on average are paid 411 times more
than the average workers in this company. Think of that. In 1965, CEOs
on average were paid 25 times more than the average worker. Now it is
411 times more. Yesterday I opened the paper and read that Sprint CEO
got a compensation package of $21.3 million, the former Nextel chairman
got $36.2 million. Sallie Mae, by the way, in the business of providing
student loans, their chief executive officer got a package of $16.6
million and a bonus of $2.5 million as a part of that. Ford Motor lost
$12.6 billion last year. It went out and recruited a new chairman--oh,
by the way, for the chairman, when the company lost $12.6 billion, that
chairman got $10.5 million last year. They just went to hire a new guy
and he got a $28 million package which includes an $18 million bonus.
The average CEO who was fired last year got $9 million in severance.
[[Page S4417]]
Abraham Lincoln once said there is no America without labor and to
fleece the one is to rob the other.
There is a man named Bob Negley. Bob Negley is quite a remarkable
businessman, a very unusual businessman. He ran a company called
Rollerblade. Most of us know about Rollerblade. I like to rollerblade,
personally--inline skates. I think it is a great sport. I haven't even
broken a bone. Maybe I shouldn't say that, but I like to rollerblade.
Bob Negley ran Rollerblade and then he sold it. After he sold it, he
did something that is very unusual in this country. He moved to
Florida, midyear, sold his position in Rollerblade, that controlling
position, and moved to Florida. Then Christmastime came around and all
the workers who worked for Bob Negley who made Rollerblades began to
get Christmas cards from Bob Negley and his wife. In the Christmas card
as they opened it up was a check from this man who had previously owned
the company 6 months before. With the check was a note and it said
this: I sold this company and I made a lot of money, but I understand
what made this company successful. It was all of you. You worked out
there in the plants and in the factories, you worked in engineering,
you worked in marketing, you are the ones who made this company
successful and, as a result, I made a lot of money. I want to share
some of it with you. He included in the Christmas card a check computed
on the number of years of service which some employees found to be over
$20,000, and, by the way, he said, I have prepaid your Federal income
taxes on this money. Accept this as a token of my appreciation because
you were the company, you made this company successful.
Contrast that, if you will, with these days all the discussions in
the newspaper about Circuit City who has to get rid of 3,400 workers.
Why? Because we want to hire less-experienced workers, and we want to
bring them on for less money; $11 an hour is too much.
Or, perhaps, Wal-Mart, which sends an internal memorandum around. A
top executive writes a memo in Wal-Mart and says the cost of an
associate--that is an employee, by the way, but you know this notion of
``associate.'' In my hometown there was a one-eyed, 3-legged dog with
fleas they named ``Lucky,'' so names don't mean very much.
So he says, the cost of an associate with 7 years of tenure is 55
percent more than the cost of an associate with 1 year of tenure, and
yet there is no difference in his or her productivity. Message? Don't
let people stay around very long. Let's have a lot of turnover here.
Let's have people around who don't know anything so we can pay them
nothing. This is going on in this country, and the question is, Who is
going to stand up for American workers? Who decides for a change that
the expansion of the middle class in this country, where workers were
paid well, was something that represented the success of the American
economic engine? Who is going to decide that? These companies that
decide that workers are like wrenches: use them up and throw them away,
it doesn't matter, or will they decide, once again, as Franklin Delano
Roosevelt did, or as did that worker standing with his hat in his hands
said: I know American workers. That President knew American workers.
Will we decide finally that American workers have value in this
economic system?
Sure, we can outsource everything. We can ship all these jobs to
China and pay people 30 cents an hour to make bicycles to be sold in
America. We can decide that we are going to get rid of all these
workers and replace them with $8- or $6-an-hour people. Is that what is
going to build a better country? Is that what is going to expand the
middle class? There is no social program in this Chamber that we debate
and talk about that is as important to the American people as a good
job that pays well with good benefits. It is time, long past the time
we start to remember that.
Yes, I used some company names here and I have described some
severance packages. Perhaps I shouldn't single those companies out, but
the fact is they put themselves on the front section of the business
section of these newspapers with their own news: We want to get rid of
3,400 employees; that's what Circuit City says. I am saying that is a
value system which ignores the fact that workers are your company. I
told a company that was in to see me not so long ago: Your brand is a
brand all of us recognize. Your brand is not just something painted
someplace; it is the people who work for your company. If you don't
understand that, at some point that brand will be worth virtually
nothing. This country needs to begin to understand, once again, and
honor, once again, work and working men and women who struggle every
day. They get up, they work, they work hard, they give you an honest
day's work, and they come home and try and raise a family and do all
the things that make life in this country worthwhile. All too often
these days we see this notion that somehow, by some companies, workers
don't have value, don't have worth. That is a very serious mistake.
Both in public policy and I hope in the private sector, we need to turn
this around and understand this country's success depends on expanding
the middle class, on providing opportunities for the people in this
country--opportunities, yes, for a good job that pays well, to take
care of families and provide the things you want for a good life in
this country's future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I make a point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, when I am done--and I think that will be
in about 15 or 20 minutes--I ask unanimous consent the Senator from
Texas, Mr. Cornyn, follow me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, so
ordered.
Budget
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago we passed the budget
resolution in the Senate. One week after that, the House passed their
budget resolution. So we are in a position of being conferenced between
the House and the Senate on a budget resolution, and I thought at this
point I ought to give some updates, particularly as it relates to the
work of the Committee on Finance, and particularly as it relates to the
issue of taxes and an impending tax increase that is out there--
tomorrow, almost--a few years away if we don't do anything to stop the
biggest tax increase in the country, or that will be, in fact, the
biggest tax increase in the country.
So as the budget resolution slowly works its way through Congress,
one especially important issue wrapped up in this whole great big
budget resolution and document is the longevity of the bipartisan tax
relief that was enacted in 2001 and 2003, and this very day those tax
decreases for working men and women are still in place and will be in
place through the year 2010. It has always been my goal, when you have
Chairman Greenspan saying that this tax relief for working men and
women is the reason the economy has rebounded, that we should continue
this tax relief into the future, because if it is the goose that laid
the golden egg of 7.8 billion new jobs being created since the
recession, then we ought to keep that golden egg working for the
American taxpayer.
Some people may not give the contents of a budget resolution much
consideration since it does not get signed into law by the President
but is merely a set of guidelines for tax and spending decisions that
apply to Congress as we make permanent law and as we make decisions on
tax policy for the future. Those tax and spending decisions must go to
the President for his acting on them and then become law.
For this reason, along with anyone who supports tax relief, we are
very concerned about the budget resolutions passed by the Democratic
majorities in the House and Senate that are now in conference. Yes,
this is a Republican Senator. I am in the minority now since the last
election. So I want to raise these concerns as a responsibility of the
majority and to alert the American people about what the majority might
be up to, or if they are not up to it, what the consequences are if
nothing happens.
[[Page S4418]]
This concern is derived from the fact that the two budget
resolutions--the one in the House and the one in the Senate--do not
provide for the extension of tax relief beyond 2010. What does it mean
when I use the words the budget resolutions do not provide for ``the
extension'' of tax relief beyond 2010? That means, if Congress takes no
action, we will have the biggest tax increase in the history of the
country, and we will have that tax increase without even a vote of the
Congress.
For the first time in more than 6 years, Congress is sending a
message, then, that there is no guarantee of continued tax relief. In
fact, the Democratic budget resolutions say the very opposite. The
budget resolution passed by the Senate only provides 44 percent of the
revenue necessary to extend these popular, bipartisan--and let me
emphasize bipartisan--tax relief bills of 2001. Mr. President, 44
percent is not enough, but that 44 percent is more than the big fat
zero percent in the House-passed budget resolution. The House-passed
budget resolution provides no revenue room for the extension of tax
relief, meaning that the majority of the House of Representatives right
now is taking a position on the budget to let the biggest tax increase
in the history of our country go into effect without a vote of
Congress.
What does that mean, besides the biggest tax increase in history? It
means things such as no tuition deduction for people sending their kids
to college, no teacher deduction for the supplies the teacher might buy
out of their own pocket. Those are just a couple of popular items that
would expire at that particular time that would be a small part of the
biggest tax increase in the history of the country, happening without
the vote of the people.
I would like to think that I am an optimist, but in conferencing two
resolutions, which cover 44 percent on the part of the Senate and zero
percent on the part of the House, I am doubtful of reaching a number
greater than the already inadequate number of 44 percent provided in
the Senate. This stands in stark contrast to the budget that the
President submitted this February and to the budgets the President has
submitted over each of the last 6 years. All of those budgets provided
the revenue room to make bipartisan tax relief permanent. In other
words, the President is asking Congress to take action so that the
biggest tax increase in the history of our country would not happen;
and if it did happen, it would happen without a vote of the people. He
thinks that Congress making a decision for tax relief for working men
and women provided the incentive, according to Chairman Greenspan, for
the economic recovery--and we have now created 7.8 million new jobs--
and ought to be made permanent tax policy. In other words, don't kill
the goose that has laid the golden egg.
The Democratic budget resolutions can be best represented by a chart
that I have here which shows that in terms of the guaranteed tax relief
proposal, they amount to a big goose egg for the American taxpayer. We
have it right here on the chart. That is a big fat zero. If they are
lucky, I suppose college-bound taxpayers could sell this goose egg back
to the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate because they will
need the money if they are not able to deduct the cost of tuition.
What is even more inexplicable than the Democrats' failure to extend
the popular and bipartisan tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 are some
of the reasons given. The chairman of the Budget Committee this year
basically said that since the Republicans wrote that law--forgetting
that it was bipartisan in 2001; how clever to ignore that fact--it is
our problem. The leftwing of the blogosphere has echoed that message of
the Democratic leadership.
In regard to the left side of the blogosphere, I will briefly
describe two posts my staff found on the Internet. The first comes from
a scholar of government who posts the Daily Kos under the name of
``piec.'' I may be mispronouncing that, and if so, it is unintentional.
According to piec's analysis, the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005, which was signed last May by President
Bush, was a ``poison pill'' designed to sabotage the economy to
increase the prospects of Republican candidates in 2012. The argument
seems to be that having popular and bipartisan tax relief from 2001 and
2003 all sunset at the end of 2010 would cause such an economic mess
that the Democrats, assumed by the blogger, piec, to be in power at
that time, will take the blame and suffer at the polls.
Wouldn't it have been nice if I could think as chairman, when we
wrote that bill, that I was smart enough to see ahead from 2001 to
2012? Thank you, piec, for giving me that credit. But I didn't know
that. We passed it because of the rules in place at that particular
time. It had to sunset.
Another observer of Government posted comments under the name of
``Blue Bunting'' to the ``Care2 News Network.'' In a posting titled
``The Monster Republican Tax Hike,'' Blue Bunting says that the
``Republican Congresses chose not to make their tax cuts . . .
permanent.'' Her argument seems to be that Republicans put sunset
clauses in a bill solely to improve the long-term budget projections
and that responsibility for the expiration of tax relief rests
completely with the Republicans, even though the Republicans are in the
minority. The implication is that by lowering taxes, Republicans are
responsible for a tax increase that would occur when the Democratic
majorities control both Houses of Congress, even though taxes coming in
from all the taxes that the Federal Government collects run to a 50-
year average of what they have been, 18.6 percent of GDP. If it has
been that way for 50 years, what is the problem?
Now, these blogs I have just referred to, these commentaries, are
available to anyone if you want to read them online. But to make it
easier, I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the
Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Daily Kos, Feb. 27, 2007]
TIPRA, the Poison Pill (A Commentary)
(By Piec)
I was reading the diary, ``Capital Gains and Dividend Tax
Cuts Are Robbery'' by Dean Nut 2/18/2007. Interesting thought
. . . to have all your income coming from investment just to
have a lower tax.
I'd say, though, that is a very risky way to live because
then you're totally at the mercy of selfish, economy
saboteurs who we have stupidly elected to our very own
government. What a shameful group of individuals they are,
too! Caring nothing for their country. Caring only for their
selfish, hogging selves! Everyone of them should be tried as
traitors!
Look back to recent history, to May 17, 2006. What happened
on that day? Bush signed the extension of the Jobs and Growth
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). The new bill,
called the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of
2005 (TIPRA), didn't have anything to do with stimulating the
economy in a post-911 period. Bush and his fellow Republicans
knew that the war wasn't going well and that the U.S. people
were down on them for it. The mood of the country was
becoming increasing more anti-Republican with every U.S.
soldier that came home in a coffin. The Republican party was
bleakly looking toward the November 2006 elections and surely
would lose their tails off. The party needed to do some long-
range planning. Thus, the TIPRA passed legislature: The House
of Representatives approved (H.R. 4297) by a vote of 244
Republicans to 185 Democrats opposed, and the Senate approved
it 54 Republicans to 44 Democrats opposed.
Yes, this was long-range planning. TIPRA was a poison pill
for the U.S. economy because it extended the pain that people
would start feeling in their pocket books beginning on
January 1, 2008. Originally, 2008, a presidential election
year, was set up to be the ONLY year that the capital gains
tax rates for 10 percent and 15 percent bracketed filers
would drop from 5 percent to 0 percent. Short term, this
bottoming out of tax rates in those tax brackets would
stimulate the market and, thus, the economy. But because of
the extension created with TIPRA, the rock bottom percentage
would not be a ``good thing'', but a huge market-swinger, a
market-swinger toward recession--simply because the
Republicans wished the ``good thing'' to become a poison pill
and, thereby, drag controlling-democrats down into a
spiraling hole for the duration of three, entire years.
On January 1, 2011, as the law now stands, everything will
sunset. This, 2011, is the third year of the next
presidential election cycle. Right when the country will be
deepening into recession, the tax brackets will sunset. This
means that everything tax-wise will be as it was pre-911. Ten
percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, and
35 percent tax brackets will become, once again, 15 percent,
28 percent, 31 percent, 36 percent, and 39.6 brackets. Actual
cash dollars will be squeezed out of every man, women, and
child in the form of raised taxes, and just when they thought
that they couldn't bleed anymore. The capital gains tax rates
will also sunset. The post-911 tax
[[Page S4419]]
brackets of capital gains and qualifying dividend rates of 0
percent for 10 percent and 15 percent bracketed filers and 15
percent for everyone else will become the old 10 percent for
gains in the 15 percent bracket and all others will be 20
percent. Plus, that screwing five-year holding period rule
will be back to trap people again for good. Yes, TIPRA's only
purpose was to sabotage the U.S. economy and drive the power
of Congress back to Republicans in 2012.
It absolutely makes me sick to see fellow Americans operate
like this . . . tear the whole country and weaken it, just to
satisfy some evil, selfish desire for power. We never sent
them to government to serve ONLY themselves!
Mr. GRASSLEY. To begin with, it is completely ridiculous to suggest
that President Bush and Republicans in general did not intend or desire
the permanence of tax relief. President Bush and my party generally
have favored permanence of tax relief--not just because it brings in
less money, but because permanence of tax policy--when investors and
laborers can depend on the tax policy, you are going to get better
planning long term. It is better for the economy.
Mr. President, you need to look no further than the budgets to which
I have referred. The administration and the Republican Congress have
budgeted for an extension of the bipartisan tax relief provisions. That
action has affected the bottom lines of these budgets. And as we heard
over and over again, the Democratic leadership, the liberal think
tanks, and sympathetic east coast media have criticized the bottom
lines of those budgets. So the Democratic leadership, the liberal think
tanks, and the sympathetic east coast media cannot have it both ways.
We are not going to let them have it both ways. They cannot shut off
the bipartisan tax relief, take credit for the supposed deficit
reduction, and also claim that there is tax relief in this budget that
passed the Senate 2 weeks ago and the House a week ago.
Getting back to the blog I referred to, the Daily Kos, one posted as
``Ortcutt'' agrees with this point. Ortcutt, however, incorrectly
identifies the purveyor of the phony logic. The blogger puts it on
Congressional Republicans and President Bush. As the hard, cold numbers
in the Democratic budget resolutions and floor debate in the
Congressional Record show, Democrats claim that expired tax relief is
not a tax hike. Let me emphasize that.
Are we going to let people get away with that, when they know what
the law is on December 31, 2010, and the biggest tax increase in the
history of the country is going to happen, without a vote of the
people? And when that happens, they are saying it is not a tax hike?
Surely, they don't think the American people are that stupid. The
Democratic leadership are the folks trying to claim that their budgets,
which don't provide the revenue room for expired tax relief, don't
contain tax hikes. Hogwash.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Ortcutt
comment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Having It Both Ways
The Republicans want it both ways on budgets and expiring
tax cuts. If you look at the CBO's budget outlook, there will
be a surplus in 2012. However, the only reason for that is
that the temporary tax cuts of the so-called Economic Growth
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 will expire on
January 1, 2011. When a temporary tax cut expires is that a
tax increase or not? When the President Bush brags that the
budget will be balanced in 2012 without tax increases, he is
saying that letting a tax cut expire is not a tax increase.
But when Republicans debate extending the tax cuts, how many
Republicans do you think will cast letting a tax cut expire
as a tax increase. All of them. It's fundamentally dishonest
and disgusting. I just hope that we can get this fact through
to the American people.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, responding to another criticism, it is
completely off the mark to say the tax relief bills were written by
Republicans. It is almost as if the Democratic leadership is saying
that tax relief was passed by a National Republican Congress and not by
the Congress.
The 2001 bill was written by a bipartisan majority and was opposed by
a partisan minority led by the Democratic leadership. The conference
report to accompany the law that was entitled the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act passed the Senate on May 26, 2001.
I ask unanimous consent that the information pertaining to that
rollcall be printed in the Congressional Record so we can show it was a
bipartisan rollcall.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate Rollcall Votes 107th Congress--1st Session as Compiled
Through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk Under the Direction of the
Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Conference Report (H.R. 1836, Conference
Report).
Vote Number: 170; Vote Date: May 26, 2001, 11:25 a.m.
Required For Majority: 1/2; Vote Result: Conference report
agreed to.
Measure Number: H.R. 1836.
Measure Title: A bill to provide for reconciliation
pursuant to section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2002.
Vote Counts: YEAs 58; NAYs 33; Present 2; Not Voting 7.
alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Present, Giving Live Pair
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Present, Giving Live Pair
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Not Voting
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Not Voting
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Not Voting
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Not Voting
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH) Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Not Voting
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Not Voting
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
[[Page S4420]]
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Grouped By vote position
YEAs--58
Allard (R-CO) Frist (R-TN) Murkowski (R-AK)
Allen (R-VA) Gramm (R-TX) Nelson (D-NE)
Baucus (D-MT) Grassley (R-IA) Nickles (R-OK)
Bennett (R-UT) Gregg (R-NH) Roberts (R-KS)
Bond (R-MO) Hagel (R-NE) Santorum (R-PA)
Breaux (D-LA) Hatch (R-UT) Sessions (R-AL)
Brownback (R-KS) Helms (R-NC) Shelby (R-AL)
Bunning (R-KY) Hutchinson (R-AR) Smith (R-NH)
Burns (R-MT) Hutchison (R-TX) Smith (R-OR)
Campbell (R-CO) Inhofe (R-OK) Snowe (R-ME)
Carnahan (D-MO) Jeffords (R-VT) Specter (R-PA)
Cleland (D-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Stevens (R-AK)
Cochran (R-MS) Kohl (D-WI) Thomas (R-WY)
Collins (R-ME) Kyl (R-AZ) Thompson (R-TN)
Craig (R-ID) Landrieu (D-LA) Thurmond (R-SC)
Crapo (R-ID) Lincoln (D-AR) Torricelli (D-NJ)
DeWine (R-OH) Lott (R-MS) Voinovich (R-OH)
Ensign (R-NV) Lugar (R-IN) Warner (R-VA)
Feinstein (D-CA) McConnell (R-KY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL) Miller (D-GA)
NAYs--33
Bayh (D-IN) Dodd (D-CT) McCain (R-AZ)
Biden (D-DE) Dorgan (D-ND) Mikulski (D-MD)
Byrd (D-WV) Durbin (D-IL) Nelson (D-FL)
Cantwell (D-WA) Edwards (D-NC) Reed (D-RI)
Carper (D-DE) Feingold (D-WI) Reid (D-NV)
Chafee (R-RI) Graham (D-FL) Rockefeller (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY) Hollings (D-SC) Sarbanes (D-MD)
Conrad (D-ND) Inouye (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ) Kennedy (D-MA) Stabenow (D-MI)
Daschle (D-SD) Levin (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN)
Dayton (D-MN) Lieberman (D-CT) Wyden (D-OR)
Present--2
Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM)
Not Voting--7
Boxer (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Murray (D-WA)
Domenici (R-NM) Kerry (D-MA)
Enzi (R-WY) Leahy (D-VT)
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea; Shelby (R-AL), Yea.
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea; Stevens (R-AK), Yea.
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea; McCain (R-AZ), Nay.
Arkansas: Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea; Lincoln (D-AR), Yea.
California: Boxer (D-CA), Not Voting; Feinstein (D-CA),
Yea.
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea; Campbell (R-CO), Yea.
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay; Lieberman (D-CT), Nay.
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay; Carper (D-DE), Nay.
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Nay; Nelson (D-FL), Nay.
Georgia: Cleland (D-GA), Yea; Miller (D-GA), Yea.
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Present, Giving Live Pair; Inouye (D-
HI), Nay.
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea; Crapo (R-ID), Yea.
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay; Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea.
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay; Lugar (R-IN), Yea.
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea; Harkin (D-IA), Not Voting.
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea; Roberts (R-KS), Yea.
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea; McConnell (R-KY), Yea.
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Yea; Landrieu (D-LA), Yea.
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea; Snowe (R-ME), Yea.
Maryland; Mikulski (D-MD), Nay; Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay.
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay; Kerry (D-MA), Not
Voting.
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay; Stabenow (D-MI), Nay.
Minnesota: Dayton (D-MN), Nay; Wellstone (D-MN), Nay.
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea; Lott (R-MS), Yea.
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea; Carnahan (D-MO), Yea.
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea; Burns (R-MT), Yea.
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea; Nelson (D-NE), Yea.
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea; Reid (D-NV), Nay.
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea; Smith (R-NH), Yea.
New Jersey: Corzine (D-NJ), Nay; Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea.
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Present, Giving Live Pair;
Domenici (R-NM), Not Voting.
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay; Schumer (D-NY), Nay.
North Carolina: Edwards (D-NC), Nay; Helms (R-NC), Yea.
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay; Dorgan (D-ND), Nay.
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea; Voinovich (R-OH), Yea.
Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea; Nickles (R-OK), Yea.
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea; Wyden (D-OR), Nay.
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea; Specter (R-PA), Yea.
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Nay; Reed (D-RI), Nay.
South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Nay; Thurmond (R-SC), Yea.
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Nay; Johnson (D-SD), Yea.
Tennessee: Frist (R-TN), Yea; Thompson (R-TN), Yea.
Texas: Gramm (R-TX), Yea; Hutchison (R-TX), Yea.
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea; Hatch (R-UT), Yea.
Vermont: Jeffords (R-VT), Yea; Leahy (D-VT), Not Voting
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea; Warner (R-VA), Yea.
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay; Murray (D-WA), Not
Voting.
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay; Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay.
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay; Kohl (D-WI), Yea.
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Not Voting; Thomas (R-WY), Yea.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the 2001 tax relief bill passed the
Senate with 58 yeas. At that time, the Senate was evenly divided--50
Republicans and 50 Democrats--with the Republicans technically having
control because of the Vice President's vote. However, not every single
Republican voted for that tax relief measure. Those 58 yeas included 12
Democrats, nearly one-quarter of the 50 Democrats sitting in the Senate
at that particular time. If all of those Democrats had voted against
the conference report, it would have failed.
Clearly, it is ridiculous to say this was purely a Republican bill.
Given the experience the Democratic leadership has had with cloture
votes in the past few months, I would expect them to appreciate the
necessity of working on a bipartisan basis in this body. This is the
only political institution of our system where minority views are
protected and must be respected because of no limit on debate, called a
filibuster, and it takes 60 percent, a supermajority, to overcome a
filibuster to get to finality. That is where Democrats were protected
when they were in the minority for the last 6 years. This is where
Republicans are going to be protected for the next 2 years--and
hopefully no longer than 2 years--as a minority.
It takes 60 votes to get permanent tax relief. The bottom line is, we
didn't have the 60 votes in 2001 and 2003 for making these bipartisan
tax relief plans permanent. And with a couple exceptions I will discuss
shortly, over the last 6 years, we haven't had the 60 votes for
permanent tax relief.
So tax relief in 2001 was not made permanent because the Democratic
leadership and the liberal core of the Democratic caucus have refused
to support permanence, and that is apparent now more than ever with the
budget that is in conference between the House and Senate.
Of course, last November, the Democrats won control of both Houses of
Congress. I wonder if the House Democratic leadership will be sending
over any bills to make tax relief permanent. I doubt it. Even if the
House Democratic leadership did send over such a bill, I would not
expect the Senate Democratic leadership to take it up. When in
Republican hands, the House regularly sent over bills to provide
permanence for various components of the bipartisan tax relief bill
which they couldn't get through the Senate.
Senate Democrats are clearly capable of working with Republicans to
make tax relief provisions permanent if they like what they want to
make permanent. And we have done it in the past. The Holocaust
Restitution Tax Fairness Act of 2001 repealed the sunset of a provision
originally contained in the 2001 tax relief bill that allowed Holocaust
survivors and their heirs and estates to receive restitution payments
tax free. Making this provision permanent was absolutely the right
thing to do, and the fact that it passed the Senate by unanimous
consent proves that, and it passed it during a period when the
Democrats controlled the Chamber, indicating the level of cooperation
that occurred between Senate Republicans and Democrats when Democrats
want to make a provision of the tax law permanent law.
As I go through these examples, everyone needs to remember that
holding the majority in the Senate is not a
[[Page S4421]]
ticket for either party to force its agenda down the other party's
throat. Senate rules encourage cooperation by giving the minority many
opportunities to check the majority, and this becomes even more evident
when those majorities are very slim as they are right now--51
Democrats, 49 Republicans. And they have been very slim for the last
several Congresses.
I say this to point out that the Holocaust Restitution Act became
permanent because Republicans and Democrats worked together to make it
permanent, and it would not have been sent to the President if one side
or the other wanted to block it.
I will give one more example that occurred last summer as part of the
pension reform bill. We call that the Pension Protection Act of 2001.
It passed the Senate 93 yea votes and made permanent--now here we have
bipartisan cooperation to make permanent other parts of the tax bill--
the retirement security provisions of that 2001 tax bill. Even if every
Republican supported the bill, a united Democratic caucus could have
held back the five additional votes needed for final passage if they
chose.
Clearly, Democrats have a record of working with Republicans to make
tax relief provisions permanent when they choose to do it. So why not
work in the same way to make the rest of that tax law of 2001 and 2003
permanent so we don't have the biggest tax increase in the history of
the country without a vote of the American people, so we will have
permanence of tax law, so working men and women can plan on the future,
so investors who create jobs can plan on the future as well? That is
better for the economy.
Let me return to the present day. The House and Senate, then, as I
have said so many times, passed separate budget resolutions, now in
conference, but currently would end up subjecting Americans to the
largest tax increase in history, and the Democrats have responded by
basically declaring it is not their responsibility. How can a majority
so avoid the responsibility of being a majority?
The Democratic leadership and the liberal core have the power to make
these provisions permanent. I assure my colleagues we will be there
working with them as we did on the retirement portions of the pension
bill, as we did on the Holocaust relief bill, to make sure it becomes
permanent law.
I think they should, but I realize they may not agree with me.
However, if they do let tax relief expire, they have to take
responsibility for letting that happen. They have to take
responsibility for the biggest tax increase in the history of the
country happening without a vote of the people when they would have had
the cooperation of Republicans to make sure it was permanent and to
make sure this biggest tax increase doesn't happen.
Several times since November, I have heard that elections have
consequences, and one of those consequences is for the winner having
increased responsibility. Since Democrats have made tax relief
provisions permanent in the past--and I have given only two examples--
they can likewise do it again, and they will have Republican
cooperation to make it happen.
One of the bloggers I cited earlier points out the economic calamity
that would befall our country if all tax relief was allowed to expire
at the end of 2010. On this specific point, he is correct, and I gave a
speech to this effect right here on this floor on March 1 where I cited
a study done by the Wall Street firm of Goldman Sachs.
If something is not done to extend or make permanent tax relief
before the end of 2010, American families, working families, will be
hit with a wall of tax increases that is currently built into the
Democratic budget resolution.
I have a chart. This chart shows, according to the U.S. Treasury, not
according to this Senator from Iowa, a family of four with $40,000 of
income will be subjected to an average tax increase of $2,052 all at
once. The Democrats, now in the driver's seat, need to decide whether
they are going to let that wall go up, whether that wall is going to
stand between this taxpayer and more money for them to spend instead of
more money for me to spend for them, or are they going to take
advantage of the opportunity we give them to cooperate to prevent that
big tax increase of 2,000 and more dollars to go into effect for a
family with an income of $40,000, as though there is something about
being rich making $40,000 a year.
I want to conclude with a reference to a story about a man who cared
a great deal about the typical taxpayer, President Ronald Reagan.
During the Cold War, while in West Berlin, President Reagan challenged
Soviet President Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. I challenge
the Democratic leadership to tear down the wall of tax increases built
into their budgets. I hope my liberal friends in the core of the
Democratic caucus will urge the Democratic leaders to tear down the
wall of tax increases they have built. This is not a wall Republicans
built. This is a wall Democrats through their budget built because they
have the power, they have a minority that is willing to cooperate with
them, as we have on two other instances I have given in these remarks.
Join with us in the Republican conference and tear down the wall of tax
increases that has been built.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
15 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Cornyn pertaining to the introduction of S. 1096
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from West Virginia
is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senator Ted Stevens, Longest Serving Republican Senator
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, Senator Ted Stevens is not on the floor at
the moment. I am going to wait, if I may. I have the floor, do I not,
Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does.
Mr. BYRD. I am going to wait. I understand that Senator Stevens is on
his way. He will be here in a couple of minutes. I will await the
arrival, if the Chair will allow me, of Senator Ted Stevens. I
understand he is on his way, and I want him to be present to hear what
I am going to say.
Madam President, tomorrow, April 13, the very distinguished senior
Senator from Alaska, my dear friend, Senator Ted Stevens, will become,
if it is the good Lord's will, the longest serving Republican Senator
in the history of these United States. It will mark his, Senator Ted
Stevens's, 13,990th day as a Senator. Senator Stevens, on tomorrow, if
the Lord let's him live, will surpass the late Senator Strom Thurmond
of South Carolina, who served 13,989 days as a Republican Senator.
Tomorrow, Senator Stevens will serve, the good Lord willing, 13,990
days.
This is a great honor and an important milestone in the Senate career
of our esteemed colleague, my friend, Ted Stevens. I congratulate
Senator Ted Stevens for this monumental, historic achievement. As the
longest serving Democratic Senator in the history of the Senate, I,
Robert C. Byrd, welcome my friend, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, into
this most exclusive club. In fact, it is probably the most exclusive
club I know. There are only two of us, one Democrat and one Republican,
in it.
I have served in this Chamber with Senator Ted Stevens for nearly
four decades. He came here in 1968. Senator Stevens and I have served
together on the Senate Appropriations Committee since 1972. I was on
the committee a long time before that, but we, Senator Stevens and I,
have served together on the Senate Appropriations Committee
[[Page S4422]]
since 1972. During these years of service together, we have developed a
profound respect and admiration for each other. We now share many
memories, both on and off the Senate floor.
One of my favorite memories is a very special personal one. I recall
how Senator Stevens would bring his baby daughter Lily with him to the
Senate and carry her around the Capitol in a basket. Over the years, I
have become very close to Lily as well as her father. Lily is all grown
up now. As a matter of fact, she will finish law school this year. But
Senator Stevens remains the proud, loving father he always has been.
A couple of years ago, when the Senate was working into the late
hours of the night and tensions were running high, as they occasionally
do around here, Senator Ted Stevens took me by the arm and pulled me
aside because he had something he wanted to show me. It was an article
that Lily had written about the U.S. Capitol that had just been
published by the U.S. Historical Society, and he, Senator Stevens,
wanted to share it with me. I remarked at the time how touched I was by
this. It was a father's pride in his child's accomplishment. I recall
it now as a loving reminder that the Senate is a family--the Senate is
a family.
Senator Ted Stevens is a Republican. I am a Democrat. Of course, we
have had a few differences in our lives. We have been here for a long
time on this floor--right here on this floor. But, actually, some of
them became quite heated. Senator Stevens, as you know, says what he
thinks. He is a man. He is a gentleman. He is a Senator. He says what
he thinks. Oh, here he is, right here on the floor. I had to look
around now to remind me he was there.
Now, some of these things have become quite heated. We both tend--
Senator Stevens and I--to be strong-willed persons, U.S. Senators, with
different political philosophies. And each of us is determined to
represent the best interests of his and my home State and the people--
the people--who send us here. So, naturally, at times, we are going to
disagree.
But I feel I can say before God and man and Senators--I feel I can
say without fear of contradiction--that not once--not once--have we
allowed our political differences to become personal ones.
I have come to admire Senator Ted Stevens as a man of immense
integrity, high personal principles, and unqualified honesty.
I admire Senator Ted Stevens as a great American. He is a patriot. He
is a patriot whose devotion for our country--this country, yours and
mine--led him to join the Army Air Corps during World War II, where he,
Senator Stevens, flew support missions for the Flying Tigers of the
14th Air Force. For his service, Senator Stevens--he was not a Senator
then--but Senator Stevens, for his service at that time, was awarded
numerous medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. Let me say
that again. For his service, he was awarded numerous medals,
including--including--the Distinguished Flying Cross.
In the 1950s, after graduating from Harvard Law School, Senator
Stevens began his long and remarkable career in public service by
serving in various positions in the Eisenhower administration.
Senator Stevens is also a great legislator. In our nearly four
decades in the Senate, Senator Stevens and I have also worked together
on numerous bills. We have even cosponsored some together. This
includes S. 880, the Senate Family Leave Act, which is currently under
consideration in the Senate.
I especially admire Senator Stevens for his work on the Senate
Appropriations Committee. During his years as chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, he was bipartisan, cooperative, and
respectful of everyone, just the way the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, or any Senate committee, ought to be.
While noting that Senator Stevens has served as chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, allow me to point out that I have
always been impressed by the similarity of our careers.
As I have already mentioned, I am the longest serving Democratic
Senator ever. Tomorrow, Senator Ted Stevens will become the longest
serving Republican Senator.
Both of us have served as President pro tempore of the Senate and
President pro tempore emeritus.
Both of us--Senator Stevens and I--have served as our party's whip in
the Senate. The ``whip'' is an old term. When the fox hunters went out,
and they brought the hounds in, they used whips, and they knew how to
use them. So both of us--Senator Stevens and I--have served as our
individual party's--his is the Republican Party; mine is the Democratic
Party--each of us has served as his party's whip in the Senate. The
term ``whip'' goes back a long way. It goes back to England and the
House of Commons.
Both of us--Senator Stevens and I--have chaired the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and each has served as ranking member on the
committee.
Both of us have been honored with recognition as the ``King of
Pork''--the ``King of Pork''--while I am sure the organization that
gave us that title intended it to be something less than a compliment.
Madam President, I again congratulate this great Senator, this fine
legislator, this outstanding American for his historic achievement.
Senator Stevens is truly the kind of man whom our country and this
Chamber need.
I close with a poem. I know it by memory. I am going to read it into
the Record:
Not gold, but only men can make a Nation great and strong;
men who for truth and honor's sake, stand fast and
labor long.
Real men who work while others sleep, who dare while others
fly. They build a Nation's pillars deep and lift them
to the sky.
Madam President, for the record, I will yield the floor soon, but for
right now, I see on the other side of the aisle three very
distinguished Senators. I see Senator Ted Stevens, I see Senator
Cochran, Thad Cochran of Mississippi. Now, we are not supposed to say
these things such as this--and I see the great Senator from Georgia,
Senator Isakson. By the way, let me tell my colleagues, Senator Isakson
comes over to my desk here every day I am here and he takes the time to
shake my hand. He does. He takes the time to speak with me and to talk
with me. One day I may make a little speech on the Senate floor, God
willing, and I am going to talk about Senator Isakson. But today, I
salute my friend Senator Ted Stevens.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, does the Senator yield the floor at
this time?
Mr. BYRD. I do.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I regret I wasn't here at the
commencement of the comments of the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia, but I am overwhelmed and honored that he would make these
comments, and particularly that he would reference his relationship to
our youngest daughter Lily who has great love and affection for Senator
Byrd. We have come through a lot of travails, each of us, during our
times in the Senate, and I have always found Senator Byrd to be a warm
and great friend in times of trouble and very gracious when in times
such as this. We could stand here and I would tell the Senate some of
the times I have spent with Senator Byrd, including the time once in
Britain when we gathered together a group of British and United States
members of the British-American Parliamentary Conference and we
listened to Senator Byrd tell us about his life and some of the things
he had done as a child, and we listened to him recite many of the great
poems he knows. He has one of the most prodigious memories I have ever
known, and he is the most gracious Member of the Senate. He always has
been very kind and helpful.
I came here as an appointed Senator and took the position of--we
called it the Bartlett seat, Senator Bob Bartlett's seat. Senator Byrd
was very gracious to Senator Bartlett as Alaska's first senior Senator,
and he extended greetings to me as Senator Bartlett's replacement, and
throughout these nearly 40 years he has been a great friend. We have
had differences of opinion, but we have never had a disagreeable word
between us. God willing, that will never happen.
So I thank my friend. He honors me, he honors my family, and he
honors the Senate by the remarks he made about the Senate itself. We
are a family. This aisle ought not to be a canyon; it ought to be very
easy to step across that aisle and shake hands with
[[Page S4423]]
a friend as I have just done. I thank the Senator for what he has said
and for giving me the opportunity to be here when he said it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the very able and distinguished
Senator from Alaska yield so I might say a few words?
Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to do so.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator, my friend, for what he has said. I
salute him, my friend. I wish Erma, my darling wife, were here, sitting
up in the gallery. We have rules that we don't speak to the gallery,
but I wish she were here. She knew Senator Stevens. She knew Mrs.
Stevens. She knew us, my wife, and Mrs. Stevens, who is not here today,
but my wife knew us, Senator Stevens and me, her childhood sweetheart,
Robert C. Byrd, she knew we were friends, Senator Stevens and I, the
closest of friends. Now, when I say the closest of friends, Senators
know what that means. That doesn't mean Senator Stevens and I go out
together at night and drink booze together or anything such as that. We
are the closest of friends. I don't have anything against Senators or
anybody else who wants to go out and drink booze. I don't. I won't say
what I have done in my lifetime, but I know a little bit about what
booze is. I know what we are talking about.
Senators Stevens and I are the dearest of friends. I happen to be,
through the good Lord's will, in my ninetieth year. I will be 90 in
November, if it is the good Lord's will and I live to see the 20th day
of November. I don't mind talking out loud, because as Popeye the
Sailor Man used to say: I yam what I yam, and that is all I yam.
Now, Senator Stevens--I am not supposed to address him, a colleague,
like this, but I am going to do that with the Senate's permission. This
is not in accordance with the rules. Senator Stevens, I want to say to
you--I want to say to you in the presence of Senator Cochran, who is a
Senator on the Appropriations Committee, along with Senator Stevens and
me--I know the right grammar, you see--along with the Senator from
Mississippi, and me. Some might think I should say the Senator from
Mississippi and I.
I am supposed to say it, because I am talking in a different vein,
but Senator Cochran serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee with
me. And he and I--in other words, he, Senator Thad Cochran and I--serve
on the Senate Appropriations Committee together, and Senator Stevens
has at times been the chairman of that Appropriations Committee. I was
the ranking member. What I am going to say, Senator Stevens and I--I am
not supposed to talk in the first person. We usually in the Senate talk
to the distinguished Senator from Alaska. I want to say to Senator
Stevens, though, in the Senate, he is my friend. He knows that. Senator
Stevens, I admire you. I respect you. You are a great Senator from a
great State. Under the Constitution, he and I, as Senators, belong to
the greatest deliberative body in the world. I respect the history of
England and the House of Commons. That is a great body. The House of
Lords, that is a great body. But the U.S. Senate is the upper House,
the so-called upper House, and it is the upper House. There are two
Houses, and the Senate is the upper House, because it used to be up
there in the old days, and so the Members referred to the Senate as the
upper House.
Senator Stevens--I am going to speak to him as I shouldn't--I know
what the rules are, but I am going to say to Senator Stevens directly
this may be the last time--who knows; it may not be--that I will ever
speak to him on the floor like this. Senator Stevens, I love you, I
respect you, and I admire you. I hope God will always bless you and
hold you in the hollow of his hand. In the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, I pray and ask for the forgiveness of my own shortcomings.
Senator Stevens, you are my friend, and we will let it go at that.
Madam President, I am going to yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, all I can say to my friend is that I am
already blessed by God to be your friend, and I thank you very much.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Mississippi
is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here to hear the
remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, my good
friend, and to join with others who have honored and paid tribute to
Senator Stevens on the occasion of his reaching a milestone where he
has served in the Senate longer than any other Republican Member in
history.
I had the privilege, when I was a new Member of the House of
Representatives after my election in 1972, to observe Senator Stevens
as he worked with Howard Baker as the Republican leaders of the Senate
and to come to respect him and know him and then to join the Senate
body after the election of 1978. He has been a mentor and a dear friend
throughout my career in the Senate, and I can say one could have no
greater fortune than to serve in the presence of Senator Byrd and
Senator Stevens and others who were the true leaders of the Senate when
I was a new Member.
I have come to appreciate and respect them more as time has gone on.
I recall Senator Stevens becoming chairman, after Senator Byrd had
served as chairman, of the Appropriations Committee. It was my good
fortune to become a member of that committee after only 2 years in the
Senate. I have appreciated the opportunity to work closely with him
ever since.
Senator Stevens, of course, was our President pro tempore. I don't
recall a more diligent and hard-working President pro tempore than was
Senator Stevens. He had some big shoes to fill: Strom Thurmond, Jim
Eastland from my State of Mississippi, and Senator Byrd; and all were
dutiful. I recall Senator Stevens personally being there every morning
to open the Senate, usually a duty delegated to others; and he probably
presided personally over the Senate as much as any person who has
occupied that position of responsibility.
To be here today and to hear Dan Inouye talk about his early
recollections of their service together in the Senate, and other
Senators who have spoken on this special occasion in the life of our
Senate, has made me happy to be here and to be able to observe and
appreciate this day in the history of the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to tell a quick story. I was in my
office working and watching the beginning of Senator Byrd's speech
about Senator Stevens. I was reminded that I had a picture of two
fellows who came up from Georgia to cook for the Senate at a barbecue.
It is a picture of Senator Stevens, myself, and those two gentlemen.
The reason I ran over here is to say this: When I asked who the two
gentlemen wanted to have their picture taken with, they said Senator
Ted Stevens. I think that is a testimony to his reach, which is far
beyond Alaska and to my home in Georgia.
Secondly, when I saw Senator Byrd speak, I knew he was speaking about
Senator Stevens, and I realized the embodiment of history in the Senate
that these two gentlemen represent. To come and sit down as Senator
Thad Cochran came into the Chamber, I realized this 2-year rookie of
the Senate was sitting among greatness.
My favorite book of all time is ``The Greatest Generation'' because
it tells true stories of those great men and women who, in the most
critical test in the history of our country, defeated the axis powers
in Germany and in the Pacific and saw to it that this democracy
continued. Senator Stevens fought bravely for this country in the
Pacific. As I was born in 1944, his generation was seeing to it that I
would have the opportunity to live the life I have and one day actually
come to the Senate.
Senator Stevens, I wanted to say, as a youngster in the Senate, thank
you for what you have done. You sacrificed, and you have allowed me to
be able to take advantage and eventually come to the Senate. I pass
those same compliments on to Mr. Cochran and Mr. Byrd. These are three
great Americans with whom I am honored to share a moment today.
Congratulations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
[[Page S4424]]
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cochran, I thank Senator
Stevens, and I thank the great Senator from Georgia, Senator Isakson,
for their kind words.
I thank the Chair and I thank God we were here today. I thank our
Heavenly Father, especially, for this man, this Senator, Ted Stevens,
and for his service to our country and to the Senate. I salute him as
one of the great Senators of my time--and I have been here a long time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
TAX DAY
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today because it is that time of
year again. Tax day is almost upon us. As millions of Americans rush to
get their taxes done this weekend, and many having just completed the
process, we all know what a pain it is to have your hard-earned dollars
taken away by the Government.
Mr. President, if you thought this year was painful, I have terrible
news for you. It is going to get a lot worse. Under the new management
in Congress, the Democrats have proposed a budget that would result in
the largest tax increase in America's history. That means more money
will be taken away from families and small businesses. Since we all
just completed one, or are about to do so, I want to have us look at
how the Democrats are going to increase America's taxes on a typical
1040 tax form.
Let's start up here with filing status. Say you are a married couple
filing jointly. The marriage penalty is back. That means married
couples are going to pay somewhere in the range of another $1,360 more
in higher taxes because of the return of the marriage penalty.
Some taxpayers are going to find their exemption of $3,300 get cut to
zero.
Go down to dividends and senior citizens. Anybody who has a dividend
in this country is going to see their taxes increased on dividends to
39.6 percent, which is an increase from the current tax rate on
dividends of 15 percent.
Capital gains. Let's say you are a senior citizen and you have
capital gains income. Your tax rate is going to go from 15 percent to
20 percent.
How about those families that are putting kids through college and
are now taking advantage of the student loan interest deduction? Well,
that, too, is going to be capped for families making more than $60,000
a year.
Let's move over to the taxpayers who itemize deductions, such as
mortgage interest, charitable contributions, State and local tax
deduction. What is going to happen there is you are going to see this
go up; it will be capped, the amount they can deduct.
Take the alternative minimum tax, right down here. The alternative
minimum tax is going to affect an additional 20 million Americans who
are going to have to pay that.
How about the credit for child and dependent care expenses, which is
something the working families in this country take advantage of. There
again, that credit is going to be slashed by 31 percent.
The child tax credit that a lot of working families in this country
take advantage of is currently at $1,000. That also is going to be
slashed in half from $1,000 down to $500.
Let's take a look at the earned-income tax credit. Again, this is a
credit which is taken advantage of by a lot of lower income working
Americans and a lot of people who are serving their country--soldiers,
men and women in uniform--slashed.
Let's take a look at the tax rate schedule, too, because I think this
is very important. If you are a taxpayer today paying at the 10-percent
tax rate, the 10-percent tax rate is boom, gone, boom, gone, boom,
gone, boom, gone. If you are paying at the 25-percent tax rates, your
taxes are going to go up to 28 percent. You lose the 25-percent rate.
If you are paying at the 28-percent rate, your taxes are going to go up
to 31 percent. If you are someone who is paying currently at the 33-
percent rate, your taxes are going to go up--boom--to 36 percent. If
you are someone who is currently paying taxes at the 35-percent rate,
your taxes are going to go up to 39.6 percent.
So what does all this mean? Everybody wants to know, when they do
their taxes, what the bottom line is; how does it affect me when it
comes to the actual amount of taxes I am going to pay?
We took a typical family in South Dakota to see how it would impact
them. A typical family in South Dakota, when it comes down to computing
the amount they are going to owe in taxes under this Democratic budget,
will pay an additional $2,596 in taxes on top of what they are already
paying this year if this Democratic budget is enacted.
The point I am simply making is this: When you get behind and read
through all the fine print in the Democratic budget, you come down to
one simple conclusion: higher taxes--higher taxes for married couples
because of the return of the marriage penalty. You are going to get
penalized for being married. That is the ``benefit'' for being married,
if the Democratic budget is enacted; higher taxes for seniors, who are
going to pay a 39-percent tax rate on dividend income; a 20-percent tax
increase, from 15 percent, on capital gains distributions; higher taxes
on working families in this country who are trying to put their kids
through college and who are going to lose some of the deductions they
currently get for student loan interest.
If I take it over to the next chart, the credit for child dependent
care expenses, child tax credit, impacting working families, higher
taxes for working families, higher taxes for low-income Americans
because of the earned-income tax credit, and again, most importantly
probably in all of this, the 10-percent rate lower income Americans
currently pay is gone, it is eliminated--gone, boom. Every tax rate on
the rate schedule today is going to go up, from 25 percent to 28
percent, from 28 percent to 31 percent, from 33 percent to 36 percent,
and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Every person in this country who
pays taxes today is going to see a higher tax bill because of this
Democratic budget. And as I said--every State can check this out for
themselves--in my State of South Dakota, a typical bill is going to go
up by $2,596 over this year.
That is the bottom line. That is the bottom line on the Democratic
budget--higher taxes, the highest, biggest increase in taxes in
America's history.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Congratulating Senator Stevens
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, tomorrow our colleague and friend Ted
Stevens will mark his 13,990th day as a Senator. It is an auspicious
occasion because he will pass Strom Thurmond as the Senator who served
longest as a member of the Republican Party.
I remember well when Ted Stevens came to the Senate in 1968. It seems
like only yesterday. It is a great honor to say we have served together
here for more than 38 years.
Ted was appointed to fill the seat of a true giant of public service,
Bob Bartlett, the architect of Alaska statehood, who had passed away
just before Christmas in 1968. I can't help but think all these years
later that Bob Bartlett would be the first to pay tribute to what his
friend Ted Stevens has accomplished as his successor in the Senate.
I admire many things about my colleague from Alaska, the first and
foremost being that he knows why he is here. He came to the Senate 9
years after Alaska was admitted to the Union, a State nearly a quarter
the size of the continental United States and encompassing some of the
most unforgiving geography and weather in the world. It is a State of
tremendous natural beauty and indomitable spirit, but also enormous
challenges brought about by its immense size, its distance
[[Page S4425]]
from the lower 48, and its close proximity to the North Pole.
Ted Stevens came to the Senate to fight for the State of Alaska and
the wonderful people who call it home. More than 38 years later, his
purpose continues just as clearly and his determination just as strong.
His skill and passion in championing the people of his State are a
remarkable tribute to the bond he has formed with the people of Alaska
and his colleagues in Congress.
In fact, Ted Stevens has given his entire career in service to others
and to his country. He is a true public servant, a servant in the
finest sense of the word. As a member of the Army Air Corps, he flew
with the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force and earned two
Distinguished Flying Crosses. The slogan of the Army Air Corps in those
days was: The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a
little longer.
That has certainly been true of his service in the Senate, too. He
has been a respected leader on military issues and a strong defender of
some of the bravest workers in the world, our Nation's fishermen. We
share that love for fishermen and for the sea, as our two States are
defined by their relationship with the sea, its bounty, its beauty, and
its mystery.
He has answered the call of public service in countless ways time and
time again. I saw his passion and determination to improve the lives of
Native Alaskans when I traveled with him in his first year as a Senator
to visit remote villages in Alaska back in April of 1969, and it is the
same passion and determination I see today.
Ted, Walter Mondale, and I traveled over 3,600 miles throughout the
State visiting Anchorage, Pilot Station, Arctic Village, and other
villages. We traveled at times by ski plane and even by dogsled.
We were traveling with the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Education,
and I will never forget what we saw. There were no Native Alaskan
teachers and few spoke native languages, making it nearly impossible
for the schoolchildren to learn, many of whom had never even heard
English. We saw villages where people had to walk 2 miles through
frozen tundra to find drinking water and other villages where only 8
out of 100 Native Alaskans were graduating from high school.
I remember our subcommittee hearing in Fairbanks and the Pilot
Station teacher who told us that the warmest she could ever get her
classroom was zero degrees Fahrenheit. Imagine children trying to learn
when it is that cold in the classroom.
More than anything else, I remember Ted Stevens determination to
improve the lives of the people and give them the opportunity to build
a better future. We were able to pass legislation to improve water
treatment facilities in Native Alaskan villages and improve education
for the children as a result of that trip--and none of it would have
happened without Ted Stevens.
I also feel a special closeness with Ted because in addition to the
many years we have served side by side, we both share the same soft-
spoken and gentle approach for advancing our priorities and the many
causes we care about so deeply. I only wish he were a Democrat.
I also pay tribute to Ted's wonderful wife Catherine. She is an
extraordinary woman, a person of enormous kindness and compassion who
has been so understanding over the years of the demanding and often
bizarre schedules we keep in this Chamber.
I have come to know her through her impressive service to the Kennedy
Center, where she has made such a great impact on the Board of
Trustees. This milestone is very much hers as well. We know the
innumerable sacrifices a Senator's spouse has to make--especially those
who make their home on the farthest side of the continent.
So I congratulate both Ted Stevens and Catherine Stevens on this
extraordinary milestone. Well done, my friends, and best wishes for
many more record-breaking days among us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from
Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, again, I am indebted to my friend from
Massachusetts. We have spent many times together and, as he says,
shared a great many goals. I am very pleased that he would make these
remarks. I think that it sort of reminds me of a little bit of a little
too much ado about nothing, but I do appreciate him being here. Thank
you very much.
As Senator Kennedy leaves, I should repeat something I have told
often, and that is, back in 1969, as a brandnew appointed Senator, I
joined Senator Kennedy and others in going to the villages of Alaska.
We found mold on the hospital walls in Bethel. When we came back, we
started the process of replacing it, and it is a beautiful hospital
today.
But we also went to the small villages. We went down to Pilots
Station, and we were walking through this little village. All of a
sudden, a little boy, baby boy, came running out, had a top on, but he
obviously had lost his diaper.
My friend scooped him up, unzipped his parka, and put him inside. We
walked around to find out where his home was. We came to this nice,
small, well-kept native cabin. It was obvious that the mother was
looking for her son.
We went in and Senator Kennedy gave her the boy, and there on the
wall of that little cabin was his brother, President Kennedy's
photograph. It is a small world. I will never forget it. Thank you.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Another Warning on Darfur
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to again address the terrible
crisis in Darfur and the surrounding region. For the last few months, I
have come to the floor on a weekly basis to remind my colleagues and
those who follow the transactions in the Senate that while we have
debated many important issues, we have not done enough when it comes to
the genocide in Darfur.
About 4 years ago, President Bush acknowledged that a genocide was
taking place. It is a rare occurrence for a President of the United
States to make that admission. I saluted him for that and praised him
because it took courage. He said what others were afraid to say, that
the killing in Darfur of hundreds of thousands of people was, in fact,
a genocide--a calculated effort to wipe a people off the map. Several
hundred thousand have died, and more than a million have been displaced
from their homes. The genocide in Darfur continues to this day.
Although we have pronounced this situation to be one of the most
uncivilized in the history of our planet, the fact is that little or
nothing has been done to save these poor innocent people.
This week's newspapers across the country were full of stories about
Sudan. The papers illustrate both the expansion of death, destruction,
and chaos in and around Darfur and the inability or unwillingness of
the United States and other countries to stop this violence.
Wednesday's Washington Post described how Sudanese jingaweit
militiamen crossed over the border into neighboring Chad and killed
hundreds of people. This article, which I came across as I was reading
the paper, is graphic. A report in the Washington Post through the
Associated Press on April 10 says that:
Sudanese Janjaweed militiamen killed as many as 400 people
in the volatile eastern border region near Sudan, leaving an
``apocalyptic'' scene of mass graves and destruction, the
U.N. refugee agency said Tuesday.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said in this article:
Estimates of the number of dead have increased
substantially and now range between 200 and 400. Because most
of the dead were buried where their bodies were found--often
in common graves owing to their numbers--we may never know
the exact number.
The article goes on to say:
The attackers encircled the villages, opened fire, pursued
fleeing villagers, robbed women and shot the men, the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees said. Many who
[[Page S4426]]
survived the initial attack died later from exhaustion and
dehydration, often while fleeing.
Some have argued that the genocide is over, as sad and tragic as it
was, that it is finished, but this news article tells us a different
story. The report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
that 200 to 400 people were slaughtered is a grim reminder that this
country, having declared a genocide in Darfur, cannot stand idly by as
these reports are made.
When I consider the situation in Darfur, I understand that it is a
challenge for the United States to think about what we might do to make
this situation better. We know that violence is not only spreading
across the border into eastern Chad but continues virtually unabated in
this country of Sudan.
Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte is traveling to Sudan this
week to deliver a message to Khartoum. I am hopeful. John Negroponte is
a seasoned diplomat. He is being sent on an important mission. I hope
his message is nothing short of a final warning that the Government of
Sudan must accept the United Nations and African Union peacekeeping
mission and that these peacekeeping forces must have the numbers, the
equipment, and the mandate to truly protect the innocent people of that
country.
I have read newspaper accounts that President Bush is angry and
frustrated over Sudan's refusal to accept the peacekeepers and our
collective failure to do anything about it. I have spoken personally to
the President twice about this issue, and both times I have urged him,
having shown the courage to declare a genocide in Darfur, to show the
same courage in ordering an action by the United States that will start
to protect these people. My frustration and anger grows by the day, but
my sadness grows more when I read these press accounts.
I have been told by members of the administration that one thing that
would help would be stronger civil penalties to levy against persons
who currently violate our sanctions laws against Sudan. I am happy to
introduce legislation which would do that. I also believe we need to
strengthen sanction laws themselves to provide additional resources to
ensure their enforcement. Even more importantly, we must convince the
world to act as well.
The largest single economic player in the Sudan today is China. The
single greatest export for Sudan is oil. Petrochina, the Chinese
company, is a major player in that nation. That offers the Chinese
powerful leverage to convince the Khartoum Government to accept U.N.
peacekeepers.
In this morning's Washington Post, in what is billed as an unusually
strong message, the Chinese urged Sudan on Wednesday to show more
flexibility on a peace plan for the devastated Darfur region, but they
went on to say the Chinese said that other countries would not help the
situation by dictating the terms of action.
This article goes on to talk about China buying oil from Sudan and
holding veto power in the U.N. Security Council. There have been many
critics of China because, frankly, they have threatened a veto if we
try to take action through the Security Council to deal with the
genocide in Darfur. Perhaps that is what motivated the Assistant
Foreign Minister Ahzi Jun to hold a press conference on his return from
a trip to Sudan. He said at the end of that press conference:
We suggest the Sudan side show flexibility and accept this
plan--
That is the peace plan--
offered by the U.N. to deploy a hybrid African Union-U.N.
force into Darfur.
These are moderate words from the Chinese. I really had hoped for
more. But at least they are speaking out, I think none too soon, as we
read this terrible press account of what is occurring in this region.
Recently, the Wall Street Journal, on March 28, 2007, published an
article written by Ronan Farrow and Mia Farrow entitled ``The Genocide
Olympics.'' That article reminded the readers of the Wall Street
Journal of China's slogan for the 2008 Olympics. The slogan is ``One
World, One Dream.'' But what they note here is that what is going on in
Darfur is a nightmare, and the Chinese have to do something about
it. They make a point--and one we all appreciate--that we want to
believe that China is moving into the family of civilized nations, that
the Olympics will be proof of this change in China over the years, but
many of us will judge China not by its slogans or its press releases
but by its actions.
This month, the United Kingdom is chairing the U.N. Security Council.
Next month, the United States will hold that position. I think it is
imperative that the United States force a vote on multilateral actions
against the Sudanese. That is the only way to move us toward a
peacekeeping force.
Some argue that China may veto that resolution, but that shouldn't
stop us. If they want to go on record as standing in the way of
stopping this genocide, so be it. It will be a bitter commentary on
their aspirations for one world and one dream.
There is also an effort underway in the United States for divestment.
The Los Angeles Times reports the Council of Priests of the Archdiocese
of Los Angeles has added their voice in calling for divestment of
companies operating in Sudan. At the urging of one of their members--a
priest who is a former stockbroker--the council wrote to the firm which
handles the retirement accounts for the 350 priests in the Archdiocese
urging it to sell its shares in Petrochina and Sinopec Corporation.
That investment firm is Fidelity, which is the single largest U.S.
holder of American shares in Petrochina. They have reportedly been
hearing from thousands of their shareholders on this subject.
I am not a shareholder in Fidelity, but I have our family investments
through mutual funds in this company, and I will be notifying them that
if they do not divest their holdings of this Chinese oil company in
Sudan on a timely basis, that I will be changing my company. I think
that is a small thing. I don't have that big of an account, but if
others will join me in that effort, perhaps they will think twice about
these investments.
Petrochina and Sinopec are involved in some of Sudan's largest oil
projects. My guess is the retirement accounts of 350 Catholic priests
in Los Angeles won't make a big impact on Fidelity, but I certainly
hope a number of others will join me in letting them know it is time to
divest of this investment.
Along with Senator Cornyn of Texas and a growing number of bipartisan
cosponsors, I have introduced legislation to support efforts by State
and local governments to divest of holdings in the Sudan. There are
some who say that divestment is not the way to go. They claim it is
just going to take too long. But is that an excuse for doing nothing to
pressure the Sudanese in the midst of a genocide?
The violence in Darfur has been going on for 4 years. The President
declared 2 years ago that this was genocide. To say divestment is too
slow ignores the fact that every pressure point we apply makes it a
little bit harder for the Sudanese Government to continue on their
present course. I see no reason we shouldn't take every step we can to
end this disaster. Eight States and over fifty colleges and
universities are leading the way.
I am proud that my home State of Illinois was the first to pass
divestment legislation. Already, investment firms that offer Sudan-free
investment vehicles are tracking billions of investments. Several major
European and Canadian companies have ended their operations in the
Sudan. The divestment campaign is already having an impact.
Some people also criticize divestment efforts because anti-apartheid
laws from two decades ago are still on the books in some states and
localities. The bipartisan bill I have introduced with Senator Cornyn
addresses this issue with a sunset clause: If the Federal Government
lifts its sanctions against Sudan, the authorization provided in our
bill would expire.
Finally, some argue that State governments should not be making
Federal policy. Divestment is about States making choices about how
they invest their pensions and other funds. The Durbin-Brownback bill
recognizes that choice and extends Federal support for it in the face
of ongoing genocide in Sudan.
I ask unanimous consent that an article I am about to refer to be
printed in the Record after my reference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this article is from the Atlantic
Magazine,
[[Page S4427]]
April 2007 issue. I came across it and was attracted to the title of
this article by Steven Faris titled ``The Real Roots of Darfur.''
When we have this debate about global warming and talk about climate
change, we talk about the impact it might have on a great State such as
Florida over many years and other places around the world. Mr. Faris
writes an article that talks about the climate change in this area, the
Darfur region, which has taken place over the last several years. What
they once billed as an occasional drought or bad agricultural practices
now has become a recurring trend.
Here is what Mr. Faris wrote in the Atlantic Magazine:
By the time of the Darfur conflict 4 years ago, scientists
had identified another cause. Climate scientists fed
historical sea-surface temperatures into a variety of
computer models about atmospheric change. Given the
particular pattern of ocean temperature changes worldwide,
the model strongly predicted a disruption in African
monsoons.
Of course, the rainy seasons.
Columbia University's Alessandra Giannini led one of the analyses and
said:
This was not caused by people cutting trees or overgrazing.
The roots of the drying of Darfur, she and her colleagues
have found, lay in changes to the global climate.
There is a competition here for land between farmers and those who
have livestock, and that is part of the tension in this area.
The article goes on to conclude:
With countries across the region and around the world
suffering similar pressures, some see Darfur as a canary in
the coal mine, a foretaste of climate-driven political chaos.
Environmental degradation creates very dry tinder, so if someone
wants to light a match to it, they can light it up.
I wish to put this into the Congressional Record for those who follow
this debate because I have spoken about a lot of reasons for the
violence here, and it is the first time I have seen a suggestion of
environmental causation.
Exhibit 1
The Real Roots of Darfur
(By Stephan Faris)
To truly understand the crisis in Darfur--and it has been
profoundly misunderstood--you need to look back to the mid-
1980s, before the violence between African and Arab began to
simmer. Alex de Waal, now a program director at the Social
Science Research Council, was there at that time, as a
doctoral candidate doing anthropological fieldwork. Earlier
this year, he told me a story that, he says, keeps coming
back to him. De Waal was traveling through the dry scrub of
Darfur, studying indigenous reactions to the drought that
gripped the region. In a herders' camp near the desert's
border, he met with a bedridden and nearly blind Arab sheikh
named Hilal Abdalla, who said he was noticing things he had
never seen before: Sand blew into fertile land, and the rare
rain washed away alluvial soil. Farmers who had once hosted
his tribe and his camels were now blocking their migration;
the land could no longer support both herder and farmer. Many
tribesmen had lost their stock and scratched at millet
farming on marginal plots.
The God-given order was broken, the sheikh said, and he
feared the future. ``The way the world was set up since time
immemorial was being disturbed,'' recalled de Waal. And it
was bewildering, depressing. And the consequences were
terrible.''
In 2003, another scourge, now infamous, swept across
Darfur. Janjaweed fighters in military uniforms, mounted on
camels and horses, laid waste to the region. In a campaign of
ethnic cleansing targeting Darfur's blacks, the armed
militiamen raped women, burned houses, and tortured and
killed men offighting age. Through whole swaths of the
region, they left only smoke curling into the sky.
At their head was a 6-foot-4 Arab with an athletic build
and a commanding presence. In a conflict the United States
would later call genocide, he topped the State Department's
list of suspected war criminals. De Waal recognized him: His
name was Musa Hilal, and he was the sheikh's son.
The fighting in Darfur is usually described as racially
motivated, pitting mounted Arabs against black rebels and
civilians. But the fault lines have their origins in another
distinction, between settled farmers and nomadic herders
fighting over failing lands. The aggression of the warlord
Musa Hilal can be traced to the fears of his father, and to
how climate change shattered a way of life.
Until the rains began to fail, the sheikh's people lived
amicably with the settled farmers. The nomads were welcome
passers-through, grazing their camels on the rocky hillsides
that separated the fertile plots. The farmers would share
their wells, and the herders would feed their stock on the
leavings from the harvest. But with the drought, the farmers
began to fence off their land-even fallow land--for fear it
would be ruined by passing herds. A few tribes drifted
elsewhere or took up farming, but the Arab herders stuck to
their fraying livelihoods--nomadic herding was central to
their cultural identity. (The distinction between ``Arab''
and ``African'' in Darfur is defined more by lifestyle than
any physical difference: Arabs are generally herders,
Africans typically farmers. The two groups are not racially
distinct.)
The name Darfur means ``Land of the Fur'' (the largest
single tribe of farmers in Darfur), but the vast region holds
the tribal lands--the dars--of many tribes. In the late
1980s, landless and increasingly desperate Arabs began
banding together to wrest their own dar from the black
farmers. In 1987, they published a manifesto of racial
superiority, and clashes broke out between Arabs and Fur.
About 3,000 people, mostly Fur, were killed, and hundreds of
villages and nomadic camps were burned before a peace
agreement was signed in 1989. More fighting in the 1990s
entrenched the divisions between Arabs and non-Arabs, pitting
the Arab pastoralists against the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit
farmers. In these disputes, Sudan's central government,
seated in Khartoum, often supported the Arabs politically and
sometimes provided arms.
In 2003, a rebellion began in Darfur--a reaction against
Khartoum's neglect and political marginalization of the
region. And while the rebels initially sought a pan-ethnic
front, the schism between those who opposed the government
and those who supported it broke largely on ethnic lines.
Even so, the conflict was rooted more in land envy than in
ethnic hatred. ``Interestingly, most of the Arab tribes who
have their own land rights did not join the government's
fight,'' says David Mozersky, the International Crisis
Group's project director for the Horn of Africa.
Why did Darfur's lands fail? For much of the 1980s and
'90s, environmental degradation in Darfur and other parts of
the Sahel (the semi-arid region just south of the Sahara) was
blamed on the inhabitants. Dramatic declines in rainfall were
attributed to mistreatment of the region's vegetation.
Imprudent land use, it was argued, exposed more rock and
sand, which absorb less sunlight than plants, instead
reflecting it back toward space. This cooled the air near the
surface, drawing clouds downward and reducing the chance of
rain. `Africans were said to be doing it to themselves;' says
Isaac Held, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
But by the time of the Darfur conflict four years ago,
scientists had identified another cause. Climate scientists
fed historical sea-surface temperatures into a variety of
computer models of atmospheric change. Given the particular
pattern of ocean-temperature changes worldwide, the models
strongly predicted a disruption in African monsoons. ``This
was not caused by people cutting trees, or overgrazing; says
Columbia University's Alessandra Giannini, who led one of the
analyses. The roots of the drying of Darfur, she and her
colleagues had found, lay in changes to the global climate.
The extent to which those changes can be blamed on human
activities remains an open question. Most scientists agree
that greenhouse gases have warmed the tropical and southern
oceans. But just how much artificial warming--as opposed to
natural drifts in oceanic temperatures--contributed to the
drought that struck Darfur is as debatable as the
relationship between global warming and the destruction of
New Orleans. ``Nobody can say that Hurricane Katrina was
definitely caused by climate change,'' says Peter Schwartz,
the co-author of a 2003 Pentagon report on climate change and
national security. ``But we can say that climate change means
more Katrinas. For any single storm, as with any single
drought, it's difficult to say. But we can say we'll get more
big storms and more severe droughts.''
With countries across the region and around the world
suffering similar pressures, some see Darfur as a canary in
the coal mine, a foretaste of climate-driven political chaos.
Environmental degradation ``creates very dry tinder,'' says
de Waal. ``So if anyone wants to put a match to it, they can
light it up.'' Combustion might be particularly likely in
areas where the political or social geography is already
fragile. ``Climate change is likely to cause tension all over
the world,'' says Idean Salehyan, a political scientist at
the University of North Texas. Whether or not it sparks
conflict, he says, depends on the strength, goodwill, and
competence of local and national governments. (For more on
the economic, political, and military tensions that global
warming might create, see ``Global Warming: What's in It for
You?'' by Gregg Easterbrook, on page 52.)
In Darfur itself, recognizing climate change as a player in
the conflict means seeking a solution beyond a political
treaty between the rebels and the government. ``One can see a
way of de-escalating the war,'' says de Waal. ``But unless
you get at the underlying roots, it'll just spring back.''
One goal of the internationally sponsored peace process is
the eventual return of locals to their land. But what if
there's no longer enough decent land to go around?
To create a new status quo, one with the moral authority of
the God-given order mourned by Musa Hilal's father, local
leaders would have to put aside old agreements and carve out
new ones. Lifestyles and agricultural practices would likely
need to
[[Page S4428]]
change to accommodate many tribes on more fragile land.
Widespread investment and education would be necessary.
But with Khartoum uncooperative, creating the conditions
conducive to these sorts of solutions would probably require
not only forceful foreign intervention but also a long-term
stay. Environmental degradation means the local authorities
have little or no surplus to use for tribal buy-offs, land
deals, or coalition building. And fighting makes it nearly
impossible to rethink land ownership or management. ``The
first thing you've got to do is stop the carnage and allow
moderates to come to the fore,'' says Thomas Homer-Dixon, a
political scientist at the University of Toronto. Yet even
once that happens, he admits, ``these processes can take
decades.''
Among the implications arising from the ecological origin
of the Darfur crisis, the most significant may be moral. If
the region's collapse was in some part caused by the
emissions from our factories, power plants, and automobiles,
we bear some responsibility for the dying. ``This changes us
from the position of Good Samaritans--disinterested,
uninvolved people who may feel a moral obligation--to a
position where we, unconsciously and without malice, created
the conditions that led to this crisis,'' says Michael Byers,
a political scientist at the University of British Columbia.
``We cannot stand by and look at it as a situation of
discretionary involvement. We are already involved.''
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to also ask unanimous consent
that the article I referred to in the Wall Street Journal be printed in
the Record at the end of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. DURBIN. Divestment is not the only answer, nor are stepped-up
U.S. sanctions or even multilateral U.S. sanctions, but together these
steps might work. Hundreds of thousands of people in Darfur have been
killed, and millions have been driven from their homes. It is too late
to repeat the empty promise of ``never again,'' but we can at least
live up to the pledge of no more.
I am reminded of my former colleague, boss, and mentor, Paul Simon of
Illinois, who in 1994 joined Senator Jim Jeffords in asking that troops
be sent to Rwanda to try to stop the massacre. We were told that 5,000
soldiers could have stopped that massacre of 800,000 innocent people.
No action was taken. These innocent people died. Senator Simon and
Senator Jeffords did their best to try to call the attention of
Congress and the Government and the world to what was happening in that
nation, to no avail.
But they can at least take satisfaction--the late Paul Simon and Jim
Jeffords--that they did their best as Members of the Senate. So many of
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle joined me in this bipartisan
effort to call attention to the genocide in Darfur and to urge our
Government to take decisive, meaningful action as quickly as possible
to spare these suffering people.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 2
[From the Wall Street Journal]
The Genocide Olympics
(By Ronan Farrow and Mia Farrow)
``One World, One Dream'' is China's slogan for its 2008
Olympics. But there is one nightmare that China shouldn't be
allowed to sweep under the rug. That nightmare is Darfur,
where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than
two-and-a-half million driven from flaming villages by the
Chinese-backed government of Sudan.
That so many corporate sponsors want the world to look away
from that atrocity during the games is bad enough. But
equally disappointing is the decision of artists like
director Steven Spielberg--who quietly visited China this
month as he prepares to help stage the Olympic ceremonies--to
sanitize Beijing's image. Is Mr. Spielberg, who in 1994
founded the Shoah Foundation to record the testimony of
survivors of the holocaust, aware that China is bankrolling
Darfur's genocide?
China is pouring billions of dollars into Sudan. Beijing
purchases an overwhelming majority of Sudan's annual oil
exports and state-owned China National Petroleum Corp.--an
official partner of the upcoming Olympic Games--owns the
largest shares in each of Sudan's two major oil consortia.
The Sudanese government uses as much as 80% of proceeds from
those sales to fund its brutal Janjaweed proxy militia and
purchase their instruments of destruction: bombers, assault
helicopters, armored vehicles and small arms, most of them of
Chinese manufacture. Airstrips constructed and operated by
the Chinese have been used to launch bombing campaigns on
villages. And China has used its veto power on the U.N.
Security Council to repeatedly obstruct efforts by the U.S.
and the U.K. to introduce peacekeepers to curtail the
slaughter.
As one of the few players whose support is indispensable to
Sudan, China has the power to, at the very least, insist that
Khartoum accept a robust international peacekeeping force to
protect defenseless civilians in Darfur. Beijing is uniquely
positioned to put a stop to the slaughter, yet they have so
far been unabashed in their refusal to do so.
But there is now one thing that China may hold more dear
than their unfettered access to Sudanese oil: their
successful staging of the 2008 Summer Olympics. That desire
may provide a lone point of leverage with a country that has
otherwise been impervious to all criticism.
Whether that opportunity goes unexploited lies in the hands
of the high-profile supporters of these Olympic Games.
Corporate sponsors like Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, General
Electric and McDonalds, and key collaborators like Mr.
Spielberg, should be put on notice. For there is another
slogan afoot, one that is fast becoming viral amongst
advocacy groups; rather than ``One World, One Dream,'' people
are beginning to speak of the coming ``Genocide Olympics.''
Does Mr. Spielberg really want to go down in history as the
Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games? Do the various
television sponsors around the world want to share in that
shame? Because they will. Unless, of course, all of them add
their singularly well-positioned voices to the growing calls
for Chinese action to end the slaughter in Darfur.
Imagine if such calls were to succeed in pushing the
Chinese government to use its leverage over Sudan to protect
civilians in Darfur. The 2008 Beijing Olympics really could
become an occasion for pride and celebration, a truly
international honoring of the authentic spirit of ``one
world'' and ``one dream.''
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to
proceed to S. 372 be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________