[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 145 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8462-S8471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 2 days ago I came to the floor of the
Senate to describe specifically the horror story of misconduct and
mismanagement at the Minerals Management Service. Today, this morning,
in coffee shops across the country, in addition to talking about the
pain at getting clobbered by these gasoline prices at the pump, a lot
of Americans are wondering how can it possibly be that in these Federal
energy development programs, the tax money of the American people is
being used to prop up sweetheart contracting, flagrant conflict of
interest violations, drug abuse, apparently all kinds of sexual
escapades, and lots more.
I have been trying to clean up these royalty programs for more than 5
years. I stood right in this spot 2 years ago and spent almost 5 hours
trying to force a vote here in the Senate to clean up these royalty
programs.
Some of these royalty problems, of course, began when the price of
oil was $19 a barrel. The day that I spoke at length to try to force a
vote, the price of oil was $70 a barrel. Of course, for quite some time
the price of oil has been $110, $120, $130--of course 8, 10, 12 times
what it was when this program began.
The Bush administration has repeatedly indicated that they would take
care of these problems. We have had Secretary Kempthorne, for example,
in the Energy Committee even 19 months ago essentially saying they
would get on top of the program.
I came to the floor today because I would like to describe how it
looks as though once again the Department of Interior is especially
interested in trying to keep the Congress from stepping in and taking
bold action to try to drain the swamp. For example, the statement the
Secretary of Interior made--I brought it to the floor--came out
yesterday. It states, for example:
The conduct of a few has cast a shadow on an entire agency.
That is not what the inspector general said about this program. The
inspector general didn't talk, as Secretary Kempthorne did, about the
conduct of a few. What the inspector general said--I will just read it:
We discovered that, between 2002 and 2006, nearly one-third
of the entire royalty-in-kind staff socialized with and
received a wide array of gifts and gratuities from oil and
gas companies with whom the royalty-in-kind program was
conducting official business.
Let's unpack that for a minute. Secretary Kempthorne has said
repeatedly that we are only talking about the conduct of a few people
and offered up once again, just in the last 24 hours, an argument
clearly designed to keep the Congress from stepping in next week and
finally draining the swamp at the Royalty-in-Kind Program. The
inspector general found that there were gifts and gratuities on at
least 135 occasions from major oil and gas companies. The inspector
general called it a textbook example of improperly receiving gifts from
prohibited sources. And then the inspector general said:
When confronted by our investigators, none of the employees
involved displayed remorse.
They found a culture at this program of ethical disregard--substance
abuse, promiscuity. They go on and on to talk about an entire program.
They certainly do not talk about how these problems took place in the
past. They talk about how this is an ongoing problem that certainly is
not going to be taken care of, in my view, as Secretary Kempthorne has
suggested in the past, with one of his kind of ethics training
[[Page S8463]]
programs. There are going to have to be substantial changes. I am very
hopeful that finally, after the Congress has gotten report after report
about the problems at this agency, the Senate will not accept the
argument from Secretary Kempthorne that once again the Congress ought
to just trust the agency to take care of things on its own.
Let me outline just a few of the areas that I hope the Senate would
consider in changing these flagrant abuses at Minerals Management.
It seems to me, first, that this program, the Royalty-in-Kind
Program, should be suspended until the Secretary certifies that each of
the inspector general's ethical and business recommendations is
implemented.
That strikes me as pretty obvious. You have all of these problems. It
has been documented in report after report after report. The Secretary
has come to the committee, and said he would take care of it. It has
not been done. It would seem to me that you suspend this program until
the Secretary certifies that the recommendations from the inspector
general are implemented.
Second, I am sure people listening to this say, ``hello,'' when you
make this particular recommendation. It is time to get rigorous audits
back in the Minerals Management Royalty Program. You think to yourself,
how can it be that millions of dollars go in and out the door in these
programs? There have been problems documented again and again in these
inspector general reports and they still do not have rigorous audits.
So that is the second thing the Senate ought to require with respect to
this program.
I personally would favor a limited continuation of the Royalty-in-
Kind Program to a fixed term, choose 1 year, 2 years, and then it would
be sunset unless it would be reauthorized. This would be a process that
would make sure the program either gets fixed and the Senate comes away
convinced that it works or the program goes away. So I would hope the
Senate would look at that.
Finally, I think it is worth noting that the Minerals Management
Service is the only major bureau within the Interior that does not have
a Senate-confirmed director. It is my view that the head of the
Minerals Management Service, particularly at a time such as this, when
the very programs in its charge, and the programs the Congress is
looking to expand next week, that the head of the Minerals Management
Service should be a Senate-confirmed position. This way it would be
possible for the Senate Energy Committee--and I know Senator Nelson has
a great interest in this as well--would have a say in who the next
director of that office is, and the Energy Committee would be in a
position to hold that individual accountable.
As I have indicated, the Minerals Management Service is the only
major bureau within Interior that does not have a Senate-confirmed
director. It is obvious you cannot wave your wand and legislatively fix
every ethical consideration imaginable. But it would seem to me, given
the blockbuster nature of this inspector general's report, and the
tenacious work that has been done by Earl Devaney there, that Congress
would be negligent, that Congress would be more than remiss, that
Congress would be negligent to not step in next week when we are
working on these very programs--there is discussion of expanding them
dramatically--to not step in and make sure the taxpayers' interests are
protected.
This is not a question of whether you are for drilling or against
drilling here. Senators will have differences of opinion surely on
that. But as Senator Nelson has said over a period of years, and I have
said over a period of years, this ought to be something every Member of
the Senate would agree on.
I think back to 2 years ago, and I got up in the morning and did not
expect to be on this floor for 5 hours trying to force a vote to change
these programs. It was clear that if we had gotten the votes, we would
have won. That was when the price of oil was $70 a barrel, not $100 a
barrel; $100 often seems reasonable these days to people given the
shellacking they are taking.
But the Congress will have a vigorous debate next week on a host of
issues with respect to energy policy. What I would hope is that 100
Members of the Senate would say, given what the inspector general has
said, No. 1, given the fact that Secretary Kempthorne has again in his
statement yesterday--and I read this specifically--suggested that we
are talking about a few individuals:
The conduct of a few has cast a shadow on an entire agency.
That is not what the inspector general said. One-third of the
employees in this program, one-third, colleagues, were involved in
this. Given what the inspector general has said, given the facts that
the agency has repeatedly said it would clean up these programs, and it
has not done it, that under the leadership of Chairman Bingaman of the
Energy Committee, he always works closely with the ranking minority
member, our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, that finally
next week the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, end these disgraceful
practices that have been documented repeatedly in these independent
reports.
If the Congress does not step in and finally adopt specific measures
to hold this agency accountable, I believe when the headlines are no
longer the topic of kitchen table conversation, I believe what will
happen, certainly regrettably in this administration, we will not see
the changes needed to protect the American people.
I do not see how you can make a case for playing down this set of
problems that has been so well documented. I hope all Members of the
Senate, all 100 Senators, will back our efforts next week to clean up
this program.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Florida is
recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to say a word of
appreciation to the Senator from Oregon for his leadership on this, and
his courage. He had the courage of his convictions 2 years ago to stand
up and to not relinquish the floor in the midst of all kinds of
pressure to get on with the legislation in order to get his point
across.
From time to time, each of us, when we feel passionately and very
strongly about an issue that we do not think is right, has a right here
to do that. I thank him for that. I thank him for his courage. I second
what he has said about the skullduggery that is going on.
Is it not interesting that there is no consequence as a result of
what the inspector general has found, all of this skullduggery--it is
his words, not ours--all kinds of sexual liaisons going on, all kinds
of drugs, all kinds of gifts, some of this supplied by the oil
companies over which this administrative executive department agency is
a watchdog, and it is going to be in an inspector general's report. The
Department of Justice, the Attorney General's Office, has said they are
not going to prosecute the two main people in the office who carried on
all of this scandalous activity; they have resigned. So where is the
accountability?
When I served in the military a long time ago, I was taught clearly
that the commanding officer was accountable for what happened to that
commanding officer's troops or ship.
Where is the accountability? What about the head of the Minerals
Management Service? The head of the Minerals Management Service is
there. Where is the accountability? Why should not the head of the
Minerals Management Service, on something that went on for one-third of
the employees of this office for some period of time, say: I am
responsible, I am accountable, and face the music, and face the
consequences?
But, no, it is always dodge, weave, deflect. It is always somebody
else's fault. How much of a pattern have we seen of that over the last
8 years? The American people are getting tired of it. And they are
getting tired of it especially when those same kinds of interests, in
this case the oil companies influencing an executive branch department
to get what they want by using illegal gifts, the offer of sexual
favors and drug use.
This is the same group that wants to come in, as I was pointing out
on that map, and drill all the way up through and cut out the heart and
the lungs of the U.S. military testing and training area.
No, there is too much that is not in sync here. I thank the Senator
for his very prescient and courageous and consistent stance he has had.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S8464]]
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Journalists M. Charles Bakst, Scott Mac Kay, and Mark Arsenault
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today the largest daily newspaper in
my home State of Rhode Island, the Providence Journal, is losing three
extraordinary journalists. Columnists M. Charles Bakst, better known as
Charlie; reporter Scott MacKay; and Mark Arsenault have covered
politics in Rhode Island and around the country for a combined total of
about 70 years, and they are retiring from the paper as of today. There
is a larger story about what is happening to America's newspapers, but
my purpose is not to talk about that but about them.
All of them are gifted writers, and all have brought to the Journal
sharp eyes for detail, long memories, and distinctive voices. They will
be sorely missed.
Scott is a particular friend, and I am sorry I will no longer have
the pleasure of reading Scott's colorful political takes on the State
we both love. I hope he will return to the Providence Newspaper Guild
``Follies'' to continue his traditional role emceeing that evening of
alleged music, wit, and humor.
I wish well to Mark Arsenault, whose talent supports a bright future
in whatever new endeavors he chooses to pursue.
But the remainder of my remarks will be about Charlie Bakst. If you
are from Rhode Island and involved in politics, you know Charlie Bakst.
You see him in the statehouse, at city hall. You see him at fundraisers
and roasts and meatball dinners and clambakes, and you see him at lunch
at Angelo's on Federal hill.
Everywhere there is politics--and in Rhode Island, that is
everywhere--Charlie is there, soaking in the scene, talking to people,
and commenting on the food.
Everything is grist for what Charlie is pleased to call his
``excellent columns.'' Charlie's memory for history and for detail is
legendary, as is his miraculous success at landing interviews that are
either totally forbidden or extraordinarily difficult to get. He has
jumped into limousines and lain in wait by backdoors. He has talked
with United States Presidents, past and future. He has questioned
Senators, Governors, party leaders, political operatives, even world
leaders. If you have ever been involved in politics in Rhode Island,
chances are you have been confronted by Charlie Bakst's red suspenders,
unkempt hair, and ever-present tape recorder, and chances are that
afterwards, you found something in what he wrote to be annoyed about.
But in the end, that is the way we in politics are supposed to feel.
As the saying goes: If a politician doesn't feel a little twinge of
anxiety when he hears that newspaper thump on the front porch in the
morning, the paper is not doing its job.
Charlie always did his job. Journalism is in Charlie's blood. At
summer camp in Hampstead, NH, in the 1950s, he announced baseball
scores at the camp's daily flags ceremonies. ``In retrospect,'' he
wrote, ``an early dangerous sign of: Journalist Ahead.''
At Brown, he became editor in chief of the Brown Daily Herald. He
went on to earn his masters from the Columbia Graduate School of
Journalism and later returned to Rhode Island to join the Providence
Journal, eventually becoming statehouse bureau chief and political
columnist. Politics, too, was a lifelong passion.
In another formative summer camp experience, he listened to radio
broadcasts of the 1956 Democratic Convention. I will confess that I was
probably not 1 year old then and not listening very closely. At the
time, then-Senator John F. Kennedy narrowly missed winning his party's
Vice Presidential nomination.
``Believe it or not, that helped hook me on politics,'' Charlie wrote
decades later.
Well, it is not that difficult to believe. Charlie's writing betrays
a sense of wonder at the pageantry of politics and a fierce belief in
government's obligation to the people that it serves. Charlie told it
like he saw it, and when he saw a public servant abusing the public
trust, he said so.
``I must say I've never lacked for copy,'' Charlie told the New York
Times in 2001. His columns have ripped into public figures for
corruption, dishonesty, and for incompetence.
In a column written as New Orleans staggered in the violent wake of
Hurricane Katrina, his outrage is visceral:
America has become a laughingstock. To think that people
could suffer here for days on rooftops or terraces or in a
sports arena or convention center without rudimentary help
like food or water, amid lawlessness and stench, surrounded
by death.
He ended with an invocation of Jimmy Carter:
Wouldn't it be nice to have a government as good and decent
as the American people?
This is Charlie Bakst's dream for America and his dream for our Ocean
State, and his columns have always prodded us toward that dream.
He is particularly outspoken when he sees injustice and oppression.
He sought out leaders in the civil rights movement, interviewing
Representative John Lewis and Cesar Chavez, among others.
He found unsung Rhode Island heroes, who worked on behalf of the
homeless or the poor or the disadvantaged, and told their stories. He
showed special courage in his unwavering advocacy for the rights of
gays and lesbians, particularly the long struggle for equal marriage,
even when some readers took vocal offense.
Charlie is also obsessed with baseball and with his beloved Red Sox
in particular. The team was a family affair in the Bakst household.
Charlie writes of many trips to Fenway Park with his late father Lester
and his brother Arthur.
His first game at Fenway--at age 8--happened to be on April 30, 1952,
the last game Ted Williams played before he shipped out to Korea.
Ted Williams was a particular hero, and years after that first game,
Charlie's colleagues at the Journal gave him, as a 50th birthday gift,
a lifetime membership to the Ted Williams Museum in St. Petersburg, FL.
Charlie visited the museum and immediately collared his tour guide to
suggest corrections to the exhibit.
Charlie followed baseball all over the country, and maintained a love
affair with food, from buffet table fare at local fundraisers to
historic restaurants such as Angelo's, where his personal bottle of
olive oil, stashed in the kitchen, has ``BAKST'' written across the top
in black ink.
These interests--baseball and food--came together in columns
disclosing that at Safeco Field, home of the Seattle Mariners, you can
eat everything from sushi and pad thai to chowder and deep-fried
mushrooms, not to mention a half-pound Home Run Dog just outside the
ballpark.
At Petco Park, home of the San Diego Padres, Charlie reported on
shrimp avocado salad, barbequed ribs, fish tacos, garlic fries, veggie
dogs, Oreo cookie cheesecake, and cappuccino.
I was glad when Charlie was able to stop by one of my regular
community dinners in East Providence last year. Our M&M cookies made it
into his Sunday column.
Finally, we have seen Charlie's deep and abiding love for his family:
his wife Elizabeth, and his daughters Maggie, Diane, and their
families. I hope in his retirement he will get to see more of them, and
to spend more time with Diane and her family in Italy, as he once wrote
he would like to do.
But no matter what he chooses to do next, I hope Rhode Island will
find a way not to lose Charlie's unique voice, his rich memory, after,
I believe, 36 years of journalism in Rhode Island, and the impassioned
commitment that he brought to his profession.
Of his friend, WJAR investigative reporter Jim Taricani, Charlie once
wrote this:
[B]eing a journalist is more than a job. It is a burden, a
pleasure, and an honor.
Well, Charlie, working with you for the past 20 years has been a
burden, a pleasure, and an honor. I look forward to talking with you
for many years to come, and I wish you and Mark and Scott well in your
retirement.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S8465]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my
remarks, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, be given time to
speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Fighting for Middle-Class Families
Mr. President, last week, our Nation celebrated Labor Day for the
114th year. We have come a long way since 1894.
On my lapel, I wear a pendent that is a depiction of a canary in a
bird cage. Some 100 years ago, around the time Labor Day began, mine
workers used to take a canary down into the mines. If the canary died
from toxic gas or a lack of oxygen, the mine worker knew he had to
immediately get out of the mine. He had no union in those days strong
enough to protect him and no government in those days that cared enough
to protect him.
In those days, a child born around that time in our country--100 or
so years ago--had a life expectancy of 46, 47, 48 years. A child born
today in our great country has a life expectancy about three decades
longer than that. Much of that is not just high-tech medicine and
chemotherapy and heart transplants, that kind of thing; most of the
increased life expectancy in this country is about Medicare and
Medicaid and Social Security and workers' compensation, protections for
workers, a prohibition on child labor, safe drinking laws, clean air
and pure food and drug laws--that kind of progress that has been made
in this country that helps people live longer, happier, healthier
lives.
Thanks to the workers' rights movement, employees today, especially,
enjoy better wages, better working conditions, better protections
against discrimination.
But as I travel around my State--I have held almost 120 community
roundtables, inviting a cross section of 15, 20, 25 people, to listen
to their concerns and to tell me of their dreams, and what we can do in
my office, and to help them locally in their communities--it is clear
our Nation's recent economic policies have not adequately benefited
workers.
The American dream--the promise that if you work hard and play by the
rules, your economic future will be bright--should be the rule, but too
often it is the exception.
As I travel the State, I hear about widespread economic anxiety and a
betrayed middle class. I hear from Ohioans worried about record high
gas prices and food prices. I hear from people from Galion to
Gallipolis worried about good-paying jobs continuing to move overseas.
I hear people from Ashtabula to Lima worried about health insurance
that costs more and covers less.
I hear from food bank administrators from Hocking County and from
Lucas County struggling to keep up with demand, like Mike from the
Warren County United Way, who estimates that some 90 percent of local
food bank patrons are working people, many holding more than one job.
I hear from Ohioans who have, without complaint, dedicated their
lives to hard work, only to see their financial security pulled out
from under them, like Richard Wyers of Lorain in northern Ohio, a
steelworker whose pension was slashed because his now-bankrupt employer
had simply not set enough money aside for payouts to that pension.
The Government agency administering the defunct firm's assets has
told Richard he cannot even keep the money he has already received. In
all, he owes more than $50,000. It is not a mistake he made but a
mistake they made. Unfortunately, Richard is not alone. Nearly 2,500
former employees of the same bankrupt steel company have been notified
by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that they have received
overpayments this year.
In other parts of the State, workers are facing more bad news. Bruce
of Wilmington has worked for ABX--the air cargo provider for DHL--for
24 years. He is married with five children, two of whom are in college.
So you can imagine Bruce's anger when, earlier this year, DHL announced
it will pull its business from ABX and that more than 8,000 workers at
Bruce's Wilmington Air Park will lose their jobs. Bruce is not looking
for a Government handout. He wants to work so he can support his family
and send his kids to college.
In Norwalk last week, 20 miles from where I grew up, in Mansfield,
500 employees were sent home from their jobs at Norwalk Furniture when
executives had to halt operations. That is 500 more people who want to
work but can't.
In Tiffin, more than 100 workers are looking for jobs after the
American Standard plant there--a local institution for almost 125
years--closed its doors in December.
In Van Wert, auto workers such as Sarah Sargent have seen their lives
turned upside down since management locked them out of their plant
earlier this year. The reason for the lockout: Sarah and her 330
coworkers simply would not accept a substantial wage cut and a benefits
freeze, so the company is contemplating a move to Mexico.
General Motors is closing its plant in Moraine, a decision that will
cost 1,200 Ohioans their livelihoods.
This string of bad news in Ohio can be blamed in part on our current
recession. But that misses the larger point. For the last 7 years, the
labor force has worked harder than ever, leading to huge gains in
productivity. Yet CEO salaries and bonuses, as we know, went through
the roof, middle-class Americans' wages stagnated, and more families
slipped below the poverty line.
While China manipulated its currency and ignored labor and
environmental standards, corporations took the bait and abandoned
American communities. And while hedge fund managers irresponsibly
leveraged real estate holdings, millions of Americans lost their homes
to foreclosure. In other words, while Wall Street enjoyed an inflated
stock market and a so-called economic expansion, most Americans
actually became worse off.
Despite these struggles wrought by 7 years of wrongheaded economic
policies, American workers are standing strong and fighting for a
better future. At my roundtables in Ohio, I still hear the hope and the
determination that defines my State and defines this great Nation. I
hear from community leaders and entrepreneurs with exciting plans for
the future, such as George Ward of Kirtland, in northeast Ohio, the
president of his local firefighters' union and a small business owner.
George's grandfather was a coal miner and his father was a United Auto
worker. It is this working class background that has motivated him to
fight for expanded health care access--not just for his fellow
firefighters but for his employees and their families.
He is, in his own words, ``trying to live the American Dream,''
``trying to make a difference'' in his community.
I hear from loyal workers who take pride in their work and are valued
by their employers, such as Richard Ade, a security guard in Cleveland,
who, after more than 5 years of stagnant wages, worked with his
employer and outside groups to ensure that he and his coworkers got the
raises they deserved--which, ultimately, they did. Or there is the
story I heard about four long-serving employees of Miba Bearings in
McConnelsville. These four employees have been with the company for 55
years. They have worked everywhere in the plant: from the production
line, to final inspection, to shipping. When I asked if they were still
productive, the company's human capital manager answered with obvious
pride: ``All of our employees are productive.''
We need a government that similarly values loyalty and work ethic.
For too long, those in power have ignored hard-working Americans, have
ignored the needs and dreams of the middle class, and have instead
catered to the wealthiest Americans, and this is in a country where
always in the past we rewarded work.
But it does not have to be that way. In Ohio, Governor Ted
Strickland--elected 2 short years ago--already is doing great work to
attract new business, to improve educational opportunities, and to
revitalize the economy.
[[Page S8466]]
Here in Washington we can adopt measures right now--in honor of Labor
Day--that would make a difference in working people's lives, like
extending unemployment insurance. If Congress does not act before early
October, 800,000 unemployed Americans will stop getting their much-
needed checks, including 330,000 from high unemployment States such as
Ohio. We must expand insurance for those vulnerable citizens.
We should make sick leave a right of employment, not a privilege.
Employees should not have to choose between attending to their health
and losing their job. We should pass the Employee Free Choice Act,
which would allow more workers to bargain collectively. We know that
means higher wages, better benefits, a stronger middle class, a more
prosperous America.
We should provide tax credits for alternative energy investment,
which would help wean us off foreign oil and create new green collar
jobs. In my State, the Governor and I talk about making Ohio the
``Silicon Valley'' of alternative energy. We can do that with some help
from the Federal Government. We can do what we need to do in our State.
Simply put, we need to celebrate Labor Day by turning our attention
to revamping our economic policies and changing the direction of this
country. The best way we can honor our Nation's workers is to set our
Nation on that new path--a path that fights for middle-class families
everywhere and strengthens our country.
Mr. President, I yield back.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are on the Defense authorization bill,
so I wanted to make a couple of comments, not about an amendment, but
about two issues that I hope those at the Pentagon will take note of.
Sometimes things don't change very quickly and sometimes they don't
change at all with respect to the way things are done at the Pentagon.
When I came to Congress, I joined a military reform caucus to try to
reform the way things are done at the Pentagon, but some folks there
still believe there is an inexhaustible amount of money in pursuit of
their desires. An example of that is the unmanned aerial vehicles, or
UAVs--airplanes without pilots. It is a growing part of a number of
services. But what is happening in both the Army and the Air Force is
that both services are building and buying unmanned aerial vehicles in
what I think are duplicative programs. One calls their airplane the
Predator. The other calls it the Warrior. The folks over at the
Pentagon can't determine who should be the executive agency that
oversees the unmanned aerial vehicles. So you have two services doing
essentially the same thing.
Who wants to fly at 12,000 or 20,000 feet above the battlefield with
an unmanned aerial vehicle? Well, the Air Force does, but the Army
would like to as well. So one builds a plane called the Predator and
one builds a plane called the Warrior. They both have missions that
appear to me to be duplicative. You have duplicate spending on research
and development, duplicate spending on the airplanes themselves,
duplicate spending on the missions inside the Pentagon. Who pays the
cost? The American taxpayer. This is not new, but the competition
inside the Pentagon shouldn't cause the American taxpayer to have to
pay for inefficiency and duplication.
We have had discussions about this at hearings. It appears nothing is
happening to describe what ought to happen. In this case it ought to be
the Air Force who has the executive agency for UAVs. Former chief of
the Air Force, Buzz Moseley, who I think was an extraordinary Air Force
chief of staff, tried to resolve this and could not because he ran into
the competition inside the Pentagon on this issue. My hope is the
American taxpayer will not have to continue to pay for duplication of
effort inside the Pentagon.
We all support this mission because it greatly helps our soldiers,
but I don't support the kind of spending that unnecessarily duplicates
efforts between the services. That certainly has been the case with
respect to unmanned aerial vehicles.
I understand the Army wants to have--and should have--unmanned aerial
vehicles above the battlefield at 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet. But if they
are flying unmanned aerial vehicles at 12,000 and 20,000 feet with
sensors, it seems to me that this is an Air Force mission. Yet we now
have two branches of the service duplicating the effort and the
American taxpayer pays the bill. I hope they will get this straight at
the Pentagon so that we begin to avoid some of these duplicative costs.
One other issue I might mention is the issue of privatizing housing
on our military bases. This started in the Clinton administration and
continues through the Bush administration. The proposition is to take
housing inside a military base that already exists and turn it over to
a private contractor and say to the private contractor: We will give
you this free of charge. You can own all of this housing. You sign a
contract with us saying that you will maintain these houses for 50
years. Then we will pay soldiers a monthly housing allowance, they in
turn will pay that to the private contractor, and everybody is happy.
The question is: What does this cost the American taxpayer? The
military says: Well, it gets housing built more quickly because they
will not only turn over existing housing stock free of charge to a
contractor, but they will have the contractor build new housing and
then fund it through the monthly housing allowances that soldiers hand
over to the independent contractor.
It is interesting to me that we now have some foreign companies that
own military housing on American military bases, and they get it by
signing a contract saying we promise to maintain this housing for 50
years. Two of North Dakota's bases are now in a contract that
presumably may get done next year.
I have raised a lot of questions about it because the way the
Pentagon has calculated this, they say it is better for the Pentagon.
What about the taxpayer? Is it better for the American taxpayer? How is
it that we decide to turn over housing stock--much of which is almost
brand-new--free of charge with a contract to a private company in
exchange for a signature that they will maintain it for the next 50
years? It seems to me as though there are a lot of questions that have
been unanswered, going back to the Clinton administration and through
the Bush administration, that the American taxpayers ought to have
answered. There ought to be a fundamental review of what is the total
cost here, including depreciation taken by the private contractor and
others. What is the total cost of this privatization of housing on our
military bases? What is the total cost to the taxpayer?
I wanted to mention that in the context of the Defense authorization
bill, because I think these are a couple of things that ought to be
considered.
The Economy
Mr. President, the presentation the Presiding Officer just gave on
the floor of the Senate reminded me that--I believe it was yesterday,
or perhaps the day before--when it was announced that our trade deficit
for the month was, I think, $62 billion, and nearly $25 billion of that
was with the country of China. My colleague who just spoke is from
Ohio. I was thinking about the continued growth of exports from China
into our country, building up a very large trade deficit that we have
with the rest of the world and especially with China. The State of Ohio
has been especially hard hit. That is where they used to make Huffy
bicycles and don't anymore because all of those Huffy bicycles are now
made in China. All the Ohio workers were fired because they made $11 an
hour plus benefits and that is way too much money, the company thought,
to pay people working in a factory to make bicycles. So they all got
fired. These bicycles are now made in China by people who work 12 hours
a day, 7 days a week, for 30 cents, 40 cents an hour. By the way, I
have described many times for my colleagues the last day of work with
those Ohio workers after they were fired. On their last day of work
they put a pair of shoes in the parking space where their car used to
sit. So as they drove away, all that was left was a pair of shoes, and
it was their plaintive way to say to that company: You can move our
jobs to China, but you are not going to fill our shoes.
Many workers across this country are discovering the same fate. I
have described--I won't today--but Fig Newton cookies. Apparently it
costs too much to have people shovel fig paste in
[[Page S8467]]
New Jersey, so now when you buy them, you are buying Mexican food
because it is made in Monterey, Mexico. Why? You can hire people for a
whole lot less money in Mexico than you have to pay for workers in New
Jersey. The list goes on and on and on. The unbelievable part of this
is we actually, as a country--and this Congress, yes, provided a tax
break to a company that says: I am going to fire my American workers
and move the jobs overseas.
I have tried, I believe, four times on the floor of the Senate to
offer amendments and get votes on amendments that would shut down the
tax break for shipping jobs overseas. On each occasion, we have lost
that vote. It is unbelievable to me. I mean, it is not as if I have
colleagues who will stand up and say: Count me in for wanting to ship
American jobs overseas, but that is exactly their position when they
vote to continue tax incentives for companies who fire their American
workers and go in search of 10-cent-an-hour labor. And yes, that
exists. Yes, it exists, that workers in Ohio and elsewhere are told: If
you can't compete with 12-year-olds who work 12 hours a day and get 12
cents an hour, tough luck, you are out of a job.
This country has not yet come to grips with the question of whether
that is what we spent 100 years creating a competitive, international
environment to compete with. Does that make sense, that we should ask
American workers to compete with that standard? I don't think so. But I
was reminded of it by my colleague from Ohio discussing what is
happening.
Just this week, again, we see the unbelievable trade deficit for one
single month, over $60 billion again, and that is money that has to be
repaid. That is money that has to be repaid from our country and our
taxpayers to a foreign government. It is one part of a whole series of
things that reflect a very urgent situation for this economy.
You wake up this morning and you see another major investment bank is
going to be sold. The prices for its stock have collapsed. You wake up
last weekend and you hear the Treasury Secretary is preparing to take
over, effectively, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. A couple of weeks ago,
Bear Stearns goes belly up. The largest mortgage banks go belly up. We
see the largest trade deficits in history, the largest budget deficits
in history, and a fiscal policy that is completely off the rail. We
have a Presidential campaign, and we wake up every single day and we
see these unbelievable attacks: Lipstick on a pig. Who are you
offending? It is unbelievable to me.
Ours is a country that I think is being threatened to lose its
dominance in the world on critical issues, including trade, fiscal
policy, energy, and a whole series of issues. Yet, somehow, if you want
to speak seriously about policy, you get interrupted by a bunch of
shysters who have decided that they want to hijack the political system
to talk about irrelevancies. It is unbelievable to me.
I came from a forum that we are holding on energy. Energy is a very
important issue, and it appears to me the tipping point was finally $4
a gallon for a gallon of gasoline. It ran up double in a year, from
July to July. The price of oil and gas doubled in a year. There is no
visible way for anyone to take a look at the numbers on supply and
demand and say: Oh, that was justified. We understand why the price
doubled in a year. That evidence doesn't exist, by the way. There is no
one who can come to the floor of the Senate and say: Well, I know why
the price of oil doubled in a year and the price of gasoline doubled in
a year; because nothing happened in that year with respect to supply
and demand that justified it.
What I think happened is what has happened in so many years of our
Government. Regulators who are brain dead, flat out asleep like Rip Van
Winkle, while everything is happening around them, decided we are not
going to watch, so speculators took over the oil market and drove it
straight up. Recently it has come back down because some of that same
speculative money, just like a hurricane, came right back out of it.
It is not only in this area. It is in the subprime mortgage area.
Regulators--again, completely brain dead--and I am sure they watched
television in the morning, perhaps while they ate some Grape Nuts at
the kitchen table, and they saw some advertisements by the mortgage
bankers and others that said: Hey, have you been bankrupt? Do you have
bad credit? You can't pay your bills? Come to us, we have a mortgage
for you. We have all seen those ads over and over and over again. Guess
what. Those ads were a reflection of what was going on in an industry,
right under the noses of regulators who didn't seem to care, in which
they built an unbelievable system of bad mortgages and paired them with
some decent mortgages, slicing them up into securities. It is like when
they used to pack sawdust into sausage and then sliced and diced them,
and then, by the way, because they had this carnival going on, they
securitize all of these mortgages, move them up the line into hedge
funds all over the world, and then somebody decided one day: You know
what? These are bad mortgages. We don't even know who has them. We
don't know where they are in these securities.
Why were they bad mortgages? Well, because regulators didn't seem to
care and there were advertised mortgages that said: If you have bad
credit, come to us. By the way, here is the mortgage we will give you.
We will give you a mortgage where you don't have to pay any principal
for a long time; just pay interest only. You may not want that. We will
give you a better mortgage than that. We will give you a mortgage where
you don't have to pay any principal and you don't have to pay all of
the interest. You can put the principal and some of the interest on the
back side of your loan. In fact, if that doesn't satisfy you, to get a
mortgage from us at a teaser rate where you don't have to pay any
principal and you don't have to pay all of the interest, we have even a
better deal for you. You can get what we call a no documentation loan.
We won't require that you document income. Or, you can get a partial
doc--no doc, partial doc--no interest, no principal. In fact, one
company said: You know what? You don't have to pay any principal or any
interest. We will make the first 12 payments for you.
Now, is it surprising that an industry that was built on a foundation
of greed, by brokers making big fees, putting mortgages in the hands of
people with teaser rates who could not possibly afford to make the
payments 3 years later when the interest rates were reset--is it
surprising that the tent collapsed when mortgages began to reset and
people couldn't possibly afford to make the payments? We have people
walking around here scratching their head in this town wondering what
on Earth happened. Where were the smartest guys in the room on Wall
Street? Where were the smartest guys in the room who were securitizing
these securities and sending them up the road so everybody could make
money on the way, understanding that even as they locked in these
mortgages with no documentation, no principal payments, perhaps no
interest payments, or at least only partial interest payments, the
little key on the bottom of the contract was: Prepayment penalties.
Sign this line and you can't get out of it. Then, when the interest
rates reset to triple or quadruple what they were and you can't make
the payment, we are sorry, you can't get out of it.
That is what allowed the big shots to price these mortgages with
respect to their expectation of future income in the way they did. But
is it a surprise that this whole thing collapsed? That is just one more
example, and it has happened in energy with speculation and in
virtually every area with regulators who decided they have no interest
in regulating. Now we bear the cost of an economy that almost seems, to
some, in free fall.
We have massive problems with a trade policy that doesn't work. It
continues to ship jobs overseas and to load the American people with
massive quantities of debt that must be repaid. We have a fiscal policy
that the President says is only about $400 billion, $450 billion
offtrack. But, of course, that is not true. He knows that.
The question is, How much do you have to borrow in the coming fiscal
year? That is closer to $700 billion. So you have a total of over 10
percent of the country's GDP that represents red ink for this year
alone, trade and fiscal policy debt. We can add to that the massive
problem in energy. I will talk about that for a moment.
[[Page S8468]]
I have talked about speculation and the role of the speculators and
of the regulators who didn't want to watch. Now we are having summit
meetings and substantial angst about what we do to put this back on
track. My interest is in doing a lot of everything. In my judgment, we
should drill, and drill more. I have had a bill introduced for a year
and a half that opens the eastern gulf to drilling. In fact, all the
gangs and the folks who are talking about these things on the Senate
floor don't want to open that. As you can see on this chart, this is
water off of Cuba that will be leased. There are 500,000 barrels of oil
a day in this water off Cuba that is being leased. The Canadians are
leasing, Spain is leasing, and we cannot lease because our oil
companies cannot do anything in this area because of the embargo
against Cuba.
That is absolutely absurd. We ought to drill. We ought to conserve.
We ought to take everything we use every day--appliances and lights--
and we ought to make them all efficient. We are moving quickly in that
area.
Finally, we have to move dramatically in the area of renewable
energy. Every 15 years, it ought not be a surprise that we huff and
puff and thumb our suspenders and bloviate about what we are going to
do next, about where we are going to drill next. How about something
that is game changing? How about we change it so in 15 years from now
we are not saying the same things and that we are moving toward
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles? Seventy percent of the oil we use is in
our vehicles. It is a huge part of our consumption of oil.
To back up just a moment, we suck 85 million barrels a day out of
this planet, and one-fourth of it is used in the United States. We have
an appetite for one-fourth of the oil produced every day. Sixty-five
percent of the oil comes from off of our shores, from Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, and elsewhere. The fact is, we have to find a
way to be less dependent upon foreign oil. We are always going to use
oil and coal. We have to use it differently, in my judgment.
But the question for us is, what do we do that is truly game
changing? How about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and before that
perhaps electric drive vehicles. Hydrogen is everywhere. You can take
energy from the wind and produce electricity and use electricity in the
process of electrolysis and generate hydrogen from water and use
hydrogen for vehicle fuel. You will get twice the effective power to
wheel and put water vapor out of the tailpipe. Wouldn't that be
wonderful?
We are not going to have game-changing strategies if every 15 years
the next effort on energy is to figure out where we drill next. Let's
drill next, but let's do something that makes us less dependent on the
need for this oil, particularly oil coming from outside of our country.
It is, I expect, pretty depressing for the American people who have
the miracle in our Constitution of every second year, every even-
numbered year, being able to grab the American steering wheel and
decide which way to nudge America.
All the power in this country is in the power of one--one person
casting one vote on one day. It must be pretty disappointing to them to
take a look at the quality of the debate in our political system at a
time when the economy of this country is at risk, when there is so much
to do and an urgent need to make strong, good decisions, and see the
irrelevancy come out every single morning, particularly from one
campaign. This country deserves much better.
I hope between now and this election we will begin to see the attack
dogs that we saw at work in 2000 and 2004, which defined a new low in
American politics. In 2004, one of our colleagues who earned three
Purple Hearts in Vietnam, went to Vietnam and served his country, was
defined by the attack dogs as someone who was less than patriotic. That
was unbelievable. But that same effort is at work in this campaign.
This country deserves a political system and campaigns that give them
answers. Where would you take America? Where would you want to lead
this country?
I must say we only have less than 2 months remaining, and the long-
term future of this country depends on us making good, right decisions
about energy, fiscal policy, health care, and education, and about so
many different issues, including trade policy, which is the discussion
I started with.
Mr. President, I started by speaking of Ohio and trade policy because
my colleague, Senator Brown from Ohio, has written a book about trade,
and we talked a great bit about it. It is but one of a series of very
serious challenges that he, I, and others should expect will be
discussed in some detail in this campaign. So I hope in the next 60
days we will begin to see some of that.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask the Chair what is the business of the
Senate?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is considering S. 3001.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I introduced an amendment earlier today to
S. 3001. I would like to take some time to explain this amendment to
the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, we are in an odd situation in the business
of Government at the moment in that the international authority for the
United States to be operating in Iraq will expire at the end of this
year. The U.N. mandate, through the U.N. Security Council, expires at
that time.
Since last November, the administration has been negotiating what
they call the Strategic Framework Agreement that is intended to replace
the international authority of the U.N. mandate. There have been two
questions that have come up with respect to what the administration is
doing. The first is the timeline.
There are indications from Iraq that the Iraqi Government negotiators
have serious questions that weren't anticipated before. But the larger
question is, what entity of the Federal Government has the authority to
enter the United States into a long-term relationship with another
government?
These are serious issues. I submit the conditions under which we will
continue to operate in Iraq militarily, diplomatically, economically,
and even culturally are not the sole business of any administration. We
have questions about the legal justification under domestic and
international law for the United States to operate militarily--and
quasi-militarily, by the way--given the hundreds of thousands of
independent contractors that are now essentially performing military
functions in that country. There are questions about the process by
which the U.S. Government decides upon and enters into long-term
relations with another nation--any nation. In that regard, we have
serious questions here about the very workings of our constitutional
system of Government.
This administration has claimed repeatedly, since last November, that
it has the right to negotiate and enter into an agreement that will set
the future course of our relations with Iraq without the agreement or
even the ratification of the U.S. Congress. The administration claims
that the justification for this authority is the 2002 congressional
authorization for the use of force in Iraq and, as a fallback position,
the President's inherent authority, from the perspective of this
administration, as Commander in Chief.
Both of these justifications are patently wrong. The 2002
congressional authorization to use force in Iraq has nothing to do with
negotiation with a government, which replaced the Saddam Hussein
government, as to the future relations culturally, economically,
diplomatically, and militarily between our two countries. On the other
hand, we are now faced with the reality that the U.N. mandate will
expire at the end of this year, and that expiration will terminate the
authority under international law for the United States to be operating
in Iraq at a time when we have hundreds of thousands of Americans on
the ground in that country.
I and other colleagues have been warning of this serious disconnect
for
[[Page S8469]]
10 months. Many of us were trying to say last November that the
intention of this administration was to proceed purely with an
executive agreement to drag this out until the Congress was going to go
out of session, as we are about to do, and then to present essentially
a fait accompli in the sense that with the expiration of the
international mandate from the United Nations at the end of the year,
something would have to be done, and that something would be an
executive agreement that, to this point, Congress has not even been
allowed to examine.
We have not been able to see one word of this agreement. We tried to
energize the Congress. We have met with all of the appropriate
administration officials. There have been hearings. There have been
assurances from the administration that they will consult at the
appropriate time. We have not seen anything. So we are faced with this
situation that is something of a constitutional coup d'etat by this
administration. At risk is a further expansion of the powers of the
Presidency, the result of which will be to affirm, in many minds, that
the President--any President--no longer needs the approval of Congress
to enter into long-term relations with another country, in effect,
committing us to obligations that involve our national security, our
economic well-being, our diplomatic posture around the world, without
the direct involvement of the U.S. Congress.
That is not what the Constitution intended. It is not in the best
interest of our country. This amendment, which I filed today, is
designed to prevent this sort of imbalance from occurring and, at the
same time, it recognizes the realities of the timelines that are now
involved with respect to the loss of international authority for our
presence in Iraq at the end of this year.
This amendment is a sense of the Congress. On the one hand, it is a
sense of the Congress that we work with the United Nations to extend
the U.N. mandate up to an additional year, giving us some additional
international authority for being in Iraq, taking away the pressure of
this timeline that could be used to justify an agreement that the
Congress hasn't had the ability to examine, but also saying that an
extension of the U.N. mandate would end at such time as a Strategic
Framework Agreement and a Status of Forces Agreement between the United
States and Iraq are mutually agreed upon.
The amendment also makes the point that the Strategic Framework
Agreement now being negotiated between the United States and Iraq poses
significant, long-term national security implications for this country.
That would be the sense of the Congress. We need to be saying that; the
Iraqis need to hear it.
The amendment also puts Congress and the administration on record to
the reality that the Bush administration has fully agreed to consult
with the Congress regarding all the details of the Strategic Framework
Agreement and the Status of Forces Agreement and that there would be
copies of the full text of these agreements provided to the chairman
and ranking minority members of the appropriate committees in the House
and the Senate prior to the entry into either of those agreements.
Importantly, it also says any Strategic Framework Agreement that has
been mutually agreed upon by the negotiators from our executive branch
and Iraqi Government officials will cease to have effect unless it is
approved by the Congress within 180 days of the entry into force of
that agreement.
On the one hand, this agreement recognizes the realities of where we
are in terms of timelines, but on the other, it protects the
constitutional processes by which we are entering into long-term
relationships with other countries, whether it is Iraq or Cameroon or
Burundi or pick a country. We need to preserve this process. It does it
in a way which will not disrupt our operations in Iraq.
I urge my colleagues to join me on this amendment and protect the
prerogatives of the Congress under the Constitution of the United
States.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is good that we are debating the Defense
authorization bill. It is appropriate we are debating this bill at a
time when certainly America's security is at risk.
As I indicated, we are debating the Defense authorization bill, which
ensures America's military capabilities are strong and focused on the
major threats to our great country.
We live in a dangerous and unpredictable world. It is a world where
North Korea's leader has fallen ill. This illness could put a nuclear-
armed regime at risk of implosion because there is no successor named
or thought of, to our knowledge, in North Korea.
We live in a world where Latin American regimes throw out U.S.
Ambassadors without notice, where an unchecked Russia can undermine
young democracies from West to East.
I was recently in Bolivia. I had not too long ago been in Georgia. I
met with part of their Government today a few feet from this Chamber.
So we have to be concerned about an unchecked Russia.
Our dangerous world calls for leaders with sound judgment, not those
with temperament prone to recklessness.
As we debate the Defense bill this week, we must consider the most
important national security question facing the Nation today: Will we
stick with the same failed, out-of-touch foreign policy of George Bush,
Dick Cheney, and John McCain, which military experts and historians
call the worst foreign policy in our Nation's history or will we change
course to a more tough, responsible foreign policy that will make us
more secure?
The choice could not be more important, but the answer could not be
clearer. Senator Obama and Senate Democrats stand for responsible
change. We believe we must end the war in Iraq and bring the war on
terror to where the terrorists actually live and where they plot. We
know our focus must return to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network
in Afghanistan and Pakistan and wherever they might be.
This approach stands on the right side of the American people and the
right side of history. According to recent press reports, even the Bush
administration has begun to align its actions with this policy.
Take Pakistan, for example. For years, Senator Obama and Senate
Democrats have been calling on the Bush administration to hunt down
Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida network, wherever they may be located.
As it became clear that al-Qaida had made Pakistan the central focus of
its operation, Democrats called on the President to make Pakistan a
central focus of our war to defeat al-Qaida.
Here is what Senator Obama said last year:
. . . Let me be clear. There are terrorists holed up in
those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are
plotting to strike again. . . .If we have actionable
intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [the
Pakistani leadership] won't act, we will. I will not hesitate
to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a
direct threat to America.
While Senator Obama sounded the alarm about the al-Qaida threat in
Pakistan and called for a forceful and comprehensive strategy to fight
this threat, George Bush and John McCain chose, stunningly, to ignore
it. The President kept the bulk of our ground troops and our special
operations forces and our intelligence assets tied down in Iraq in a
war that had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and the terrorists who
attacked.
Republicans, led by John McCain, attacked Obama's approach to
forcefully go after al-Qaida in Pakistan. Senator McCain even had the
bad judgment on the campaign trail this past February to call the Obama
approach naive.
Here we stand a year later. The al-Qaida threat in Pakistan has grown
far more dangerous. The need for tough action, as Senator Obama called
for last year, is even more urgent. Barack Obama was right; George
Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain were wrong.
Then, yesterday, the newspapers reported that senior Bush
administration officials had begun doing what Obama
[[Page S8470]]
called for a long time ago: go after al-Qaida safe havens in Pakistan,
reportedly including military operations against terrorist camps. That
is precisely the Obama approach McCain called naive. But news reports
indicate we are already starting to see results.
Given the known history of Bush-McCain foreign policy mistakes that
we have all suffered through for the past 8 years, I have concerns and
questions about the Bush administration's actions. It is one thing to
take Obama's playbook, but it is another thing to call the right plays.
I think we should all ask tough questions and demand the White House
explain their Pakistan strategy in greater detail to give us confidence
that they will get the job done right.
The Bush administration's adoption of the Obama plan came months too
late but, nevertheless, better late than never. The shift is not just
limited to Pakistan. Across the globe, the Bush administration is
quietly acknowledging that Senator Obama's vision has been right all
along.
On Afghanistan, where for years Senator Obama and Senate Democrats
have been demanding more resources and a new strategy, things are
changing. Senator McCain, on the other hand, said: ``Afghanistan is not
in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.''
Listen to that again. McCain said: ``Afghanistan is not in trouble
because of our diversions to Iraq.''
That is a direct quote.
After years of resisting, Republicans in recent weeks have been
inching toward the Obama plan for reinforcing Afghanistan. On Iran,
where Bush and McCain criticized Obama's vision for tough and effective
face-to-face diplomacy, even as they quietly agreed to face-to-face
diplomacy and started sending State Department officials to
negotiations with the Iranians. And on Iraq, where Bush has finally
begun to slowly inch toward the Obama plan for holding the Iraqis more
accountable by putting in place a timeline for change in the military
mission and the redeployment of our troops. But, of course, not John
McCain.
Our country deserves more than token shifts and lipservice to change.
It will take decisive leadership to reverse 8 long years of tragic
foreign policy mistakes. That is exactly what Senator Obama and Senate
Democrats offer: real responsible change.
Senator McCain and his supporters are dead set against changing the
Bush administration's failed policies. They have no plan for ending
conflict, no plan for securing our country, no plan for bringing our
troops home.
Republicans talk a lot about experience. But when you are the author,
architect, and enabler of 8 years of devastating foreign policy
mistakes, that is not experience; it is very bad judgment.
In the coming days, as we wrap up debate on the Defense authorization
bill, Senators on both sides of the aisle will have ample opportunity
to make their positions known on these critical national security
issues that will chart our course in the world for years to come.
It will also give the American people the opportunity to see who
stands with failed policies of the past and who is ready to lead us to
the change we need.
Senator Levin and Senator Warner announced yesterday that today they
would be happy to listen to what anyone had to say about amendments
they wish to offer on this bill. The same applies to Monday. We need to
move beyond where we are. There are some who want us to get virtually
nothing done on this Defense authorization bill.
There are so many reasons why it is important we get this bill done.
It would be the first time in five decades that this body has not
passed a Defense authorization bill. This bill is loaded with
provisions that are good for the security of our Nation, good for the
maintenance of a military that is strong and vibrant, and make our
troops happier--a 3.9-percent pay raise, among other items, they
deserve and they need.
I have informed the two managers of the bill I think it is
appropriate at this time that we file a cloture motion in an effort to
bring this matter to a conclusion. We are going to have a vote on
cloture on this most important bill sometime on Tuesday. I am going to
work with the managers of the bill and Senator McConnell to find out
what their wishes are. But we must move on. It would be a shame if we
do not pass this legislation.
Having said all that--and I could a say a lot more--one of the
reasons we should pass this bill is because of Senator Warner. I am
sure the State of Virginia has had great legislators over the years. I
don't know them all. I have served with a number of them. But I have to
say that in my experience in Government, you don't run very often into
somebody of the caliber of John Warner. The Commonwealth of Virginia
has been so well served by this great American patriot, and he has
devoted so much time--I was trying to come up in my mind on a
percentage basis how much of his time has been spent on the defense
duties he has.
Mr. WARNER. Thirty years.
Mr. REID. But the vast majority of his 30 years in the Senate, Mr.
President, has been spent legislatively on securing the security of our
Nation.
There will be other opportunities, I am confident, to express my
admiration and respect and affection for John Warner, but I hope people
on his side of the aisle appreciate him as much as we do. He is truly a
wonderful legislator and human being. We need to get this bill done for
him. Every Democrat will vote for cloture on this piece of
legislation--there are 51 of us--and we need 9 Republicans to join with
us so that we can finish this piece of legislation. I hope we can do
that. It is the right thing to do, and I think it would be a real slap
in the face to one of America's great legislators not to complete this
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am deeply humbled by the comments of the
distinguished leader and many other colleagues, but I am optimistic.
Senator Levin and I--who have spent a good deal of time with Leader
McConnell this morning--believe there is a momentum on both sides to
move to a conclusion. Senator Levin and I are going to talk to some
particulars pretty soon, but I am pleased to say that I think our
staffs are going to finish an agreement over this weekend on 60
amendments, just to give some idea of the magnitude of progress we have
made thus far.
But I thank the distinguished leader for his personal remarks. We
have had a long working relationship. We started together on a
subcommittee in the Environment Committee years and years ago--20-some-
odd years ago. That was the beginning of our long, marvelous
friendship.
I thank the leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send to the desk a cloture motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant 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,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 3001, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
Carl Levin, Patrick J. Leahy, Bernard Sanders, Robert P.
Casey, Jr., Claire McCaskill, Sheldon Whitehouse,
Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert Menendez, Bill Nelson,
Charles E. Schumer, Richard Durbin, Thomas R. Carper,
Patty Murray, Amy Klobuchar, Jon Tester, Jeff Bingaman,
Harry Reid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank the leader for his
great support of this bill. I think the leadership on both sides really
wants this bill to be adopted. We are going to have to move early next
week to get it adopted if we are going to make it. We not only have
other business to do in the Senate which is critical, but we have to
get it to conference and get it back from conference and get a
conference report voted on before we recess or adjourn. So we have a
lot of work ahead of us.
But we are here. Senator Warner and I and our staffs are here. We
have met with a lot of Senators relative to their amendments. Our goal
is the following: that on Monday, we enter into a unanimous consent
agreement setting out what votes on what amendments would be held on
Tuesday, both morning and afternoon. That is our goal.
[[Page S8471]]
We have spoken with many Senators about their amendments. As Senator
Warner just indicated, we hope to be able to clear perhaps 50 or 60
amendments, 15 or 20 of which are already cleared. That is our goal, to
get our cleared amendments passed and to set up, in a unanimous consent
proposal for Monday, the way in which we would vote on various
amendments, with time agreements and whether there are 50 votes or 60
votes, and so forth, on Tuesday. That is our goal.
I would hope, for the reasons the majority leader just gave, that
because this bill is so critically important to the men and women in
the Army and to the security of this Nation--not just the Army but the
men and women of our Armed Forces and to the security of this Nation--
that we will get this bill passed. The only way we can get it passed is
if sometime early next week we are able to pass it; otherwise, we
cannot get the work done in conference and back here to the Senate and
to the White House.
So I thank my good friend from Virginia. I think the comments of the
majority leader are comments which should be shared by every single
Member of this body relative to the capability and the leadership and
the patriotism of Senator Warner. It is always a pleasure to work with
him. This may be one of our greatest challenges, but we have a long
history of being able to work together on a bipartisan basis to address
these kinds of challenges. He has led this committee. We have had many
great members of the committee.
Staff is working very hard, and I am optimistic going into the
weekend that we will be able to get that unanimous consent agreement
worked out on Monday.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
We are working on a draft UC for Monday, and I wish to point out that
those amendments which have been brought to our attention requiring
votes, we are going to try to achieve that prior to the invoking of
cloture; am I not correct?
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. And we are trying to protect, on both sides, an equal
number of Senators who have come to us and sought that protection.
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. I thank Senators DeMint and Coburn for working with us
last night on an important issue not only to the underlying question of
how this body is going to handle certain desires of individual Senators
to get funds to their States, but it is the preservation of the
jurisdiction of the authorizing committee, of our authorizing committee
as well as other authorizing committees in the Senate. So that is
fundamental to the resolution of that problem, and I think we have made
progress there.
Mr. LEVIN. We have. There is no more fundamental question to this
institution than the role of our committees and this institution vis-a-
vis the executive branch and whether we are going to have a robust
power of the purse or whether that is going to be diminished in any
way. I think we are making great progress in showing to our colleagues
the implications of some of the proposals, and we are going to continue
to make progress in that regard.
Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I would suggest the Senator should
now move to morning business and get off this bill. We are cleared on
this side.
____________________