[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 146 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8506-S8513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 3001, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3001) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2009 for military activities of

[[Page S8507]]

     the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for 
     defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 5290, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 5291 (to amendment No. 5290), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed 
     Services with instructions to report back forthwith, with 
     Reid amendment No. 5292 (to the instructions of the motion to 
     recommit), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 5293 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to recommit to the bill), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 5294 (to amendment No. 5293), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I will speak momentarily, but I wish to defer to the 
distinguished chairman, and I will follow him with brief remarks.
  I will continue, Mr. President. I wish to say on behalf of my staff 
and that of the distinguished chairman, we have an old saying in the 
Navy: ``All hands on deck.'' Both staffs were present throughout the 
weekend. I am pleased to advise the Chair and other Senators following 
this proceeding that we have put together a significant package of 
amendments on which we use the phrase around here ``both sides of the 
aisle agreed upon.'' But I will leave it to the chairman to address 
that issue.
  I believe I am under the instruction of my Republican leader at this 
time that I am not able to agree to a UC request. But I do hope that 
can be resolved very quickly and that we can move to that package and 
receive such other amendments as Senators may wish to call up. There 
are some 250 pending at the desk and at such time the chairman and I 
are ready to work with Members on trying to resolve those amendments or 
otherwise have votes. I know a number of amendments are pending that 
will require votes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan, the 
chairman of the committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia. First, we 
have, I think, about 50 or more amendments that our staffs have worked 
very hard on and we have been consulted on, obviously, which we will be 
able to vote on hopefully today, if possible, and if not, as soon as we 
get clearance from Senator Warner's side, we will be happy to proceed 
with them. We are going to keep working on additional amendments.
  In the meantime, we are together working to try to come up with a 
unanimous consent request which can get the approval of this body. We 
need Members to come to the floor to try to work with us on those 
amendments. Where rollcalls are going to be necessary, we can fit them 
in at sometime prior, hopefully, to the vote on cloture. As the leader 
said, we need to have a unanimous consent agreement in hand prior to 
that cloture vote for the sake of the body.
  I worry a great deal about the future of our bill. I say ``our bill'' 
because this is a bipartisan bill. This is not a partisan committee, 
and it is not a partisan bill. I worry about what is going to happen to 
our bill if we cannot either get a unanimous consent agreement or 
cloture tomorrow--one or the other.
  We will continue to be here this afternoon. Hopefully, colleagues 
will come to the floor and work with us and our staffs to either work 
out amendments or, if rollcalls are necessary, to find a spot for those 
rollcalls to take place.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I begin by commending the chairman and the 
ranking member on working very hard on an extremely important bill. I 
rise in my position as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee 
to ask consent that we be able to add an amendment which deals with the 
intelligence portion of the Defense authorization and appropriations 
bills that I feel must be addressed.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call 
up amendment No. 5387.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. I object, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am not surprised. I am disappointed that 
my effort to simply call up one of seven amendments I filed to the 
Defense authorization bill is being denied. Our very distinguished, 
articulate majority leader has said it is not his fault if people can't 
get votes. I should note that he has filled up the tree, a procedural 
move that denies a vote on any nonmajority leader-approved amendment.
  I now will explain why I think these provisions are vitally 
important. These are measures that have been dealt with and approved by 
this body and the other body in some instances, by this body in some 
instances, and by the Intelligence Committee in other times.
  The amendment I tried to call up, as well as the other six I filed, 
is important not only for the intelligence community but for 
congressional oversight as we continue to fight this war on terror.
  Unfortunately, for reasons that make no sense to me, I have been 
informed there is a desire not to entertain any amendments relating to 
the intelligence community on the bill. We have seen from the 9/11 
Commission and most other observers of the legislative process that the 
one area of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, on a bipartisan basis, 
that has not been adopted has been to combine the intelligence 
authorization and appropriations process. I am here today to offer some 
amendments that would effect that coordination.
  I join with my other colleagues who have indicated they refuse to 
acquiesce in a UC agreement until such time as we can work out a 
reasonable accommodation. I want to see this bill passed. Obviously, it 
is critically important, but so is stopping the waste of billions of 
dollars and improving the operations of the intelligence community. It 
is a mistake, and I cannot agree to a UC agreement until we have had 
some resolution of these questions.
  It is certainly no surprise to the occupant of the chair, who is a 
valued member of both the Defense authorization committee and the 
Intelligence Committee, that the intelligence community has been 
without essential oversight as ordinarily provided in the authorization 
process.
  Our efforts in the Intelligence Committee to have a bill signed into 
law last year were derailed by partisan provisions that ultimately 
resulted in a Presidential veto. The same poison pills were put into 
this year's intelligence authorization bill. So it will not move 
forward. As vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I believe it 
is time to take partisan games out of the intelligence oversight. I 
believe it is high time to return to congressional oversight of 
intelligence activities by the executive branch.
  It is ironic that some of my colleagues have been so vocal, and at 
times biting, in their criticism of the administration's intelligence 
spending programs. Yet when we now have the opportunity to seek 
congressional oversight over them, they seek to deny us the opportunity 
to do so. It is almost as if some would rather have a reason to 
criticize the system rather than the opportunity to fix it.
  I am here today to ask for the opportunity to begin to fix it. So I 
filed these amendments--good, sound provisions that have good 
bipartisan support and I believe will improve not only our oversight 
but the work of the Intelligence Committee.
  Each one of these amendments was included in the Intelligence 
Committee's 2009 authorization bill, and almost all were part of the 
2008 bill. So there are no surprises here.
  First among them is amendment No. 5387 that authorizes funds for the 
intelligence community's budget. How much more fundamental can we get? 
That sets out the parameters for the intelligence community, just as 
the overall Armed Services Committee bill sets out parameters for 
appropriations by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on defense 
issues.
  The first amendment combines five sections from the Intelligence 
Committee's 2009 authorization act and authorizes different types of 
funding for the intelligence community--the National Intelligence 
Program funds, funding of the intelligence community management 
account, and funding the CIA's disability and retirement accounts.

[[Page S8508]]

These are all basic budgetary authorizations on which I hope we can 
agree. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  My remaining amendments include a number of what I can call, I 
believe without challenge, ``good government'' provisions. These 
provisions will ensure that the Director of National Intelligence has 
the authority he needs to manage the intelligence community and will 
ensure that American taxpayers are actually getting the best bang for 
their buck and not wasting billions and billions of dollars, which I 
have addressed on the floor previously.
  The next amendment is No. 5388. What is this good government 
amendment? This amendment is aimed at discouraging cost overruns on 
intelligence satellites and other expensive intelligence programs and 
is modeled after the longstanding Nunn-McCurdy provisions that apply to 
Department of Defense major acquisitions.
  Last week I stated on the floor that billions and billions and 
billions--I won't tell you how many because it is classified--of 
dollars have been wasted on overhead programs because they were not 
effectively managed.
  The next amendment, No. 5389, requires the DNI to conduct 
vulnerability assessments of our major systems used by the intelligence 
community. This provision has been in the past two intelligence 
authorization bills. It requires the DNI to conduct initial and 
subsequent periodic vulnerability assessments of each intelligence 
community major system. These assessments should identify system 
vulnerabilities and exploitation potentials and should make 
recommendations for reducing risks.
  We all know there are those who seek to do us ill who have the 
ability to compromise many of our programs. Those of us who are 
familiar with it know how many ways this can happen. I am not going to 
give anybody any ideas by telling them how to do it. Too many people 
already know. If we have learned anything during this election cycle, 
it is that the American people are tired of having their money wasted. 
They are demanding better spending habits and better accountability 
from their Government, which brings me to my next amendment, 
accountability reviews by the Director of National 
Intelligence. Amendment No. 5390 allows the DNI to conduct 
accountability reviews of elements of the intelligence community or 
personnel of such element in relation to a significant failure or 
deficiency within the intelligence community.

  My amendment, agreed to by the Intelligence Committee, would 
strengthen the DNI's authority and influence in this area, as well as 
congressional oversight. This amendment confirms the DNI's ability to 
recommend disciplinary action against persons within the Office of the 
DNI who have failed to measure up to expectations and are under his 
jurisdiction. I believe this is a reasonable place to start.
  The next one is a future-year budget plan, amendment No. 5391. I 
think it is reasonable for Congress and our intelligence community to 
stop wasting billions of dollars on intelligence programs that prove 
too costly to complete. How does this happen? One reason is that we 
have never required the intelligence community to show us the full cost 
of these expensive programs in the budget. My fifth amendment would 
ensure that this would not happen again.
  Now, I will tell the occupant of the chair and my fellow Intelligence 
Committee member, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, as well as 
the chairman of the committee who has staff who sits in as frequently 
as he can on our Intelligence Committee oversight hearings, that there 
are many wonderful programs that come to us with maybe a couple-
hundred-million-dollar budget expenditure the first year. But when you 
look out to the future years, that number goes up, potentially 
swallowing the entire intelligence portion of the budget.
  I think we in Congress ought to say: Wait a minute. Before we spend 
that first couple hundred million dollars, tell us what the cost is 
going to be and what it is going to take out of the budget in future 
years to accommodate it.
  This amendment would require the intelligence community to provide 
Congress with a future-year intelligence plan that is a 5-year budget 
and a long-term budget projection that covers 10 years beyond the 
future intelligence plan. These requirements would ensure that Congress 
would not appropriate or legislate in the dark without knowing what 
these wonderful new ideas--and there are some great ideas--are going to 
cost in the future and how we are going to pay for them.
  Next, my final good government provision, No. 5392, requires annual 
personnel level assessments for the intelligence community. As with 
most all of my amendments, the provision has been included in the last 
two intelligence authorization bills.
  So why the need for this amendment? These assessments will help 
Congress get a better sense of the personnel growth in the IC before we 
mark up annual authorization bills. For some time now both the Senate 
and House Intelligence Committees have been concerned with rising 
personnel growth in the IC.
  Finally, I have also just filed an amendment relating to a classified 
technology demonstration program. I talked about that last week. My 
amendment, which has bipartisan support in both the House and the 
Senate and has been passed by both bodies in the past, will ensure that 
billions of taxpayer dollars that have been wasted through poor 
management and oversight will not be followed by more in the future.
  This amendment, as I described last week, would say that before the 
National Reconnaissance Organization embarks on spending billions of 
dollars on a program, it needs to do a demonstration program in the 
millions of dollars category to see if all the systems work so that we 
have a good idea before we get a system that has wasted billions and 
billions of dollars to find out only then that it can't work.
  I think Congress has a reasonably high expectation of the DNI and of 
his ability to reform the intelligence community, but we cannot expect 
great results if we don't give the authorities and the support he needs 
to demand performance and accountability. My amendments will give him 
these authorities and will also allow Congress to perform our real 
effective oversight duties.
  These amendments have been vetted with the Intelligence Committees 
over the past 2 years and most were contained in the 2008 Intelligence 
Authorization Act that passed both Houses of Congress. I believe and I 
think my colleagues' votes over the past 2 years have shown that they 
make sense and are reasonable.
  If there is no consideration of including these amendments or simply 
allowing a vote on the budget amendment, which is the most important of 
all, then I am left with little choice but to continue to object to any 
UC agreements on this bill.
  I thank my distinguished colleagues, the Chair, and the ranking 
member, for listening to my comments, and I look forward to being able 
to work out with them a reasonable accommodation of these very 
important matters that I think are essential to ensuring effective 
intelligence oversight of the money that we spend in the National 
Intelligence Program.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and 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. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida pertaining to the introduction 
of S. Res. 660 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield the floor and 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. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.

[[Page S8509]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, may I inquire what is the business before 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the Defense authorization 
bill.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I have an amendment I have filed with the floor 
leadership on this bill dealing with Iran sanctions. It is called the 
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act for 
2008. I want to share some thoughts about this proposal with my 
colleagues. I am fully cognizant that our friend from Michigan, Senator 
Levin, the manager of this bill, has a lot of amendments with which he 
is dealing. I don't know whether we will have a chance to actually vote 
on this bill, but I want to spend a few minutes talking about the 
importance of this amendment and its value.
  Obviously, there is a lot going on today with the financial crisis in 
the country. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I will have more to 
say about that tomorrow. I have been having conversations with fellow 
committee members among others.
  Today I want to talk about this issue specifically and then address 
an issue as well dealing with the devastation of Hurricanes Gustav and 
Ike and Tropical Storms Fay and Hanna that ripped through the 
Caribbean.
  We are considering, of course, the Defense authorization bill. This 
proposal, adopted and developed by the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs in conjunction with my Republican colleague and 
friend, Richard Shelby of Alabama, former chairman of the committee, 
would impose tough new sanctions on the Government of Iran, to 
authorize investors to divest from companies active in Iran's energy 
sector and to combat the proliferation of black market weapons networks 
overseas.
  I am delighted to have my colleague, Senator Shelby, as a sponsor of 
the amendment. In my view, we need a comprehensive strategy on Iran 
that builds our leverage within the context of a major new diplomatic 
push for meaningful negotiations.
  Let me be clear. Sanctions against the Government of Iran are not an 
end unto themselves but, rather, one means of driving a resolution of 
the problem of Iran's apparent nuclear ambitions. The Europeans' recent 
decision to impose additional financial sanctions on Iran is a very 
positive development that exerts further pressure to that end. The 
approach embodied in the bill I am talking about this afternoon is 
targeted and strategic, maximizing the economic leverage of the United 
States, our partners and allies in Europe and elsewhere, and 
international investors, while avoiding the risk of a more 
indiscriminate approach.
  The Banking Committee exercises jurisdiction over virtually all 
aspects of U.S. financial and economic sanctions policy toward Iran, 
which can be summarized in three categories: No. 1, the U.S. trade and 
investment ban administered by the Treasury Department's Office of 
Foreign Assets Control; No. 2, sanctions against foreign companies that 
invest substantially in the energy sector, proceeds from which support 
Iran's proliferation or terrorism-related activities; and, No. 3, 
targeted financial measures, including freezing assets of individuals 
involved in that proliferation.
  Last year, the committee conducted a hearing on the effectiveness of 
Iran sanctions. Working with the administration, the Banking Committee 
acted swiftly to strengthen the U.S. trade/investment ban, and 
ultimately we saw enactment in October of the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Enhancement Act. This new law holds violators of U.S. 
sanctions law accountable, adding, I might add, jail time and severe 
fines against those investing in Iran or other state sponsors of 
terror.
  Also, last year, shortly after the House of Representatives acted on 
its version of Iran-related legislation, I then asked the majority 
leader, Senator Harry Reid, to expedite Senate consideration of various 
Iran-related bills. The leader, as you might expect, agreed and moved 
quickly. But we were unable to clear them completely on the other side 
of this Chamber, which I regret.
  The Government Accountability Office then issued a report last 
December raising questions about whether our current sanctions regime 
against Iran furthers U.S. policy objectives and how they might be made 
more effective. Among other things, that report concluded that the 
ongoing illegal transshipment of sensitive dual-use technologies from 
often unwitting U.S. and other Western suppliers to countries such as 
Iran--sometimes through three or four levels of suppliers--is one very 
effective way around current U.S. sanctions.
  In recent months, the Banking Committee refined and combined in one 
package various pieces of the Iran-related legislation, accommodating 
concerns of Members on both sides of the political aisle and those of 
the Bush administration. We now have a very streamlined bill that I 
hope will enjoy broad bipartisan support if I am given the opportunity 
to offer it on the Defense authorization bill. This streamlined version 
of this sanctions bill was reported out of the Banking Committee in 
July by a strong bipartisan vote of 19 to 2.
  The missile tests that Iran conducted in July were provocative, and 
its persistent refusal to abide by United Nations Security Council 
demands--despite a host of sanctions already in place--is very 
troubling. Iran's behavior with respect to weapons proliferation, 
support for terrorism, destabilization of its neighbors, and threats 
against our allies and interests demands a very serious response.
  We only have a few weeks remaining in this legislative session. We 
will not return to actually legislate until late January of next year. 
I would hope we would find time, whether on this bill or some other 
vehicle, to enact, as I am confident we can, with a strong bipartisan 
vote, this Iran sanctions idea. This bill is one very important part of 
that response.
  I again thank Senator Shelby, my colleague, as well as other 
committee members, Republicans and Democrats, who worked together to 
pass this legislation. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Senator Brownback 
of Kansas, Senators Smith, Durbin, Lautenberg, and others have worked 
very hard on the Iran issues and deserve a great deal of credit for the 
product we have been able to put together. I thank, as well, Senator 
Obama for his critical work on this Iran divestment legislation which, 
again, was adopted in a strong bipartisan fashion by the committee as 
part of its integrated bill.
  Current U.N. Security Council sanctions against the Government of 
Iran have been extremely important, but I think we have an obligation 
to take measures, consistent with the objectives of the U.N. sanctions, 
to increase the leverage of the United States and our allies in a much 
more aggressive, diplomatic, and political initiative to bring Iran 
back to the table and ultimately persuade its Government to change its 
behavior.
  Let me describe briefly the sanctions provisions.
  First, the bill expands the definition of ``person'' under the Iran 
Sanctions Act to include financial institutions, underwriters, 
guarantors, and other business entities and extends the applicability 
of sanctions to oil and gas pipelines and tankers. It imposes a broad 
ban on imports directly from Iran to the United States and exports from 
the United States to Iran of those few items still able to be shipped 
while exempting food and medicines to Iran, certain informational 
materials, and aids to navigation designed for safe operation of 
commercial aircraft.
  The bill also provides for a freezing of assets of those members of 
the diplomatic community or Iranian military who have been identified 
by the President of the United States as active in weapons 
proliferation or terrorist activity. The bill clarifies that U.S. 
entities that establish a subsidiary for the purpose of getting around 
U.S. sanctions laws can be held liable for the activities of their 
subsidiaries. The bill also increases funding to the Office of 
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence of the Treasury Department to 
ensure that the international financial system is not used by those who 
support terrorism or engage in proliferation-sensitive activities.
  Finally, this bill imposes new requirements that the President 
actually make a determination and report every

[[Page S8510]]

6 months to Congress regarding the sanctionability of certain eligible 
investments in Iran's energy sector. This is designed to address the 
problem of billions of dollars in oil and gas investment projects being 
subject to sanctions--over $27 billion in eligible oil and gas 
investments since 1999, according to the Congressional Research 
Service--but successive administrations refusing to make final 
determinations required by law, much less impose appropriate sanctions 
on entities involved in such projects, I might add, have raised some 
certain issues.
  In addition to expanding U.S. sanctions on the Government of Iran, 
this bill would also provide a simple formula for divestment from firms 
which invest significant amounts in Iran's energy sector with 
provisions patterned after the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act 
that we all voted for earlier this year.
  The rationale for this is straightforward. Many of us believe 
Americans should be able to divest from energy firms doing business 
with the Iranian regime whose policies they abhor and which by their 
presence indirectly help to prop up that regime. They should be given 
the tools they need to make socially responsible decisions, and 
investors who choose to divest--States, large pension and mutual funds, 
and others--should be held harmless for these decisions. Likewise, 
firms which continue to do business in the energy sector in Iran should 
recognize the substantial risks involved in this decision and adjust 
their strategies accordingly.
  This bill is as much about enabling investors to manage risk as about 
having Congress set foreign policy. Make no mistake. Investing in Iran 
these days is risky business, and investors should be fully informed of 
those risks going in. This bill does not require divestment, it simply 
permits it, as with the Sudan legislation--if the investments in Iran's 
energy sector are substantial and if the divestment process is crafted 
consistent with the provisions of this bill.
  Divestment from Iran is already well underway nationwide, prompted by 
campaigns patterned after the South African divestment movement and 
that involving the Sudan. Eight States of our country have already 
enacted Iran divestment legislation. Other States have enacted broader 
divestment legislation focused on state sponsors of terrorism. Many 
more States are considering Iran divestment measures in their State 
legislatures or have taken steps administratively to allow for such 
divestment.
  Some colleges and universities have begun to divest their holdings, 
as well, and efforts are underway at many more. Large cities, nonprofit 
organizations, pension and mutual funds have joined this campaign. It 
is a campaign that enjoys, I might add, worldwide support, and that 
could provide significant economic leverage to the diplomatic and 
political efforts to curtail Iran's apparent nuclear ambitions.

  How would it work? First, the amendment authorizes States and 
localities to divest from companies involved in the energy sector in 
Iran and sets universal divestment standards. Secondly, the bill allows 
mutual fund and corporate pension fund managers to cut ties with 
companies involved in these key sectors and offers limited protection 
from lawsuits for those choosing to divest or not to invest in the 
first place, while preserving their normal fiduciary duties. Third, 
this bill allows State and local governments to divest their public 
pension funds from businesses invested in Iran's energy sector. Fourth, 
it establishes a new mechanism for disclosure for firms divesting their 
holdings in such entities and sunsets, I might add, the divestment 
mechanism when the President of the United States certifies that Iran 
has ceased its support for international terrorism and its support of 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Let's be very clear about what this amendment achieves in terms of 
divestment--and what it does not do. It does not outsource foreign 
policy to State and local governments or run afoul of the supremacy 
clause of the Constitution, as some have claimed. Rather, it protects 
the rights of investors to make socially responsible decisions--to 
refrain from holding assets that may serve to bolster the Government of 
Iran. It allows States and other investors to divest in a relatively 
uniform way, if they so choose, so they may avoid the complications of 
diverging approaches.
  Under this bill, States can act out of concern for the long-term 
financial and reputational risks posed by an affiliation with certain 
investments in the nation of Iran. Once identifying these specific 
risks, States are to inform the companies with a notice detailing such 
issues--not merely based on a foreign policy concern but on the State's 
assessment of the economic risks posed by investments in firms involved 
in certain energy-related business in Iran. It thus outlines a Federal 
divestment policy--a complicated and yet very clear path consistent 
with U.S. unilateral and multilateral sanctions already imposed, I 
might add--and authorizes investors to act consistently with that 
policy, again, if they so choose.
  Finally, and very importantly--unlike other legislation acted upon by 
Congress--the amendment I am offering provides new incentives for 
countries to strengthen their export control systems to stop the 
illegal diversion of sensitive and dual-use technology to countries 
such as Iran and imposes additional licensing requirements on those who 
refuse to cooperate.
  As we confront the realities of a global marketplace, with 
manufacturers assembling parts of complex machinery such as aircraft 
and computers from a supply chain spanning the globe, and as regimes 
such as Iran, North Korea, and Syria trawl various transshipment hubs 
for such parts to assemble high-technology weapons, it makes sense to 
address this problem head on.
  We have developed a way to do this similar to an approach previously 
proposed in regulatory form by the administration, with an array of 
carrots and, if necessary, sticks to prod unwilling countries to get 
serious about developing and implementing tough, comprehensive export 
control rules and systems. This measure will strengthen antidiversion 
measures, and it will help countries willing to bolster their systems 
to do so and impose tighter licensing restrictions on those countries 
that have a record of spotty enforcement or that are unwilling to 
improve their systems.
  I was pleased we were able to come to an agreement on this 
comprehensive approach in the Banking Committee. I might point out that 
similar legislation was adopted under the leadership of Senator Max 
Baucus and Chuck Grassley at the Senate Finance Committee, also, I 
might add, on a bipartisan basis. Much more assertive diplomacy and 
efforts to bolster our relationship with Iran's people, coupled with 
tougher financial measures such as these to increase economic pressure 
to bring the Iranian Government to the table, is the way forward for 
U.S. policy.
  Our European and other allies continue, as I mentioned earlier, to 
work closely with the United States to increase economic and diplomatic 
pressure on Iran. I happen to believe this measure complements those 
diplomatic efforts. It is providing the kind of tools that those who 
are responsible for the conduct of foreign policy ought to have that 
will give them the leverage necessary to try and bring Iran back to 
that negotiating table, back to that political table, that will allow 
us to diffuse this growing problem, this threat that we all worry 
about, and bring us to a conclusion that will be satisfactory to us and 
to Iran, as well, I might point out. The steps contained in this bill 
are consistent with the strong international consensus that Iran's 
behavior is unacceptable, and they are in sync with the U.N. sanctions 
and those additional sanctions imposed by our allies.
  Again, I thank my colleagues, particularly Senator Shelby of the 
Senate Banking Committee, and the 17 other members of that committee, 
for the adoption of this comprehensive, bipartisan proposal on Iran 
sanctions. My hope would be, as I said earlier, that we would have the 
opportunity to offer this proposal before the conclusion of this 
session of Congress.
  Madam President, I wish to briefly, if I could, turn to another 
subject matter, and one that has certainly captured the attention of 
all of us in recent days; that is, of course, these tremendous storms 
that have been raging through the Caribbean as well as, of course, the 
devastating damage in Texas in the Galveston area, particularly. The 
sights and the pictures we

[[Page S8511]]

are all witnessing on television and in the newspapers certainly bring 
back the dreadful memories of Katrina. These storms that have ravaged 
our country are natural disasters. Certainly our prayers and our hopes 
are with the people of the Galveston area and others who have been 
afflicted by the terrible flooding in the Midwest. We are concerned 
about them, and we will do everything we can to help them put their 
lives back in order.
  The devastation we have witnessed is heart-rending, and I think it is 
incumbent upon us to respond generously and speedily to help the tens 
of thousands along the Texas coast who need our help.
  I rise also to discuss the humanitarian catastrophes inflicted 
against the people of the Caribbean. I chair the subcommittee on 
foreign relations that deals with Latin America, and I am particularly 
interested, obviously, in what happens in this part of the world. I 
served as a Peace Corps volunteer not far from the Haitian border of 
the Dominican Republic when I left college in 1966. I served for 2 
years in that country, and I have gone back many times over the years 
and have maintained a close relationship. So when I see these storms 
ravaging the island of Hispaniola, which includes the Dominican 
Republic and Haiti, and roar through the island of Cuba--it has done 
such devastation; I am told it is the worst storm to inflict such 
damage on that country in more than a half of century--I wish to take a 
moment to talk about what we might do.
  I support an amendment offered by Senator Lugar, the ranking member 
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and which we have introduced 
on a bipartisan basis. We hope this might be something that all of our 
colleagues would support as well. It is to respond to the devastation 
these storms have caused on the island of Cuba to the Cuban people.
  Across the Caribbean, millions of people have been displaced, lost 
their homes, and watched helplessly as bridges and infrastructure were 
washed out, leaving them isolated and without supplies. They face 
serious shortages of food, medicine, and hope.
  The need in Haiti is extremely grave. USAID has undertaken an urgent 
program in Haiti, where hundreds of storm victims have died, thousands 
of homes have been destroyed, and untold people have been weakened by 
chronic malnutrition, lack food and water. USAID has already launched a 
$20 million program to rush assistance to the suffering people of 
Haiti, and further needs are certain to be identified there in our 
hemisphere's poorest country where the average income is something like 
a few dollars a week. It is a nation that has been devastated over the 
last number of years.
  In Jamaica, 72 communities have been hit hard, leaving a dozen people 
dead and thousands without shelter. The U.S. Ambassador in Kingston has 
declared a disaster and has begun disbursing $100,000 there. USAID is 
working with the Jamaican disaster specialists to purchase and deliver 
hundreds of thousands of dollars of supplies to communities cut off 
when roads were washed out. The relief supplies include hygiene kits, 
plastic sheeting, jerry cans, and blankets.
  This very effective response brings relief to innocent victims of the 
storms and it projects the American message of concern and hope for our 
Caribbean neighbors. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for our 
response to the crisis caused by the hurricanes that have battered the 
lives of the 11 million people on the island of Cuba. Evacuations of 2 
million citizens helped reduce the loss of life, but the damage is 
immense. Hurricanes Gustav and Ike destroyed 150,000 homes and 
seriously damaged 200,000 others. The United Nations estimates that 
Cuba suffered between $3 billion and $4 billion in losses. Hundreds of 
thousands of victims are without shelter, fresh water, and electricity, 
damage to agriculture is massive, food and medicine are in short 
supply, and the need for materials to repair homes vastly overtakes 
supply.
  The State Department offered to disburse $100,000 in emergency funds 
through the U.S. Interests Section--our Embassy in Havana--which is a 
step in the right direction, and I applaud them making that offer. In 
addition, over the weekend the State Department offered an emergency 
shipment of $5 million of assistance to Cuba. Cuban officials--in what 
I think is a very shortsighted move, in my opinion--rejected the offer, 
saying they would not accept a handout from a country that would not 
sell the same items to them.
  The administration has also authorized certain U.S.-based 
nongovernmental organizations, with activities the administration has 
previously approved, to provide larger amounts of humanitarian 
assistance in Cuba, including cash donations to approved recipients for 
90 days. These Government-approved channels for assistance to 
Government-approved recipients are again steps in the right direction, 
but given the devastation that has occurred, it is not hardly enough. 
They disallow, moreover, the outpouring of assistance from Americans 
individually who want to help directly and generously, as Americans do 
in times such as these, not just through administration-approved 
channels.
  Large numbers of the Cuban-American community in our country, eager 
to help family members back on the island of Cuba, are blocked from 
doing so by tough regulations that the administration implemented in 
2004 in an effort to promote the collapse of the Cuban regime. These 
regulations dramatically and drastically impair citizens of our 
country--who come ethnically from the island of Cuba and who have 
family members there--of the ability to visit their families during 
this time, even under extraordinary circumstances such as the death of 
a loved one. The regulations drastically impair their ability to send 
cash assistance to families in the same manner as all other Caribbean, 
Central American, and Mexican families do--families who have citizens 
in this country and have families in Jamaica and Haiti, the Dominican 
Republic--to go there and provide assistance to them.
  It is no secret that the U.S. embargo on Cuba has been, at least in 
my view, a dismal failure. Rather than weaken the Cuban Government and 
force it to change, it has only served to weaken the Cuban people and 
deprive them of any hope at all. The administration's tougher 
regulations circumscribing Americans' right to help family and friends 
in dire need in Cuba are part of the same failed policy. Apparently, 
some in the Bush administration believe that holding firm on embargo 
policy--even during a humanitarian disaster--will discredit Fidel or 
Raul Castro and lead to their precipitous downfall. When human 
suffering is as massive as we see in Cuba today after these hurricanes, 
there is no room, in my view, for such cynicism.
  Despite the obvious need for a total overhaul of policy toward Cuba, 
the amendment Senator Lugar and I have introduced today addresses only 
the immediate humanitarian crisis and only on a temporary basis. For a 
period of 180 days, our amendment would lift prohibitions on Americans 
with families in Cuba to travel to the island to provide help during 
the crisis. Secondly, only for 180 days, our proposal would ease 
restrictions on the cash remittances by any American to Cuban people at 
this time of extreme need--only for 180 days. Thirdly, our proposal 
would expand the definition of gift parcels that Americans are 
authorized to send to the Cuban people or nongovernmental organizations 
over the next 180 days to include food, medication, clothing, hygiene 
items, and other daily necessities. Fourth, the bill would allow the 
cash sale using mechanisms similar to those already in place for the 
sale of agricultural products, of certain items Cubans need to rebuild 
their homes, again for a limited period of 180 days.
  Let me be absolutely clear. These measures do not lift the embargo at 
all. They have nothing to do with the embargo per se but merely loosen 
some of these less humane regulations implemented in 2004 in a direct 
response to a humanitarian crisis. Cuban Americans in this country 
ought to be allowed to help their family members on the island of Cuba 
during this time--for 180 days--to be able to send food and clothing 
and medicines, some cash remittances, or to travel there to help out, 
and they should not be banned by the United States of America.

  Let me promise you something: Hugo Chavez will be filling that gap. 
Why are we going to allow, in this hemisphere, someone in Venezuela 
whom we abhor

[[Page S8512]]

to step in to provide some assistance and help when the United States 
ought to be doing something, at least allowing people to step in to 
make a difference in the lives of these people?
  These are modest steps that allow the greatness and the generosity of 
the American people to shine through without political or ideological 
filters. I can think of no better way of giving the Cuban people a 
message of hope that we stand with them. We disagree with their 
Government and their Government policies, and we are not likely to 
change that anytime soon. But we care about them and what happens to 
their families and their children. In a natural disaster, the worst in 
50 years, an island country 90 miles off our shore, we ought to be able 
to do a better job than sit here and lecture about geopolitics and 
allow them to go through this suffering without allowing people to help 
others to get back on their feet again.
  The intent of this amendment has broad support. The U.S. Conference 
of Catholic Bishops wrote:

       In light of the devastation and humanitarian disaster 
     caused by recent hurricanes in Cuba and the efforts of 
     extended families, friends and organizations to reach those 
     in need, I urge you, [President Bush] to suspend--even 
     temporarily--Treasury and Commerce Department restrictions 
     and licensing requirements for humanitarian travel and 
     remittances by American citizens and assistance by not-for-
     profit organizations. At times of crisis, there are simple 
     and basic acts of charity on which people rely.

  The Catholic bishops and numerous NGOs are right, and we know it, and 
I think we should help.
  To those who think that refusing to help will somehow serve our U.S. 
national interests, I make just two observations. We need to be honest 
with ourselves: To be seen as wanting the Cuban people to suffer and 
starve--while we rush to the aid of their Caribbean neighbors--is not 
going to contribute to our common goal of promoting a peaceful, 
democratic transition, which Cuba desperately needs and deserves, and 
good relations between our countries in the future.
  Moreover, as we stand on the sidelines, other countries are more than 
willing to fill that vacuum. As I mentioned a moment ago, President 
Chavez of Venezuela has been most generous, according to press reports. 
Russia has sent four cargo planes with tons of emergency supplies and 
construction materials. China has provided over $300,000. Spain has 
already sent planeloads of relief supplies. Brazil, Argentina, and 
Mexico are offering assistance without political restrictions.
  Senator Lugar and I believe this is a moment in which we ought to set 
aside--at least for 180 days--our differences to a nation of people who 
are less than 100 miles off our shore, who have family members--many 
courageous people who live in this country and who want to do something 
to help their family members and friends as they go through recovering 
from these terrible storms that have ravaged their nation. At the 
appropriate time, Senator Lugar and I wish to offer this amendment and 
urge our colleagues, whatever other differences we may have had and 
will have on Cuban policy, this is a moment when we all ought to come 
together to step up and make a difference in the lives of people who, 
frankly, could use the help.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, honest people may have differences of 
opinion as to what type of public policies to pursue to improve our 
economy, but there should not be a difference of opinion in terms of 
the state of the economy today, whether it is in Michigan, your State, 
whether Vermont, my State, or any of the other 48 States. The fact is 
that for tens and tens of millions of working families in this country, 
people are having and experiencing great difficulty. And within that 
context and the context of the Wall Street Journal reporting that today 
was a day when America's financial system was shaken to its core, and 
the Dow Jones average went down by some 500 points, I found it rather 
stunning, if I may use that word, to hear Senator McCain state that 
``the fundamentals of our economy are strong.'' In saying that he is 
simply echoing what President Bush has been saying year after year 
after year, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. One does try 
to get a handle on understanding what world Senator McCain and 
President Bush are living in when they would suggest that ``the 
fundamentals of our economy are strong.'' Clearly, they have not been 
talking to working families around the United States of America.
  My perception of the economy is if you get off of the country club 
circuit, you stop talking to the millionaires and the billionaires and 
the large campaign contributors, and you talk to ordinary working 
people, people who own small businesses, what you find, in fact, is 
that the middle class in our country is under more assault than has 
been the case since before the Great Depression.
  The reality of American life today is that poverty is increasing. 
Over 5 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class into 
poverty. What we have all over America is families where mom and dad 
are both working and are now lining up outside emergency food shelves 
because the limited income they are earning is not providing enough 
money to provide the food they and their kids need. That does not 
suggest to me that the fundamentals of our economy are strong.
  Since President Bush has been in office, over 7 million Americans 
have lost their health insurance, and the cost of health insurance has 
soared. Approximately 20,000 Americans die every single year because 
they can't gain access to medical care, to primary health care. We 
spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation, yet 
we are the only nation in the industrialized world that does not 
provide, by law, health care to all of its people. That does not 
suggest to me that ``the fundamentals of our economy are strong.''
  Health care is perhaps the most basic need, maybe outside of food, 
outside of shelter, that people have, and 46 million Americans are 
without health insurance. I don't quite understand how Senator McCain 
believes in that regard that ``the fundamentals of our economy are 
strong.''
  Since President Bush has been in office, median income for working-
age Americans has gone down by over $2,000 after adjusting for 
inflation. Family income is going down. People are spending more for 
food. The cost of gas, of course, is now off the wall. College 
education costs are up. How does that sound like a situation in which 
``the fundamentals of our economy are strong,'' according to Senator 
McCain.
  I think the confusion in all of this is pretty easily understood. The 
truth is ``the fundamentals of our economy are strong'' if you are 
within the top 1 percent of our country. If you are a millionaire or 
billionaire, you know what, Senator McCain is right; the fundamentals 
of the economy are strong for those people.
  If you are one of the 400 wealthiest people in our country, you 
collectively own $1.4 trillion of America--400 families, and your 
wealth has exploded in the last 8 years. In fact, in America today, the 
top one-tenth of 1 percent earn more income than do the bottom 50 
percent. Within that context, certainly, if you are among the top one-
tenth of 1 percent, we can understand why Senator McCain would suggest 
that ``the fundamentals of our economy are strong.''
  What frightens me is that anyone who is so removed from the economic 
reality facing the American people clearly is not going to have a 
prescription on how to address the real problems facing ordinary 
Americans. If your diagnosis is wrong, if you are a physician and you 
make an incorrect diagnosis, your treatment is not going to work very 
well. If you are President of the United States, whether it is Bush or 
something that McCain aspires to, clearly your actions are not going to 
be effective if you do not understand what is going on.
  Let me, if I might, contrast what has been going on under President 
Bush compared to what was going on under President Clinton. I am not 
here to tell

[[Page S8513]]

you that under President Clinton everything was rosy, there were no 
problems. That certainly was not the case, and I, personally, as an 
independent, had some strong disagreements with the Clinton 
administration on a number of issues, including trade. But it is 
important to understand, contrasting what Clinton accomplished for the 
middle class as opposed to what Bush did. In fact, McCain's ideas are 
to follow economically the line of action that President Bush has 
established over the last 8 years.
  During the Clinton administration, over 22 million new jobs were 
created. Were all of those jobs great-paying jobs? No, they were not. 
But 22 million jobs is a significant number of new jobs. Under the Bush 
administration, less than 6 million new jobs were created--22 million 
versus 6 million.
  During the Clinton administration, 6 million Americans were lifted 
out of poverty. They went from poverty to the middle class. That is 
good. Under the Bush administration, the exact opposite occurred; 6 
million Americans went from the middle class into poverty.
  Under Clinton, median income went up. Under Bush, median income went 
down.
  I am not quite clear how our colleague, Senator McCain, believes that 
``the fundamentals of our economy are strong.'' The dynamic of what is 
going on in this country economically is that under the Bush-McCain 
economic policies, 99 percent of Americans have been net losers under 
President Bush's tax-and-spend policies. What we are seeing is a 
historical shift, a redistribution of wealth and income from the middle 
class to the very wealthy. We are talking about hundreds of billions of 
dollars going out of the pockets of the middle class, ending up in the 
pockets of the wealthiest 1 percent.
  I sit on the Budget Committee. I have some sense of where this 
country is spending its money and where this country is not spending 
its money. I have very great concerns that 4 more years of Bush's 
policies, in which we continue to give huge tax breaks to the 
wealthiest 1 percent, while underfunding the needs of the middle class 
and working families, while ignoring our environment, while not 
investing in sustainable energy, while maintaining an absurd health 
care policy in which health care costs rise and in which more and more 
people are underinsured--I fear that 4 more years of those policies 
will create a situation from which the middle class of this country may 
never recover.
  What the American dream has always been about is that parents work 
very hard--that was certainly the case within my family--to try to see 
their kids do better than they did. My parents never went to college. 
My parents never had much money. My parents never in a million years 
would have dreamed that their son would be a Senator. That is way 
outside their wildest dreams. They worked hard so my brother and I 
could have a better life economically than they did.
  What I worry about--and it is not just me, it is economists all over 
this country who are now looking at our economy, the fact that we are 
shedding millions of good-paying, blue-collar jobs, that we are 
shedding millions of good-paying, white-collar jobs--what economists 
are now saying is that for the first time in the history of this 
country our kids, the young people, our grandchildren, if we do not 
reverse tack, will have a lower standard of living than their parents.
  In other words, the American dream, which is what the middle class 
has been all about, is now turned upside down. There are large numbers 
of working people today who are earning less money than their parents 
did while living in less adequate housing than their parents did. It 
seems to me, if there is anything we have learned over the last 8 
years--in which President Bush has given an incredible amount of tax 
breaks to people who do not need them, in which we have deregulated 
industry, where we have ignored global warming and investing in 
sustainable energy--it seems to me, if there is anything we have 
learned in the last 8 years, it is that this trickle-down economics of 
tax breaks for billionaires and cutting back on the needs of ordinary 
people is not the direction in which this country should be moving.
  Please count me in as someone who does not believe, as Senator McCain 
does, that ``the fundamentals of this economy are strong.'' I think the 
middle class is being shaken right now. People are frightened, and we 
need a new course for this country.
  I yield the floor and 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. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________